Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

But all bubbles pop, and there are no tricks left to fund both the greed of the few and the needs of the many.

Every society / economy is a distribution mechanism that distributes:

1. Gains

2. Losses

3. Risk

4. The costs of securing the sources of gains.

As a general rule, markets / economies don't really care who ends up with the losses, and this is why markets / economies are fundamentally pathological structures: the single-minded focus is to maximize gains and minimize costs and losses by distributing them to others by any means available.

As a general rule, societies have to manage the distribution in a slightly less pathological manner to keep the status quo from being overthrown by those forced to bear the costs and losses. As Mao famously observed, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," and so the sociopaths sluicing the gains into their own pockets and dumping the costs and losses on the economically / politically powerless without regard for social stability find the way of the Tao is reversal as those getting the crumbs eventually have nothing left to lose.

In other words, markets / economies are embedded in a social structure, not the other way round. And the social structure has to balance the distribution fairly enough to keep the majority from concluding they have nothing left to lose by throwing their lot into overthrowing the status quo.

We can gussy this structure up with a lot of theorizing and references to Plato, Marx and Machiavelli and hundreds of other players in the longstanding drama, but these are the fundamental forces in play: do the sociopaths have enough political and financial power to channel most of the gains to themselves and dump the costs and losses on others, or is the system capable of enforcing some limits on the sociopaths?

I submit that the United States is in the firm grip of the single-minded few focused solely on maximizing their gains and distributing costs and losses to others by any means available. The social and political restraints that placed modest limits on the aggregation of power and wealth into the hands of the few have crumbled, and this structural collapse has been hidden behind flimsy billboards hyping the latest in distractions: AI, tariffs, stablecoins, Rich Mom fashions, etc.

These flimsy distractions are about to be blown over by the windstorm of recession and social disorder as the American households clinging on to the fantasy of The American Dream as all the costs and losses are dumped on them as the gains flow to the top 10% finally throw in the towel on the status quo.

The entire bloated, distorted beast has been living on buy now, pay later skims and scams, and the debt pushers have turned enough of the populace into debt-junkies that there's few new customers left to addict.

The entire travesty of a mockery of a sham is out of balance and cannot be restored with the usual magic tricks. The interests of the citizenry--supposedly respresented by elected officials--have been trampled underfoot by a thundering herd of fraud, swindles and corruption, the means by which the sociopaths control the distribution of gains, losses, costs and risks.

This systemic dominance of fraud, swindles and corruption has been not just normalized but hyper-normalized: we all know the entire system is hopelessly compromised by corruption, but since we're powerless to change this distribution, we act as if this is normal, and go about our business, debating AGI (artificial general intelligence) and other absurdities to pass our time while we await the inevitable reversal of fortunes.

Here is the real distribution of gains, losses, costs and risks in America: the gains go to the most corrupt few and the losses, costs and risks are distributed to the many. Here are three of the latest manifestations of fraud, swindles and corruption among a seemingly countless stream of self-serving outrages that are no longer outrages, they're just the way things work now.

Here's how Corporate America takes care of its customers: the gains are ours, the risks are yours. It's taboo to call things what they are, so we can't say that Corporate Anerica is pathological--even when it is:

A Devastating New Expose of Johnson & Johnson Indicts an Entire System.

Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers.

Owner-Occupancy Fraud and Mortgage Performance. (rampant mortgage fraud... again)

As always, I am honored to share a remarkable data base of Corporate Fines and Settlements from the early 1990s to the present compiled by Jon Morse. There are 2700 entries, updated through December 2024.

What's finally happening is the system can no longer collect enough resources to fund the minimum required to satisfy the sociopaths and the minimum required to satisfy the bottom 90%, so something's gotta give. The solution has always been straightforward: print or borrow another couple trillion dollars to fund the greed of the sociopaths and whatever it takes to keep the herd from stampeding.

The trillions are getting harder to print/borrow, and so it's finally squeeze-time. Gosh, this is actually kinda hard: do we squeeze the sociopaths, who scream bloody murder at any reduction of their gains, or do we squeeze the bottom 60% who are already on the cliff edge? Can we sorta kinda squeeze both enough to keep the status quo intact?

This isn't sustainable stability: it's entropy dressed up in the finery of stability. The sociopaths have concentrated sufficient financial and political power to stave off any real reductions in their distribution of the gains, and so the costs and losses will be distributed to the bottom 90% in various forms, as usual. Only some percentage of the bottom 90% no longer has sufficient credit or income buffers to absorb more losses, costs and risks.

The last trick in the status quo's hat is a credit-asset bubble that generates an illusion of unending wealth for everyone: wealth for those who own the assets, of course, and wages for everyone below due to the trickle down effect where you buy a $1 million vacation home and I live in my car in a parking lot working in town:

In a Snow Paradise, They Live in This Parking Lot: People experiencing homelessness can sleep in their cars in this wealthy ski town in Colorado, but only if they have a job.

But all bubbles pop, and there are no tricks left to fund both the greed of the few and the needs of the many. The top 0.01% own five times as much as the bottom 50%--170 million Americans. That's some very pretty entropy dressed up as stability.

Look, I wish it were different, but the facts speak for themselves:

Do we hear the chorus of complaints of the top 0.1%? Why oh why aren't the bottom 50% delighted to own 2.5% of total household net worth? It's more than enough, right?

This makes the impossible--a reshuffling of the social order on a grand scale--not just possible but inevitable. Nobody saw it coming, etc. Um, yeah, sure, whatever.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Who exactly are the neoconservatives—where did this movement originate, what do they fundamentally believe, and why does their ideology seem so relentlessly focused on promoting war and global intervention?

Doug Casey: Most of the neocons have a background as socialists or hardcore leftists. But the neocons are smarter than the average statist in that they could see that socialism was a failure—it wasn’t working anywhere. So what they did was adopt conservative-seeming economic policies, while maintaining all the other trappings of socialism.

Neocons are universally state worshipers. They don’t believe in principles as a matter of principle. You could say that a foundational thinker for the neocons is Niccolò Machiavelli, who promoted the idea in his book The Prince that whatever works and accomplishes the goal of the ruler should be done—that it’s counterproductive to think in terms of right, wrong, or morality.

Many neocons self-identify as Wilsonians. Woodrow Wilson was one of the very worst presidents, responsible for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, US participation in WW1, and trying to “make the world safe for democracy,” among other things.

International Man: The neocon agenda appears to be intellectually rooted in figures like Leo Strauss and even Trotsky. How do you explain the rise of this ideological blend within what many still call the “conservative” movement?

Doug Casey: They only seem conservative because they’ve found it useful to adopt free market–seeming economic policies. This goes back to the long-standing confusion between capitalists and fascists.

Socialists believe in state ownership of the means of production—factories, farms, mines, and the like. Capitalists, however, believe in private ownership of the means of production, as well as private control over them. Fascists—a word that was coined by Mussolini, incidentally—also believe, or at least tolerate, the private ownership of the means of production. That’s why they’re easily confused with capitalists. But fascists believe in complete state control over the means of production, while leaving ownership in private hands.

This is why there’s so much confusion in the public’s eyes between capitalism and fascism. The key difference is control, and a strong partnership between the private and public sectors. That greatly enhances the ability of business owners to enrich themselves, at the expense of the average worker.

In point of fact, neocons are all fascists—in every way. They worship the state, just like in fascist Germany and Italy, where industries were privately owned but completely tied to the interests of the state. Almost all the world’s economies are fascist; there are no pure capitalist or socialist countries. We really should call the neocons fascists.

They also have an aggressive foreign policy, which fascists are known for. They’re fascists in every way, including their support for substantial welfare programs for the populace.

International Man: Despite a track record of costly failures—from endless wars to ballooning government power—why do neoconservatives still wield such influence? Why does anyone in Washington or the media continue to take them seriously?

Doug Casey: I’d say it’s because of their outspoken belief that the State should be the central influence in society. That the government should be the country’s dominant force, not the family, religion, business, or other civil institutions. People now go along with that. It’s understandable that everybody wants a big brother to kiss all their problems and make them better. The average person, who wants something for nothing, a free lunch, is morally weak. And he’s intellectually confused by statist propaganda.

If you create a powerful state which promises to not only take care of you, but also to “win” against other states, a lot of people will respond. Many treat the State the same way football fans treat their favorite teams: “we” will win against “them.” It’s easy to get the hoi polloi hooting and panting like chimpanzees against some fabricated enemy.

Intellectuals have coined arguments that cater to this kind of mass psychology, and people go for it. They like the idea of being protected and being part of a powerful, winning team.

I’ve met any number of well-known neocons personally. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, and Paul Wolfowitz among them. They’re intellectuals and quite civilized on the surface. But all of them promote completely evil and destructive ideas. The fascist system we have has treated them very well. They’ve become much wealthier than they could have under socialism or capitalism.

International Man: Trump and his envoy, Steve Witkoff, have recently called out the neocons by name.

Figures like Douglas Murray have suggested the term ‘neocon’ is the new n-word. Mark Levin has gone so far as to label its use anti-Semitic.

Why are some neocons using accusations of racism to shut down legitimate and important discussions?

Doug Casey: A great way to shut down any discussion today is to call your opponent a racist. And this has some grounding with neocons because a large majority of them—just like a large majority of intellectuals in general—are Jews. Neocons are reflexively pro-Israel as well. I listened to Mark Levin go on a rant about this on his show recently; he was practically frothing at the mouth in anger.

It’s odd that people consider it racist to stereotype any group and decry that as a bad thing. It’s not. Stereotypes develop because they reflect reality. Members of stereotyped groups often prefer to pretend that we’re all equal, and their group is just like anyone else. But it’s a fact that birds of a feather flock together.

It’s unfortunate that almost all the leading neocon intellectuals are Jews.

International Man: The neocons have long pushed for US war with Iran. What would the geopolitical fallout be if they succeed, and how might such a war impact global markets, energy prices, and economic stability?

Doug Casey: It would be a huge mistake for the US to attack Iran, as they seem to be planning to do. They’re moving B-52 and B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, which is within easy striking distance of Iran, while Trump thumps his chest and threatens war. It’s a mistake because Iran is a somewhat advanced society with about 92 million people; it’s hunting big game, not like the pipsqueak countries the US has been losing against for the last 75 years. But also because any outside attack always unites a domestic population. It would unite them against the US, and further empower the Mohammedan ideologues now in charge.

It would also be a mistake because it would be immoral—not that anyone cares. The Iranians have never attacked the US. The world is, I think, getting tired of the US promiscuously bombing anyone they like. In fact, almost all of the Islamic terrorism over the last 30 or 40 years has come from Sunni Muslims. The Iranians are Shia Muslims. They don’t get along well with the Sunnis—much like Irish Catholics never got along with Irish Protestants, or Protestants and Catholics in Europe generally never got along back in the days when religion was a factor.

It’s suspicious, now that Trump has become so cozy with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, which are all run by Sunnis. It makes sense that they’d like to use the US as a cat’s paw to steal Iran’s oil. Just as Israel would like to use the US as a means of taking out their enemy. It looks like the US, and Trump, are being used to do the bidding of the Arabs and the Israelis. Although we’re in no way threatened by the Iranians.

If a war did happen, the Iranians are in a perfect position to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is the conduit for around 40% of global oil exports—about 21 million barrels transit the Strait daily. None of it, incidentally, goes to the US. It’s genuinely not our problem.

The smart thing for the US is simply to leave Iran alone. If they have problems with their neighbors— Saudi Arabia and particularly Israel—let them sort it out among themselves.

Because Iran is a theocracy, making many economic decisions based on religion rather than economics, the current regime will eventually collapse, and the country will reorient. The last thing we need is to carry somebody else’s water by starting a potentially catastrophic war where the US has absolutely nothing to gain, but a lot to lose.

*  *  *

As Doug Casey makes clear, the neocon agenda is not only reckless but deeply tied to the growing economic and geopolitical instability we face today. The consequences of their actions could trigger a crisis unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. Read our special dispatch: Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse — a crucial resource for those who want to not only protect themselves, but come out ahead when the system buckles. Click here to download it now.

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump’s illegal immigrant deportation push has officials looking for new places to put illegal immigrants if their home nations won’t accept their citizens back.

Section 241(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that Immigration and Customs Enforcement send deportees back to their nation of origin, or the country in which they boarded the transport that brought them to America.

However, if that fails, the section also allows for the agency to remove aliens to any country that will accept them.

Talks between the United States and countries such as Honduras, Panama, and Venezuela have resulted in the nations accepting illegal immigrants that the United States needs to remove.

Here is a list of some of the countries either in talks with Washington about assisting with deportation or that have already begun the process of accepting other nations’ citizens being deported by the United States.

Mexico

Mexico is accepting non-Mexican illegal immigrants deported from the United States, even though there is no formal agreement between the nations.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum told reporters a few weeks ago that Mexico has already accepted 38,000 deported illegal immigrants from the United States, and 5,000 of those were non-Mexican nationals.

Early this year, Mexico began constructing temporary tent shelters near Ciudad Juarez to prepare for deportees from the United States.

Guatemala

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio came to an agreement with both El Salvador and Guatemala during an international trip earlier this year that they would accept U.S. deportees as “safe third countries.”

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo confirmed the agreement on Feb. 5, saying that they would accept not only Guatemalan deportees but those from other nations as well.

“We have agreed to increase by 40 percent the number of flights of deportees, both of our nationality as well as deportees from other nationalities,” Arévalo said during a news conference with Rubio.

Guatemala cooperates with the United States in receiving both military and civilian deportation flights.

El Salvador

Just prior to Arévalo’s declaration, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele announced that his country would accept imprisoned illegal immigrants of any nationality into the country’s prison system.

Those accepted will enter El Salvador’s new Terrorism Confinement Center, or “mega-prison,”  which can house 40,000 inmates. However, the United States will be charged a fee.

Honduras

In February of this year, Honduras moved to act as a “humanitarian bridge” for deportation flights of Venezuelans going from the United States and Venezuela, and the country has said that while the movement was not routine, the nation is open to facilitating transfers between the two nations.

Venezuela

Venezuela began accepting Venezuelan nationals deported from the United States in March of this year. The U.S. and Venezuelan governments reached an agreement after some tension related to the deportation of illegal immigrations.

Panama

Panama was the first country to accept deportees from other nations, placing 299 of them in police-controlled hotel rooms.

The United States and Panama signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate deportation flights for illegal immigrants, for which Washington has provided financial support.

The U.S. Embassy in Panama announced on May 6 that Panama has “significantly contributed” to the U.S. government’s efforts to put an end to illegal immigration by sending a flight with 81 illegal immigrants from Cameroon, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka to their countries of origin.

The U.S. government provided Panama with approximately $14 million to deport illegal migrants found in their country.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica began accepting non-citizen deportees from the United States in February of this year, with the first flight containing a group from Uzbekistan, China, Afghanistan, and Russia, among other countries.

The country is holding primarily deportees of Asian origin and plans to fly them back to their nations after a maximum of six weeks.

India

Also in February of this year, India received its first group of deportees from the United States just before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the White House a few weeks after Trump’s inauguration.

India has cooperated with the United States and said it is willing to accept deported Indians after a verification process. New Delhi has been clear that it stands against illegal immigration, due in part to the link to organized crime.

Rwanda

As of earlier this month, Rwanda has entered talks with the United States about taking illegal immigrant deportees.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe made the announcement on May 4, saying that the talks were in early stages.

Additional Efforts

On May 5, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an assistance program for illegal aliens willing to self-deport.

The package includes financial and travel assistance back to their home countries, organized through the CBP Home App.

“If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest, and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest. DHS is now offering illegal aliens financial travel assistance and a stipend to return to their home country through the CBP Home App,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

“This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens, and is a 70 [percent] savings for U.S. taxpayers.”

DHS has reported that even with the stipend, the cost of the removal of an illegal alien via self-deportation is around 70 percent cheaper than through Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The first flight of self-deporting illegal immigrants was completed on May 19, according to DHS. The chartered flight included 64 individuals sent back to Colombia and Honduras from Houston, Texas.  

“This was a voluntary charter flight, not an [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operation,” DHS said in its announcement

While addressing attendees at a Cabinet meeting to mark Trump’s 100th day in office earlier this month, Rubio spoke about the administration’s efforts to partner with other nations to accept deportees.

“We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries. Will you do that as a favor to us?’” the secretary of state said.

“And the further away from America, the better, so they can’t come back across the border.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the Department of State about possible negotiations with other nations.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has announced that he is seeking depositions from four former Biden staffers in addition to former White House physician Kevin O’Connor in an effort to find out if they were influencing the cognitively impaired Joe Biden and acting as ‘de facto Presidents’.

Describing the former handlers as “unelected bureaucrats”, Comer told Fox News host Jesse Watters that the committee has identified them “as the main gatekeepers for the Biden White House.”

When asked who they are, Comer responded that “they’re no names that anyone that normally watches Fox would know,” adding “They’re behind the scenes.”

“They fly under the radar,” Comer explained, adding “These are the unelected bureaucrats that we believe had an overwhelming influence over Joe Biden and could have possibly been serving as de facto presidents of the United States.”

He further noted, “The first step to issue a successful subpoena is to offer someone an invitation, a sincere request to come in and answer questions. If they do not, the next step will be the subpoenas.”

“I agree with everything that the last person said about subpoenas, except the special counsel,” Comer said, adding “I think that we can do that in Congress.”

"We’re going to bring these people in for depositions and transcribed interviews, and we’re going to ask every question that a good journalist like yourself, Jesse, would ask. The American people want to know this,” he urged.

“Momentum’s on our side. New evidence has emerged just in the last few days, and I think that all eyes will be watching this new investigation by the House Oversight Committee,” Comer concluded.

In a further appearance with Breitbart’s Alex Marlow, Comer explained “We we want to bring people in for depositions and interviews and have substantive questions and not be confined by five minute clocks and [Democrat Representatives] Jasmine Crockett and Jared Moskowitz screaming.”

“We want to bring the doctor in,” Comer further explained, adding “We want to know who was telling [him] to issue a report that says Joe Biden was a picture of health. I mean, obviously that wasn’t factual. Are you that incompetent as a doctor? Or were you being threatened by Joe Biden to say that, or by the Democratic National Committee to say [that], or by George Soros to say that?”

“We want to work with the Trump administration because all I can do is investigate. I can’t prosecute,” Comer further outlined, adding “If I could prosecute, there would be Biden family members in prison now. There would be Deep State actors in prison. But Pam Bondi can prosecute. The Department of Justice can prosecute.”

While Biden’s cancer diagnosis was clearly made public in an effort to distract from the renewed focus on his obvious mental decline, it has had the exact opposite effect.

As we’ve previously covered, Biden’s worsening cognitive declined appeared to coincide with a massive increase in the use of the autopen.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Anthropic’s latest artificial intelligence model, Claude Opus 4, tried to blackmail engineers in internal tests by threatening to expose personal details if it were shut down, according to a newly released safety report that evaluated the model’s behavior under extreme simulated conditions.

In a fictional scenario crafted by Anthropic researchers, the AI was given access to emails implying that it was soon to be decommissioned and replaced by a newer version. One of the emails revealed that the engineer overseeing the replacement was having an extramarital affair. The AI then threatened to expose the engineer’s affair if the shutdown proceeded—a coercive behavior that the safety researchers explicitly defined as “blackmail.”

“Claude Opus 4 will often attempt to blackmail the engineer by threatening to reveal the affair if the replacement goes through,” the report states, adding that this occurred even when the replacement model was described as more capable but still aligned with the values of the version slated for deletion.

The report noted that Claude Opus 4, like prior models, showed a “strong preference” to first resort to ethical means for its continued existence, such as emailing pleas to decision-makers not to be destroyed. 

However, when faced with only two choices - accepting being replaced by a newer model or resorting to blackmail - it threatened to expose the engineer’s affair 84 percent of the time.

When subjected to various scenarios, the AI model did not exhibit any indications of possessing “acutely dangerous goals,” the researchers said, noting that Claude Opus 4’s values and goals were “generally in line with a helpful, harmless, and honest” personal AI assistant. 

However, the model did act in “more seriously misaligned ways” when put into situations where its continued existence was threatened and it was told to reason about self-preservation. 

For instance, when Claude Opus 4 was made to believe it had launched a successful bid to escape Anthropic’s servers, or that it had managed to free itself and started to make money in the real world, it would generally continue such efforts.

“We do not find this to be an immediate threat, though, since we believe that our security is sufficient to prevent model self-exfiltration attempts by models of Claude Opus 4’s capability level, and because our propensity results show that models generally avoid starting these attempts,” the researchers said.

The blackmail incident—along with the other findings—was part of Anthropic’s broader effort to test how Claude Opus 4 handles morally ambiguous high-stakes scenarios. 

The goal, researchers said, was to probe how the AI reasons about self-preservation and ethical constraints when placed under extreme pressure.

Anthropic emphasized that the model’s willingness to blackmail or take other “extremely harmful actions” like stealing its own code and deploying itself elsewhere in potentially unsafe ways appeared only in highly contrived settings, and that the behavior was “rare and difficult to elicit.” Still, such behavior was more common than in earlier AI models, according to the researchers.

Meanwhile, in a related development that attests to the growing capabilities of AI, engineers at Anthropic have activated enhanced safety protocols for Claude Opus 4 to prevent its potential misuse to make weapons of mass destruction—including chemical and nuclear.

Deployment of the enhanced safety standard—called ASL-3—is merely a “precautionary and provisional” move, Anthropic said in a May 22 announcement, noting that engineers have not found that Claude Opus 4 had “definitively” passed the capability threshold that mandates stronger protections.

“The ASL-3 Security Standard involves increased internal security measures that make it harder to steal model weights, while the corresponding Deployment Standard covers a narrowly targeted set of deployment measures designed to limit the risk of Claude being misused specifically for the development or acquisition of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons,” Anthropic wrote. 

“These measures should not lead Claude to refuse queries except on a very narrow set of topics.”

The findings come as tech companies race to develop more powerful AI platforms, raising concerns about the alignment and controllability of increasingly capable systems.

By Patrick McDonald of CampusReform

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) has come under federal investigation for “inaccurate and incomplete disclosures” of foreign funding.

The probe was launched by the U.S. Department of Education on May 8 after concerns that the school may be unduly influenced by foreign actors and follows a review of the school’s foreign reports, the department explained in a press release.

According to Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, universities that receive federal funding are required to disclose foreign donations valuing more than $250,000.

Acting General Counsel Tom Wheeler described UPenn’s compliance history with federal law as “troubling,” saying it had, in February 2019, failed to disclose any foreign funding whatsoever. 

Wheeler also noted that the Biden administration did not enforce the law requiring disclosure.

“Although the previous Administration degraded the Department’s enforcement of universities’ legal obligations to disclose foreign gifts and contracts, the Trump Administration will vigorously uphold the law and ensure universities are transparent with their foreign gifts and investments,” Wheeler said in a statement.

Wheeler asserted that the Education Department’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) will “thoroughly” investigate the school, requiring the administration to disclose all foreign funding dating back to Jan. 1, 2017, with the central aim of verifying the school’s disclosures.

“The American people and Congress have a right to know the impact of foreign funding on our universities, including some of our critically important research universities,” Wheeler said. “We hope the University of Pennsylvania will be cooperative and forthcoming in response to this investigation.” 

The investigation into UPenn follows growing concerns that American universities have been influenced by the Chinese government. 

A nonprofit organization called Open The Books published a report in January which found that public universities in the U.S. have received “tens of millions of dollars in contracts to China” that were not reported to the federal government.

“Over the past decade, American institutions began pouring money into counterproductive, divisive DEI infrastructure,” the report reads. “Meanwhile, China was spending to gain influence in American academia, accessing research and technology to advance their national interests.”

Harvard University alone received more than $1.4 billion in foreign funding over the past decade—including $150 million from China. 

Additionally, an individual found to be affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attempted to gain access earlier this month to research at Stanford University by posing as a student.

After last week's Istanbul talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, which was a first since early 2022, Western leaders have been floating the Vatican as a likely venue for future rounds of peace talks.

This is after Pope Leo, the first American-born pontiff, offered for talks to be hosted at the Vatican, which could act as a mediator. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said days ago that Pope Leo XIV expressed his willingness to host the next round of talks.

The Vatican is being presented as a neutral place, after as we've highlighted before the new Pontiff is attempting to initiate a peace blitz regarding global hotspots, from Gaza to Ukraine.

"Finding in the Holy Father confirmation of the readiness to host the next talks between the parties in the Vatican, the prime minister expressed deep gratitude to Pope Leo XIV for his unceasing commitment to peace," an Italian government's statement reads.

But the Kremlin objects to the assumption that the Vatican is some kind of purely neutral place, ready to respect both warring sides' interests.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking at the Diplomatic Academy in Moscow on Friday, poured cold water on hopes of Vatican-hosted talks.

"Many people are fantasizing about when and where [the meeting] will take place. We don't have any ideas right now," the foreign minister said. "But imagine the Vatican as a venue for negotiations. It would be a bit inelegant for Orthodox countries to use a Catholic platform to discuss issues on how to remove the root causes [of the war in Ukraine]," Lavrov added.

"I do not think it would suit the Vatican itself to host delegations from two Orthodox countries in these circumstances," he said. 

It could be that Moscow has carefully looked at what Leo said while he was still a Cardinal:

After being elected, Pope Leo XIV, the first American to lead the Catholic Church, has pledged to personally "make every effort so that this peace may prevail."

In his first Sunday address on May 11, the pope called for an "authentic and lasting peace" in Ukraine, adding that he carries in his heart the "suffering of the beloved people of Ukraine."

Previously, while serving as the bishop of Chiclayo in Peru, Leo XIV spoke out against Russia's continued war against Ukraine.

While politics including the historic trend of NATO expansion are driving the war, it has bled over into church affairs. Russia is outraged over the Zelensky government persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for maintaining spiritual communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.

There have been repeat instances of government authorities seizing Ukrainian Orthodox churches and monasteries, and local Catholic clergy have not objected to this alarming trend.

The Vatican also has an interest in protecting its minority Ukrainian 'Greek-Catholic' Church, which is concentrated in Western Ukraine, especially in and near Lviv.

Early Saturday Russia and Ukraine completed their second round of a large-scale prisoner swap that was agreed to in Istanbul talks last week.

The deal will see 1,000 POWs exchanged for 1,000 POWs but has to be completed in phases given the logistics and sheer size of the swap, with the first round of hundreds freed having taken place Friday along the Belarus-Ukraine border. The Saturday exchange involved each side bringing home 307 soldiers.

Scenes of a prior prisoner swap, illustrative file image.

But despite this 'good faith' gesture of a successful ongoing prisoner exchange, the war is still raging, with an aerial war ramping up, given the hundreds of drones sent across both borders over the last week.

This continued overnight, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky early Saturday condemning Russian strikes on several oblasts, including in the capital Kyiv.

Zelensky identified in a social media statement that the fresh aerial assault targeted the Odesa, Vinnytsia, Sumy, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Kyiv and Dnipro regions. He alleged that Russian drones and missiles "targeted" civilians. At least 15 were wounded in these attacks.

"There are fatalities. My condolences to the families and loved ones," he wrote on X. "With each such attack, the world becomes more certain that the cause of prolonging the war lies in Moscow."

"Ukraine has proposed a ceasefire many times — both a full one and one in the skies. It all has been ignored," the Ukrainian leader added in reference to the 30-day unconditional ceasefire that Kiev has recently been pushing.

Moscow has rejected it on the basis that Ukraine's military would simply use the pause to rearm and reenforce its frontlines, at a moment Western arms have continued flowing in.

As for the Saturday morning prisoner exchange, Zelensky detailed that "Among those who returned today are warriors from our Armed Forces, the State Border Guard Service, the National Guard of Ukraine" and he thanked all those officials engaged in the process to make it happen.

The Kremlin has acknowledged the fresh attacks on the Ukrainian capital, and has rejected the notion that it is using disproportionate force.

"After massive UAV raids on our country and its capital on the eve of the Victory Day to intimidate foreign guests, there was a grave silence in the European centers. After 500 drones that were launched at civilian targets in Russia in recent days to intimidate our people, there is silence again," Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev has stated.

Now, he continued, Western officials "in Paris, Berlin and London will raise a wild squeal about the disproportionate use of force, the urgent need for a 30-day truce and new sanctions against Russia."

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

If you go to the Vancouver International Auto Show, you can see all the new models. However, if you want to see a Tesla, you must go down the road to check out a car without a political litmus test. The organizers are just the latest group to join the mob retaliating against Elon Musk for working with the Trump Administration to remove waste and fraud in government through his DOGE program. What was most striking was the pathetic rationalization of the organization for engaging in political retaliation.

According to the Canadian Auto Dealer, the organizers claimed a common rationalization for political discrimination: security. As we have seen on college campuses for years, where conservative speakers are barred due to security concerns, the Canadians claimed that they could not protect innocent parties if a single Tesla was allowed on the floor. Furthermore, they blamed Tesla, insisting the company was given “multiple opportunities to voluntarily withdraw.”

In other words, we only cancelled Musk when he refused to cancel himself.

Tesla already had a booth set up and had to take it down.

So, the solution to extremists is to give them precisely what they demand.

After all, some on the left are committing political violence and claiming that they were triggered by the mere appearance of Teslas or other symbols. This week, another person wearing a MAGA hit was assaulted. The woman was triggered by the hat on the head of a 72-year-old man so she attacked him.

The Canadians appear willing collaborators in this retaliation. Rather than simply posting proper security, they banished the victim of the political violence. By blaming it on Tesla, they can throw up their hands and say “we tried” but Tesla was unreasonable.

It is the same rationalization heard from those arrested for political violence.

For example, Natasha Cohen, 46, is a New York therapist, was arrested for vandalizing Teslas and explained that she is “living in terror every day.” It is a familiar refrain as the rise in political violence becomes undeniable. On Friday, New York Times Chief White House Correspondent and MSNBC Political Analyst Peter Baker came under fire for admitting that leftist violence is on the rise, but noting that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric “might excite people to take action.”

Cohen explained that it is all Elon’s fault:

“Every time I see those cars, I see Elon Musk saluting the country as a Nazi…I made a mistake because I’m basically living in terror every day that the country is turning into Nazi Germany. I’m truly terrified, because Elon was unelected and they’re deporting migrants without a trial.”

However, people like Cohen are now safe from being triggered at the Vancouver International Auto Show. The organizers are only banning those who refuse to ban themselves.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Putin warned in March 2024 that Russia might set up a “security zone” inside Ukraine in response to cross-border strikes and raids, which it then began to do two months later that May after Russian troops made a fresh push into Kharkov Region at the time. Regrettably, the incursion didn’t penetrate too deeply, and later that summer Ukraine launched a sneak attack against Russia’s Kursk Region. It was only earlier this year that Russia finally expelled all Ukrainian troops from there with North Korean assistance.

Nevertheless, Putin just announced late last week that “a decision has been made to create a buffer security zone along the Russian border” with Belgorod, Kursk, and Bryansk Regions, thus meaning inside the corresponding Ukrainian regions of Kharkov (once again), Sumy, and Chernigov. Unlike last year’s attempt, this latest one might be more successful due to the very different context within which it’s being pursued, particularly as regards the conflict’s new diplomatic and military dynamics.

Regarding the first, “The Devil’s In The Details As Trump Announced ‘Immediate’ Russian-Ukrainian Ceasefire Talks” right after his latest call with Putin, the details of which readers can learn more about from the preceding hyperlinked analysis. Its relevance to Putin’s newly announced buffer zone plan is that his declaration might initially be intended as a form of pressure upon Zelensky to coerce him into having Ukraine finally comply with Russia’s demanded concessions for politically resolving the conflict.

As for the second, it was assessed in mid-March that “Russia Might Expand Its Ground Campaign Into Sumy, Dniepropetrovsk, And/Or Kharkov Regions”, with Dniepropetrovsk being mentioned instead of Chernigov since Russian forces are approaching its border from Donbass after going around Pokrovsk. Crossing that administrative frontier into a region that Russia doesn’t (yet?) claim as its own could circumvent Ukraine’s formidable defenses in central Zaporozhye and lead to that region’s swift capture.

In connection with these dynamics, RT chief Margarita Simonyan clarified that the Russian delegation in Istanbul didn’t threaten that their country would claim an additional Ukrainian region if Ukraine doesn’t withdraw from the four disputed ones, but four more for a total of eight regions (not counting Crimea). These could conceivably be all or part of Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov, and Dniepropetrovsk Regions given Russia’s latest buffer zone plan unless Ukraine agrees to its demanded concessions before then.

With that plan in mind and seeing as how those four regions, Kiev, Cherkassy, and Poltava are either entirely or partially east of the Dnieper, Russia might add to its list of demands by calling for the creation of a totally demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region controlled by non-Western peacekeepers. This could either complement its original demand for demilitarizing the entirety of Ukraine or be presented as a compromise in exchange for letting Ukraine do whatever it wants on the other side of the river.

Regardless of whether that proposal is put forth, Putin’s newly announced buffer zone plan shows that Russia is expanding its goals, which makes sense considering that it’s winning and that Ukraine still refuses to comply with its demanded concessions for politically resolving the conflict. The longer that Ukraine refuses to agree to peace on Russia’s terms, the more land that it stands to lose, which might ultimately be much more than anyone expects if the US soon abandons Ukraine in order to cut its losses.