Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Conservative movements are often depicted as unyielding and uncompromising; dangerously incapable of adaptation when new ideas come to light. This image of the political right is rooted in a number of misconceptions. In reality, modern conservatives are often far too compromising – Far too willing to go along to get along. None of us wants to be seen as a dictator.

Perhaps the most important and defining characteristic of conservatives (at least in the US) is a regard for freedom, but ONLY freedom that is tempered by responsibility. When leftists (or libertarians) scrutinize the conservative ideal they usually reach back around 50 years to the days of evangelical censorship – The attempts to shut down the porn industry, temper the gay agenda in media, warn about satanic references in movies and violence in video games.

This was the era of the Christian “busybody” and a lot of people made fun of them for it. To be clear, they were wrong in some instances, but as our current predicament in the west proves, they were right about many things, too.

The supposed balance to the evangelicals was Liberalism. Most liberals today are certainly not the staunchly individualist and freedom minded people they once were. In fact, the majority of them joined woke activists without question or kept their mouths shut while the far-left pulled a speed run into Orwell’s 1984.

Perhaps in a desperate attempt to save their ideology from losing all relevancy, some liberals slipped over to the center and criticized the woke mob. Most of them didn’t have the balls to jump into the culture war until a few years ago. Those of us in the conservative sphere had already been exposing the existential dangers of post-modernism, futurism and luciferianism for decades.

Centrist liberals say they want to temper the political left’s addiction to Marxism and Communism. As recent events have proven, they are simply not up to the task of controlling their political cousins. The woke movement spread like a cancer throughout the entire liberal body and they bowed in fealty. The only thing that stopped the rot was the right wing finally taking a stand and going on the offensive.

With conservative principles currently gaining momentum there is a chance that America could actually turn back the clock on mores and social cohesion to a time when traditional values were held in much higher regard. This can only be a good thing in my opinion, but it requires a reconsideration of our concept of personal liberty. Maybe some behavior needs to be reined in? Maybe total unchecked chaos and limitless individualism is a bad thing?

Liberals warn that conservatives are gaining too much power after the success of MAGA in last year’s elections and therefore we must be kept in check. Their argument? The woke left is beaten, but now the world must put a leash on the “woke right”.

The “woke right” label in itself is a rather remedial and silly attempt to divert popular discussion away from traditional values (a development that hasn’t taken place in the US in a long time). Morals, nobility and responsibility might become “cool” again, and liberals simply can’t have that.

They argue that their way (a continued idealization of individualism without taking inherent narcissism, psychopathy and the mentality of mobs into account) is the best way. However, we have seen where liberalism without boundaries ends. The cult of chaos (wokeness) is simply a natural extension of the liberal ideal. They demand an end to ALL restrictions, even the restrictions of objective truth.

They want total open multicultural expansion, unfettered freedom to interpret biology and morality according to subjective preference, unchecked sexual deviancy, no consequences whatsoever for their actions. Liberals are not as far from this end of the spectrum as they pretend. They don’t like cultural structures and rules either. They don’t like collective limitations (unless they control those limitations). They don’t even believe in evil; they only believe in circumstances.

Conservatives now stand atop the fray of the culture war and many of us are suggesting that, in order to prevent the nightmare of wokeness (or something even worse) from ever happening again, we might need to instill some enduring rules of social conduct. The liberals in turn are freaking out. They especially seem to despise Christian Nationalists who want to bring America back to an era of carefully defined moral order.

A decade ago I might have agreed with this concern, at least in part. I’m not fond of the idea of a theocracy in which the church rules the state. I also agree that most people have a conscience outside of biblical teaching (If we didn’t then humanity would have gone extinct long ago).

That said, Christian Nationalism does not require theocracy, and if you do have a conscience then you should already be in agreement with most Christian fundamentals anyway. Living in a society where Christianity is more widely embraced wouldn’t make any difference for you. It would only be incompatible if a person harbors post-modern delusions that view Christianity as the enemy. If that’s the case, you shouldn’t be living in America anyway. All you have to do is go elsewhere.

I think liberals need to acknowledge that they are a product of a very narrow moment in time and that time is fading. For most of American history Christianity was the preeminent cultural compass. The US was always Christian and nearly all of our leaders were Christian. America has in fact always been a Christian nation and Christian Nationalism was the norm. Christians are still the majority today (62%) despite the endless negative campaign to shut them down.

As recently as the 1990s, over 90% of all Americans identified as Christian. Things have only changed in the past 30 years, and they have done so dramatically to the negative.

In light of the unfettered horrors of wokism I’m increasingly convinced that Christian doctrine is a necessary firewall designed to filter out otherwise malicious ideological malware. If the progressives (and their liberal counterparts) are not kept in check by someone, then the woke march could repeat by the next generation.

So, what is to be done?

The underlying debate is this – Should one group define western culture above all others and defend it against existential threats. Are Christian Nationalists that group? I would say yes to both questions, because of America’s spiritual history and the fact that there’s no other viable alternative. Do we continue to allow liberals to anoint themselves the arbiters of American culture? Or, do we try something different?

Is this hard-right position also “woke right”? The term “woke right” is often linked back to Kevin DeYoung’s 2022 review of Stephen Wolfe’s book The Case for Christian Nationalism. In his article entitled “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” he argues that:

“Besides trafficking in sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about the totalizing control of the Globalist American Empire and the gynocracy, Wolfe’s apocalyptic vision—for all of its vitriol toward the secular elites—borrows liberally from the playbook of the left.

He not only redefines the nature of oppression as psychological oppression (making it easier to justify extreme measures and harder to argue things aren’t as bad as they seem), he also rallies the troops (figuratively, but perhaps also literally?) by reminding them they’re victims. “The world is out to get you, and people out there hate you” is not a message that will ultimately help white men or any other group that considers themselves oppressed…”

“…If critical race theory teaches that America has failed, that the existing order is irredeemable, that Western liberalism was a mistake from the beginning, that the current system is rigged against our tribe, and that we ought to make ethnic consciousness more important—it seems to me that Wolfe’s project is the right-wing version of these same impulses.”

While DeYoung’s analysis seems to be coming from a sincere place and he does defend Christian culture as an important part of American life, his analysis requires a certain level of ignorance to stay afloat. Liberals and left leaning Christians refuse to consider one important factor:

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

The entire premise behind the notion of the “woke right” requires that none of the threats above prove to be real. That there is no globalist conspiracy to destroy the west and Christianity. That the subversion of conservative principles is imagined. That there is no white replacement in the US and Europe. That conservatives are not being oppressed and that tribal organization against our attackers is unwarranted or impractical.

DeYoung (and most liberals) prefer passive Christianity. If Christians had thought like DeYoung in the Middle Ages, the entire west would have been wiped off the face of the Earth by Muslim invaders centuries ago. Instead, they took direct action to save themselves. The issue is not even particularly nationalist in origin, it’s only that nations are the easiest barrier to rally and defend. At bottom, Christians must at times act to prevent their own erasure.

Wokeness is largely about false witness – Leftists claim they are being oppressed when they are provably not. The political right cannot be woke because the western world and Christianity are indeed under constant attack. This is not debatable.

In Europe today, the war on Christians and conservatives (or populists) is evident and it is undeniably systemic. Europeans have been under siege by engineered mass immigration from the third-world. Most of the migrants come from places (Islamic) that despise Christianity and view personal liberty as an aberration or heresy. The governments of France, Germany, England and Romania are actively imprisoning right leaning political opponents and silencing them online, all in the name of liberal democracy.

In the US, woke zealots and the global elites have used everything from mass censorship to medical tyranny to mob violence to shut down and terrorize the political right. The Biden Administration made multiple public proclamations declaring conservatives a domestic threat to democracy. We were accused of being insurrectionists. We were painted as terrorists, and all we did was ask questions and demand truthful answers. This isn’t an exaggerated tale of victimhood conjured up for sympathy, it’s just the facts.

The debate over Christians and conservatives taking direct action instead of waiting around for the next crisis reminds me of a fascinating film directed by Bill Paxton called ‘Frailty’. If you haven’t seen it then I recommend doing so before I spoil it for you here.

In the movie, Bill Paxton plays a father with two sons living a relatively normal life as a devout man with a good heart. One day, he approaches his sons with a terrifying tale: He was visited by an angel from heaven that told him he has been chosen for a mission to destroy evil. The evil, he says, is enacted by demons that take the form of human beings. He claims that God has demanded that he and his sons remove these demons before they do anymore harm.

The youngest son believes his father without question and in full faith. The older son does not and asserts that the man might be going dangerously insane.

What follows is an escalating conflict between father and son as Bill Paxton begins to kill the people he believes are demonic. When he touches them, he says he can see the crimes they’ve committed. The older son refuses to participate in the murders and tries to sabotage Paxton’s efforts. Finally, Paxton accuses his oldest of being a demon as well. The boy eventually kills his father in order to stop the murders.

Plot Twist: Bill Paxton really did receive a vision from God. He really was killing demons, and his eldest son was also a demon the whole time.

Liberals who perpetuate the woke right narrative remind me of the oldest son in Frailty.

They play at being even handed, fighting to keep the scales of power from tipping in either direction. In truth, they are blinded by their own self righteousness and their belief that there is no such thing as evil. The rest of us see it, but if we try to do something about it these same people obstruct and sabotage and accuse us of “becoming monsters to defeat the monsters”. They allow the sparks of woke chaos to survive.

Should western civilization be allowed to discriminate? Should we be able to refuse to associate? Should we have the right to be tribal (like everyone else) and deny entry to malicious cultures and ideologies? Is our heritage valid and enduring? Is Christian Nationalism the solution to the woke luciferian agenda? It seems to me that the elites want conservatism dead so badly that it must be a threat to them.

We ARE fighting demons, and a culture without a spiritual consensus is a dying culture. Christian Nationalism was the natural default of American society for centuries. Many people who are not Christians are still perfectly capable of living and thriving within such a society as long as they don’t try to tear it down. The Overton Window has merely been rigged so far to the left that any return to the old standard sounds like madness; it is in fact the most sane thing we could possibly do to save our country.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Essentially all of America's major cities on the west coast are experiencing a period of steep economic decline.  The reason for the financial squeeze and the exodus of major business chains is obvious - Democrat run cities enforce progressive criminal policies and progressive tax policies.  The two elements combined make it nearly impossible for most companies to function and turn a profit.  Even worse, businesses are finding it difficult to ensure their employees stay safe.

The theft issue is astronomical, even after the California State Government (and city governments) reversed a law which made prosecution of anyone stealing under $950 in goods almost impossible.  Criminal residents took full advantage of the lack of enforcement and gutted numerous retail outlets, forcing them to lock up their stock behind plastic and chains.  The elimination of the law might lesson the incentive to steal, but too many criminals know they are still unlikely to be caught or have their cases pursued by the city. 

Denny's, Walgreens, Michael Kors and others have shuttered San Francisco locations. So far in 2025, the San Francisco Police Department has recorded more than 8,100 crime reports, including 530 robberies and over 4,600 instances of larceny theft.

In San Francisco's once bustling Union Square shopping district, some of the largest retailers are running for the hills.  Nordstrom, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Uniqlo, Adidas, American Eagle, J. Crew, Madewell, Aldo, L'Occitane, as well as Psycho Bunny, Sunglass Hut, and Razer have all closed stores in the area or are in the process of leaving. 

However, the city is placing hope in the arrival of a brand new Nintendo flagship store in Union Square, which they think will help rejuvenate shopping activity.  The store is one of only two in existence outside of Japan.

It probably doesn't need to be spelled out, but the desperation and delusion are palpable here.  The store is a unique item to the US, but not enough to draw in a shopping revival in the already hollow Union Square.  San Francisco's reputation as a tourist destination is undeniably sullied.  A single successful store is also not going to drive other businesses to take a chance in a market they already escaped. 

Why Nintendo would choose to establish a flagship operation in the area is a mystery, but the city government has recently created a "Downtown Revitalization Program" (including something called the "San Francisco New Deal") which offers a number of financial incentives, grants, low interest loans and rewards for "beautification". Nintendo may have gathered enough taxpayer cash already to pay for their first year of operations. 

In other words, no company is going to put down roots in San Francisco unless the local government pays them to do so.

Sam Altman-backed Oklo says it is navigating what CEO Jacob DeWitte calls “good uncertainty” as potential Trump administration executive orders could accelerate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing, expand military and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear roles, and boost U.S. nuclear fuel supply chains, according to UtilityDive.

On Oklo’s Q1 2025 earnings call, DeWitte confirmed the company is engaged in a “pre-application readiness assessment” with the NRC, aiming to smooth its formal license submission for a newly upsized 75-MW reactor design in Q4 2025. The company still targets late 2027 or early 2028 for first power production at its Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site.

DeWitte noted the recent departure of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as Oklo board chair removes a potential conflict of interest should OpenAI become a future power customer. Oklo already holds about 14 GW in nonbinding agreements with data centers and industrial operators.

The White House is weighing four nuclear-related executive orders, including directives to overhaul NRC licensing with an 18-month deadline for new applications, reconsider radiation exposure limits, and authorize military and DOE property for reactor deployments—potentially bypassing standard NRC approvals.

These efforts aim to boost U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050, up from about 100 GW today. While the NRC is already implementing changes from last year’s ADVANCE Act, further reforms could shorten Oklo’s expected 24- to 30-month licensing timeline.

The UtilityDive report says that Oklo is also among eight companies eligible for the military’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, enabling on-base reactor deployments. It’s developing nuclear fuel fabrication facilities capable of reusing spent fuel that would otherwise sit in long-term storage.

Meanwhile, NuScale Power is actively pursuing contracts for its small modular reactor (SMR) technology, targeting a firm customer order by the end of 2025. CEO John Hopkins said the company could deliver an operational power plant by 2030 “if we get closure on a deal here soon.” NuScale is awaiting expected NRC approval in July for its uprated 77-MW design and has 12 modules in production through manufacturing partner Doosan, capable of delivering up to 20 per year.

Hopkins emphasized NuScale’s focus on finalizing real contracts rather than nonbinding agreements, stating, “We’re actually in the process of submitting and negotiating term sheets. We’ve got customers that [want] to … touch steel.” Potential buyers include data center operators, heavy industry, and utilities. CFO Ramsey Hamady added that a signed deal would likely involve multiple parties, including plant operators and tier-one data center or AI developers.

Unlike Oklo’s build-own-operate model, NuScale provides SMR technology and plant services, likening its role to “the chip in the Dell computer.” While NuScale has courted data center customers similar to Oklo, it also promotes its reactors for hydrogen production, desalination, carbon capture, and petrochemicals.

NuScale has about two years of financial runway but expects a committed project to significantly improve its outlook. “We’ll be in a great place if our biggest challenge is keeping up with orders,” Hamady said.

Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,

The title is a bit crude and is deliberately mocking in tone. But it has to be because there is a deeply-entrenched, almost sacred presumption embedded in the nation’s foreign policy catechism that “allies”, “alliances” and “coalitions of the willing” are the be-all-and-end-all of enlightened, necessary and effective foreign policy.

American policy-makers and diplomats perforce should therefore never leave these shores for the wider world without them. This dogma perhaps reached its epitome in Secretary of State James Baker’s “coalition of the willing” during the utterly pointless first Gulf War of 1991 and has plagued us ever since. Unfortunately.

In fact, the truth is more nearly the opposite–so it needs to be stated coarsely, almost defiantly. To wit, allies in today’s world are mostly an albatross, completely irrelevant to the military security of the American homeland and a major source of unnecessary friction and even outright conflict among the nations.

In a word, America is such an outsized economic and military Hegemon that all the little and mid-sized nation’s it has lined-up in formal and de facto alliances are inherently incentivized to pursue policies that minimize their own defense investments—even as they are also encouraged to throw diplomatic caution to the winds. That is, Washington’s “alliances” enable the domestic politicians or elected governments of these small allies to be more aggressive or confrontational vis-a-vis the “bad guys” designated by Washington than they surely would be if operating only upon their own steam.

For instance, the former Estonian prime minister between 2021 and 2024, Kaja Kallas, and now foreign affairs chief for the EU has been a loud-mouthed, vitriolic critic of Russia and hardline supporter of sending other people’s money [i.e. yours] to the support of the equally pointless proxy war against Russia on the Ukrainian steppes.

Of course, with a population of just 1.3 million, GDP of barely $40 billion and armed force of 8,000, Estonia amounts to a cipher of an ally in the scheme of things. So it does absolutely nothing for America’s homeland security, even as it has emboldened Kallas to become a loud irritant to the Big Bear of a country next door.

Then again, if there were no such thing as NATO and the Article 5 military shield of the US, do you think Kallas would be noisily whooping it up for Zelensky? Would her people have tolerated her posturing as little David waving a sling-shot at the Goliath next door?

We dare say the very opposite would have prevailed. Estonia and its leader would have taken care to make nice to their extra large sized neighbor—as small countries have done from times immemorial.

And if making diplomatic nice and conducting mutually beneficial economic commerce wasn’t working for some reason, although it almost always does, they would have been obligated to arm themselves to the hilt. That is, mobilize 10-25% of GDP for defense, if necessary, rather than the pittance of 2.9% of GDP that Estonia actually spends. In turn, that would establish deterrence—the standing up to a potential aggressor the heavy cost in blood and treasure it would be obligated to face in breaching the borders and sovereignty of a smaller neighbor.

And, no, for crying out loud, the 21st century world is not unique when it comes to the relationships between big, small and middle sized nations. What we described above as making nice in diplomacy and economics and making deterrence clear is actually the way the world of nations is supposed to work, and, prior to the rise of the Hegemon on the Potomac, actually usually did.

Most certainly the gods of history have not conferred upon Washington’s politicians and apparatchiks a mandate to befriend and safeguard  from one end of the planet to the other every Little Guy from the heavy breathing of nearby Big Guys.

Kaja Kallas on X: “Ukraine’s brave and fierce fight for freedom has been an “inspiration” to the Estonian people. Many have joined the voluntary Defence League.

Indeed, in a world not dislocated by the Hegemon on the Potomac no one would think to describe the reckless foolishness of Kiev in militarily attacking and brutalizing the Russian speaking populations of the Donbas after the Maidan Coup of February 2014 as an “inspiration”. 

It was actually stupid beyond belief—something that neighbors not addled by the Hegemon’s military shield or egged on by the CIA, NED, USAID, the State Department and Pentagon would have no problem recognizing and observing.

Indeed that observation applies to the whole passel of little countries that have been admitted to NATO since the turn of the century.  For instance, when it comes to the five  small Balkan countries that do not even share the Black Sea shorelines with Russia, here is the pitiful military capacity and defense heft (measured as % of GDP) that they bring to America’s homeland security.

In order to put this pittance of military manpower in perspective, moreover, we first note by way of comparison the size of police forces in major US cities. While these domestic police men, women and theys may eat too many donuts on the job and thereby fail any combat readiness tests, when it comes to sheer human muscle the city police forces listed here outrank most of what these Balkan “allies” bring to the table.

Size of Police Forces In Major US Cities:

• New York City: 36,000.
• Chicago: 13,100.
• Los Angeles: 10,000.
• Philadelphia: 6,500.

This is by way of saying that all of the above cities have bigger forces of men in blue than do most of the small the NATO allies depicted below, where we show their active military manpower and their defense spending as a % of GDP.

• Croatia: 14,300/1.8% of GDP.
• North Macedonia: 8,000/1.7% of GDP.
• Slovenia: 7,300/1.5% of GDP.
• Albania: 6,600/1.7% of GDP.
• Montenegro: 2,350/1.6% of GDP.

Clearly, these countries are not shaking in their boots about the Russian Bear. In the most recent year of red hot proxy war between NATO and Russia on the hapless steppes of the Ukraine, none of these five even bothered to spend 2% of GDP on defense!

Indeed, even the bigger fry positioned cheek-by-jowl with Russia on the Black Sea didn’t evince any greater fear of the Bear. Romania spends only 2.2% of GDP on defense and its voters just elected a president who wanted to make friendly with Putin—which democratic chosen leader was, of course, ixnayed by Romania’s “allies” in Brussels and Washington.

Likewise, Bulgaria spends but 2.2% on defense, as well. And, understandably, Serbia has not even seen fit to join NATO. Well, not since its capital was bombed to smithereens in 1999 by NATO war planes, owing to its insistence that Kosovo not be severed from its sovereign territory owing to the writ of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Even then as Russia’s firm ally in the region, Serbia spends about 2.3% of GDP on defense and has about 28,000 active men in uniform in its armed forces. That is, Serbia’s neutral forces total about the same as the combined military might of the five small fry on the Adriatic side of the Balkans.

Moreover, it also turns out that these five wee NATO members actually spend about the same pittance for military capabilities as is hoovered-up by Ukraine-bordering Hungary and Slovakia. The former spends about 2.0% of GDP on defense while the latter’s military spending is 2.1% of GDP. Yet both governments next door to the  Russian Bear are militantly opposed to the NATO proxy war in Ukraine and successfully get along with Moscow quite well!

In short, none of these countries really seem to fear the Russian Bear or they would be spending double digit percentages of their GDP making themselves so well armed as to make a unappetizing meal for the alleged aggressor in Moscow. To the contrary, they have either joined NATO to get into the Atlantic Club or have simply eschewed the opportunity (Serbia) or gone along for the ride (Hungary and Slovakia).

The point is, extending NATO to the Balkans was a stupid joke perpetrated by Warfare State apparatchiks in Washington and Brussels. It does absolutely nothing for America’s homeland defense militarily, while enabling Russia’s small next door neighbors to spend a pittance for defense and from time to time squeak-up to the Bear in a provocative manner that they would not dream of doing on the strength of 8,000 lightly armed soldiers of their own.

Of course, the same thing is true up north on the Baltic. The three Baltic republics both experienced and do remember their decades of Soviet occupation. Yet their present day budgetary statements make abundantly clear that they do not really perceive post-communist Russia to be the same existential same threat at all. That’s why they spend nickels and dimes on make-pretend militaries, even as their politicians like Kallas demagogue about Putin in order to stir up the home voters and incur the favor of the warmongering neocon apparatchiks who dominate the NATO and the EU.

Still, no countries with the wafer-thin military capacities depicted in the numbers below truly fear their Russian neighbor. If they did, with or without NATO, they’d put their budgetary dollars where the unfortunate rhetoric of some of the loud-mouthed politicians lies.

Armed Forces Size and Defense % of GDP:

• Lithuania: 14,100/2.8% of GDP.
• Estonia: 7,700/2.9% of GDP.
• Latvia: 6,750/2.4% of GDP.

In short, the Donald’s observations about the state of the world usually amount to a random collection of the true, the false and the foolish. But in the case of all these pipsqueak NATO allies he surely hit the nail on the head.

Washington’s “Allies” in The Baltics

That is to say, all of these allies are far more trouble than they are worth. The military security of the American homeland can be secured by an invincible strategic nuclear triad based on bombers, land-based ICBMs and its deep sea nuclear subs–none of which require foreign bases or foreign “allies”. That, and a powerful conventional Fortress America defense of its shorelines and air space would more than do the job of maintaining the military security of the American homeland in today’s world.

Neither of these military capabilities are enhanced in the slightest by the pipsqueak allies that have been drafted into NATO since 1999. Nor in today’s world is there any risk that a larger power as economically lame as Russia or Ponzi-based as Red China could attack, conquer and roll-up tens of trillions of GDP, military age manpower and defense production capacities among large numbers of their small fry neighbors.

Indeed, both Russia and China well know that the cost of invasion, conquest and pacification in today’s world would not remotely be worth the candle. That’s perhaps why the answer to the question as to how many countries Red China has conquered in the last four decades is, well,  zero!

To the contrary, what America’s 750 bases and 160,000 servicemen positioned abroad from Japan to Germany, Italy and the UK actually amount to are dangerous “trip wires”designed to:

• Provide an excuse for US defense contractors to sell weapons to the allied nations where US forces are based.
• Create an excuse to meddle in foreign conflicts owing to the fact that American servicemen are in harms’ way.

Suffice it here to note that during the heyday of America’s development as the greatest nation on earth—from the cancellation of the treaty with France in 1797 to the ratification of the NATO Treaty in 1949—America had no alliances, no military treaties and no allies empowered to provoke conflicts with their neighbors on the understanding that Uncle Sam had their backs.

He didn’t and during those 152 years everything worked out for America as well as any nation in history before or since. And absolutely nothing has changed to alter the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson about avoidance of Entangling Alliances.

*  *  *

The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing. It’s an established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s. Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: What’s your perspective on the claims Elon Musk and others made about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during the campaign, and how would you assess the actual progress they’ve achieved since then?

Doug Casey: I hate to sound pessimistic, because the idea of DOGE was excellent, but it’s not making much in the way of progress. Musk first thought he could cut $2 trillion from the budget. I see how he could say that; it’s a very reasonable estimate. But as he discovered the depth of the resistance, he reduced it to $1 trillion. And now it’s $150 billion—and he’s probably not even going to be able to do that.

Why is it failing? One reason is that Congress has legislated and mandated most of the spending, and the hundreds of agencies that carry it out—and Trump can’t eliminate them. Congress has to abolish these programs and agencies. All DOGE can do is make recommendations.

It’s true that the USAID building is closed, but apparently, many of its employees and programs have just simply been reassigned to the State Department or other places. They’ve made no progress on getting rid of the Department of Education.

I’m sure Trump very much wants to see DOGE be successful, but unfortunately its very name is “Government Efficiency,” and I question whether we really want the government to be more efficient. The only way to solve the problem isn’t by making government more efficient, but by abolishing agencies wholesale—not just trimming some fat.

Will there be a fundamental change? That’s unlikely because, as I’ve said many times before, Trump has no philosophical center. Nor any understanding of economics, as evidenced by his tariffs scheme, which I think will fail utterly—and may even be the catalyst that sets off the Greater Depression. He’s flying by the seat of his pants.

Equally bad—or worse—he appears to want an industrial policy for the US, where he’ll be making investments in all kinds of things to make the US a manufacturing center again. It’s like what Argentina did under the Peronists. He does whatever seems like a good idea at the time…

International Man: With Elon Musk signaling his impending departure from DOGE, how do you foresee the future of DOGE and its initiatives unfolding without his leadership?

Doug Casey: As Chairman Mao once said, “The helmsman sets the course that sails the ship.” And if the helmsman jumps ship, it’s questionable whether other crewmen can take over successfully. Maybe they will. But without the public profile and moral suasion of Musk, I suspect that the people he leaves in charge of this advisory agency will flounder.

And, remember, DOGE itself has no power. But the Deep State has an immense amount of power, and they’re fighting it tooth and nail—both with go-slow policies and by filing lawsuits everywhere possible to stop it from happening.

In the long run, just cutting things back can’t possibly work. It’s like pruning a plant. Gardeners prune plants to make them healthier. If you just prune agencies, they’ll grow back even more virulent. The only solution is for scores of them—hundreds of them—to be pulled out by the roots and Agent Orange sown where they grew. That’s not happening.

For instance, take Ukraine. Zelensky has become a billionaire, as have all his cronies, and the fighting is still going on. Why? Because the US is still sending them money and materiel.

I’m afraid serious cuts are bluster, not reality. And where can they really cut things? Are they going to take money away from the Veterans Administration or military pensions? No. Certainly not from the military itself—Trump has said they’re going to increase spending from $800 billion to $1 trillion. Are they going to cut back Medicare or Social Security? Abolish Medicaid? They should, but they won’t. These things, along with interest on the national debt, equal about 85% of spending.

They can’t reduce the interest burden on the federal debt; it will continue growing with more spending and higher interest rates. Which, I suspect, are headed toward the levels we saw in the early 1980s, when the government was paying 20% for its money.

Musk has said he’s found thousands of egregious cases of waste, fraud, and abuse that should be referred to the Department of Justice. But that’s far, far more than the DOJ can handle. Where are the headlines about prosecutions for the things Musk has talked about? I’m quite disappointed. I’d like to see hundreds of heads on stakes, but it looks like the bedbugs and cockroaches are just going to hide while the lights are on.

International Man: Do you believe DOGE’s proposed cuts will lead to genuine, permanent reductions in government spending—or will they simply free up funds for Washington to redirect toward areas like defense?

Doug Casey: All kinds of obvious things aren’t being touched—like the $50 billion the US gives to foreign governments around the world, a bottomless pit of graft. That’s not going to change. Certainly not the $4 billion the US gives to Israel every year, or the $4 billion it gives to Egypt every year to bribe it into being Israel’s BFF.

One thing that will kill any real progress from DOGE is subtle threats from the Deep State in general, and the praetorian agencies in particular. The NSA knows everything about everybody. If any DOGE employee gets too aggressive about breaking rice bowls or imprisoning bigwigs, they’ll be intimidated. These agencies know, or can fabricate, inconvenient things about them.

Or perform a cover up. Look at the Epstein case. We were supposed to learn what Epstein was up to, and with who. But everything’s being heavily redacted to protect guilty but well-connected people. The elite always close ranks to protect each other.

It’s all smoke but no fire. These agencies—with all the information they have—can destroy anyone who attacks them. If not now, while Trump is still in office, they’ll certainly seek retribution after he leaves. Our best hope—but it’s a long shot—is that Trump will realize that it’s kill or be killed, and will try to destroy them utterly while he’s still in power. That would be inviting civil war… but he has no real alternative.

International Man: Given that DOGE represents the most significant attempt to reduce government spending in generations, what are the implications if it fails?

Doug Casey: The economy is on the ragged edge, and with the tariffs creating economic chaos the Democrats may be re-elected in 2028. In fact, they may even win the midterms, which would guarantee that all of Trump’s efforts fail.

If the Democrats regain control of the government, they’ll redouble spending to try to forestall the Greater Depression and kick the can down the road for a few more years. And they’ll be supported by the American people, who are going to miss all the freebies the government was bribing them with. The average American has become so corrupt that he doesn’t want to have his doggy dish taken away.

For a while, during the first month of Trump’s presidency, it looked like it was going to once again be morning in America. But we’re finding out that morning only lasts six hours—and we’re already past noon. Things look quite grim.

International Man: As the US debt crisis intensifies, what steps should individuals take to protect their wealth—and what speculative opportunities do you see emerging from this turmoil?

Doug Casey: Even if we avoid a major war, I’m afraid the trend that’s been in motion for many decades is going to stay in motion and continue accelerating until the whole mess collapses under its own weight.

The US has become a giant multicultural empire revolving around the Washington Beltway. It could go down catastrophically the way Rome did. Or it may just degrade slowly like Spain or England. They still exist, but they’re hollow shells of their previous selves.

The financial, economic, political, and social problems we’re laboring under are leading to a breakup of the country. So, instead of the US getting bigger with the extremely expensive acquisitions of Greenland, the Panama Canal Zone, and—God forbid—Canada, the US is more likely to get smaller.

All you can do is try to insulate yourself. The way to do that is by diversifying your money safely out of the country and continuing to build significant positions in gold, silver, and Bitcoin. With hopefully some successful speculations along the way.

*  *  *

As Doug Casey makes clear, the US is spiraling toward a financial and political reckoning—and few are prepared for what comes next. In times like these, it’s critical to focus on real assets that stand outside the system. That’s why we urge you to see Doug’s latest video dispatch: The World’s #1 Investment Opportunity. In it, the legendary investor reveals what the mainstream media won’t tell you about gold—and why now may be the most important time in decades to act. Click here to see it now.