Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Millions of federal employees are monitoring the progress of President Trump's longed-for "Big Beautiful Bill," as it contains provisions targeting their generous, taxpayer-subsidized pensions. The final version narrowly passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday morning pared back some of the elements of the proposal that came from the House Oversight and Reform Committee in April, and cut near-retirees some slack, but it retained provisions that have government unions shrieking. 

First, here's what's been slashed from the Oversight Committee's version that we reported on last month: 

• There's no more increase in the pension premiums that longer-tenured feds would have had to contribute to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). The original proposal would have made all employees pay 4.4% of their salary. The final House bill will allow those hired in 2013 to continue paying 3.1% and those hired earlier to keeping paying a paltry 0.8%; those hired in 2014 and after already pay 4.4%. (Below, we'll detail a proposed change for new hires)
• Pensions will continue to be calculated using the average of the employee's highest three years of earnings. The Oversight version would have changed that to using an average of the highest five years.  

However, a significant pension-reduction measure survived all the House horse-trading. Today, long-serving federal employees who retire with a full pension before Social Security age currently receive a supplemental payment on top of that calculated pension. The "FERS Annuity Supplement" is supposed to approximate their age-62 Social Security income attributable to their federal employment.  The head-scratchingly lavish goal: Saving early retirees from having to make do with less total money than they'll eventually rake in at age 62 -- even though they're fortunate enough to receive a full federal pension in the interim. 

American Federation of Government Employees union members protest in Washington in February (Nathan Posner/Getty Images via

As recommended by the Oversight committee, the House reconciliation bill kills the FERS Annuity Supplement -- however, the final version rolls back the effective date to Jan. 1, 2028, so as to avoid a last-minute change for feds who are on the brink of retirement. The language says any fed who is "entitled" to retire with a supplement on that date will hang on to their eligibility -- apparently meaning there will be no incentive for them to rush to retire by the deadline. The bill keeps the supplement for employees subject to mandatory early retirement -- mostly federal law enforcement and air traffic controllers. 

The House bill also kept a major change that would present all new federal hires with a critical choice about the nature of their government employment. If they want their pension premium rate to be 4.4% (the rate currently paid by employees who entered service in 2014 or after), future hires would have to agree to become "at-will" employees. If they want to have civil service job protection, their pension-contribution rate would soar to 9.4%.  

Republicans just snuck another harmful proposal into their tax package that would force federal employees to choose between paying more for their pensions or losing critical labor protections. You can count on me to vote against this blatant attack on working people. pic.twitter.com/vAT5JZ30UD

Government unions are screeching about that one. In a letter to House members, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) President Everett B. Kelley called the 9.4% rate "unaffordable" and said: 

"This provision is an un-American, anti-union, morally bankrupt attempt to charge workers for exercising their basic rights.... If enacted, this change will lead to the eventual extinction of the merit-based, nonpartisan civil service, which is certainly its true purpose." 

Kelley also condemned the proposed eradication of the FERS Annuity Supplement, saying it would leave the average early-retiring employee with a pension that would lie "below the federal level for a family" -- ignoring employees' duty to put away their own savings to round out their retirement income. Note that feds have access to the government's 401k-style Thrift Savings Plan, which has some very generous government-contribution provisions of its own.   

Government-employee union President Everett Kelley is urging feds to contact their senators and ask them to kill proposed changes to federal pensions (AFGE photo)

The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) also cried out in pain, laying out a scenario that's supposed to elicit empathy but which will be utterly unmoving to any private-sector citizen: 

"If the FERS annuity supplement is eliminated, many postal workers aged 57 to 62 who are eligible to retire will have a choice — take less in retirement without this supplement or continue working years longer until they can collect Social Security."

In other words, postal workers and other federal employees would have to make retirement decisions that more closely resemble the trade-offs faced by people who contribute to the economy -- not counting, of course, their INFLATION-ADJUSTED PENSIONS kicking in while they're in their fifties. We'll have to wait and see if that rhetoric is persuasive in the Senate.

Given the GOP's demonstrated disinterest in cutting spending, don't be surprised if the AFGE and APWU get their way. 

Authored by Conor Mulcahy via BitcoinMagazine.com,

For years, Bitcoin in Ireland has quietly simmered at the grassroots level—discussed in pubs and meetups, debated in Telegram groups, and occasionally splashed across headlines with predictable suspicion. But recently, the temperature is beginning to rise. With the release of “A Sound Punt: The Case for Ireland’s Interest in Bitcoin” by Bitcoin Network Ireland (BNI), and a weekend that sees both the Bitcoin Ireland Conference and Aontú’s Ard Fheis, it’s clear momentum is building on the Emerald Isle.

A Sound Punt: A Paper for the Citizens of Ireland

The new paper, released today by Bitcoin Network Ireland, is a concise, accessible document crafted to cut through the noise and present the merits of Bitcoin to the general public and politicians alike. Its aim is straightforward: provide a rational, jargon-free entry point into why Bitcoin matters, especially in an era of euro debasement and rising living costs.

The name itself is a clever pun—while it is a nod to both “sound money” and Ireland’s former currency, the punt, it also playfully suggests that although the majority of people view it as associated with risk, this may be worth reevaluating. It’s a signal that this is about more than technology: it’s about claiming monetary sovereignty and re-examining what makes money “good” in the first place.

What BNI is attempting to accomplish is bridging an important gap in understanding, helping citizens seeking change and government officials looking for solutions to recognize that sound, stateless money has value for everyone. As Parker Lewis famously noted, “Like all successful monies, Bitcoin is money for enemies“—a neutral system that serves all participants regardless of their political stance.

Ireland’s Long and Complicated Relationship With Money

To appreciate the significance of this moment, it’s worth noting that Ireland’s relationship with money has always been distinct from its European neighbors. While the Romans introduced coinage to Britain over a thousand years before it was adopted in Ireland. The native Irish resisted state-issued money, relying instead on barter and bullion well into the second millennium.

In ancient Ireland, the absence of coinage was a testament to a society that was stateless, highly decentralised, and it embraced a polycentric legal system varying between clans. The ideal of that society was that no man in society has rule over others, and even kings could be disposed of if they abused their power.

So it’s perhaps no coincidence that Ireland was the last European society to adopt coinage, as coinage gives power to rulers. Eventually, it was forced upon the land by the English crown in 1601, this period coincided with the final stages of the Nine Years’ War (1594-1603) and the increasing English control over Ireland. To this day, Ireland has never had its own free-floating currency; it has always been tethered to external powers: first the pound sterling, then the European Monetary System, and now the euro under the ECB. So it should come as no coincidence that in recent years, the EU is growing unabated in power and influence over Ireland.

“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” 

- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743–1812)

Perhaps, given this historical context, Ireland is uniquely positioned to understand the value of sound, stateless money. Bitcoin represents a return to the monetary independence that preceded state-issued currencies, but with the technological advantages of the digital age. Where ancient Irish kingdoms used market goods that couldn’t be manipulated by distant authorities, Bitcoin offers a modern equivalent: a system that can’t be debased or controlled by any power, whether domestic or foreign.

This historical skepticism toward centrally-controlled currency is resurfacing in the present, as the Irish state and its citizens face a new wave of economic uncertainty via euro debasement and tariffs. Geopolitical and economic tensions have rarely felt less stable. Tariff disputes, renewed questions over Ireland’s foreign direct-investment model, and potential tech and pharma layoffs are sure to sharpen the focus on sovereignty and resilience. The release of “A Sound Punt” is timely, inviting the nation to once again question the wisdom of tying its fortunes to distant monetary authorities.

A Political Crossroads

Coinciding with the release of “A Sound Punt,” Dr. Niall Burke—a respected academic and BNI member—will be putting forward two motions at the Aontú Ard Fheis (party conference). Aontú, the party that saw the largest surge in votes in the last general election, has shown itself to be receptive to Bitcoin and is opening its doors to conversations that, until recently, were relegated to the margins. That Bitcoin motions are being presented and accepted at a major party conference is a marker of how the conversation is turning.

Meanwhile, the Bitcoin Ireland Conference is gathering the country’s growing community of plebs, builders, and advocates. These circles, once on the periphery, are now finding doors opening in political circles.

Public Discontent and a Call for Financial Autonomy

It’s not just Bitcoiners who are seeking alternatives. Ireland is witnessing its largest public demonstrations since the post-GFC days of 2012. Recent marches have drawn in excess of 100,000 people to the streets of Dublin. These protests reflect deep frustration and a sense that the political establishment is no longer in alignment with its people.

What’s particularly striking is how Bitcoin could serve as common ground for seemingly opposing interests. For protesters, Bitcoin offers protection from inflation and defends against government overreach. For a government concerned about economic stability and growth, Bitcoin may be the very solution it needs, especially to protect pension funds and indeed the state’s very own investment fund—ISIF, from inflation over the coming decades. This is the paradox and promise of sound, stateless money. It serves everyone’s interests because it enforces property rights, and can’t be captured or controlled by any single faction.

Last, but not least, MMA star Conor McGregor’s foray into both politics and Bitcoin is something few would have predicted a year ago, but for those with an ear to the ground, this has been a developing story for some time. His proposal for a national Bitcoin reserve is emblematic of a broader national shift: Bitcoin is finally entering the Zeitgeist and perhaps he, like BNI, has a part to play in keeping it there.

Bitcoin is an open-source monetary protocol, and adoption comes from all quarters, irrespective of politics. Bitcoin is neutral, it supports no partisan cause. What’s perhaps not recognized enough is how empowering Bitcoin can be and we should focus on its ability to unite rather than divide, giving every Irish citizen—regardless of their political views—tools for individual liberty, inflation protection, as well as practical solutions for businesses.

Back to “A Sound Punt” Paper

The paper itself makes a compelling case for Ireland’s interest in Bitcoin:

• Sound Money Principles: It evaluates Bitcoin against the six characteristics of “good money”—durability, divisibility, uniformity, portability, verifiability, and scarcity.

• Store of Value: The document highlights Bitcoin’s fixed supply as protection against rising inflation and currency debasement.

• Practical Examples: It provides evidence of Bitcoin’s monetization, comparing the costs of buying a home in Euros vs. Bitcoin over the span of a decade.

• Common Concern Rebuttals: The paper addresses the most common objections to Bitcoin—energy usage, volatility, criminal activity, undermining traditional currencies, and speculation—offering balanced counterarguments to each. 

• Action Steps: Rather than just theoretical arguments, the paper outlines specific actions for individuals, businesses, and the government to consider, from education to strategic Bitcoin reserves.

The Beginning of a Process

No one expects the Irish government to announce a Bitcoin treasury next week, and it’s debatable whether it should establish one at all. But “A Sound Punt” marks the beginning of a process that could, in time, help reshape Ireland’s approach to money and economic sovereignty.

This accessible primer is just the first step in Bitcoin Network Ireland’s broader educational mission. BNI plans to publish a much more comprehensive policy paper for policymakers in the coming months, which is currently going through the editing phase. While “A Sound Punt” introduces the concepts to the general public, the forthcoming document will provide the detailed analysis and policy recommendations that decision-makers need.

As BNI works to elevate this conversation through both public education and policy analysis, the goal remains clear: helping all citizens recognize Bitcoin’s universal value proposition. Holding a modest strategic allocation of bitcoin—at either the individual or institutional level—offers some protection against uncertainty and hope in a time of growing concerns.

Download A Sound Punt: The Case for Ireland’s Interest in Bitcoin from the Bitcoin Network Ireland website.

Geopolitical discussion is swirling around Trump's confrontation of South Africa's government and their complicity in a growing race war against white Afrikaners.  The specific issue being open calls for property confiscation and the murder of the white population.  No group or political party is singing songs about killing black Africans.  They are only singing songs about killing whites.

This fact and a myriad of conditions have led many overseas, especially in America, to worry about the potential for full spectrum genocide.  There is already a slow grinding death machine that is chewing up Afrikaner farming communities over the course of years, but it situation could easily cross the line into mass murder. 

Others, however, are rooting for South Africa's socialist government. 

A common refrain in the past week is the argument that Donald Trump is "pushing SA into the arms of China and the Belt and Road Initiative" by cutting off foreign aid and making the treatment of the Afrikaners into an international debate. What would happen if SA turned to the BRICS?  As if this was not already a reality, South Africa has been closely tied to the BRICS since they formally joined the economic bloc in 2010.  From 2010 to 2018 the BRICS experienced substantial growth and global influence. 

However, the China of 10 years ago is not the China of today.  China's foreign direct investments (FDI) in Africa were steady since 2003 (like US investments) as the country started buying up oil and raw commodities, but they are now on the decline.

The communist nation's economy is in dire straits.  The shutdowns during the covid pandemic triggered a deflationary spiral that they have not been able to recover from.  Foreign investments in China have dropped over 77% since 2022.  The country suffered a 27% investment cut in 2024 alone. 

It should be noted that the Chinese were already experiencing an export drop in 2018-2019 due to Trump tariffs and reduced consumer spending in the west.  In 2025, the CCP is struggling with a crushing deflationary crisis - It's likely if current tariffs remain in place or expand, China will face a financial crash.

In turn, Chinese investment in some regions is shriveling.  To put the money situation in perspective, most African nations have little to no capacity to develop without foreign cash flow.  They need first-world nations to back infrastructure and resource projects.

China's investment in Africa peaked a decade ago.  Their direct investment into Africa in 2023 was $3.96 billion.  In 2018 China announced a $15 billion foreign aid and investment deal with South Africa, but there are suspicions as to how much of this cash is actually reaching SA. China's overall cash flow into the region is dropping fast.  This was partially due to the pandemic and the lockdowns, but also because of the greater deflationary crisis that has struck China after they finally started easing conditions for medical tyranny.  

Keep in mind, there's not a single financial data point coming from the CCP that can be trusted.  The government has thoroughly rigged all stats to show steady growth.  Experts on Chinese employment data suggest that the government is hiding an impressive spike in joblessness.  In the case of youth (workers age 16-25) they argue that China's unemployment is not 21%, but 46%. 

This number better correlates to China's falling exports and imports (numbers that are harder to manipulate or hide), and the lack of recovery from the covid lockdowns.

South Africa is also dealing with a persistent trade deficit with China that is benefiting the CCP far more than it is benefiting the SA economy.  South Africa primarily exports raw materials to China while China exports a multitude of finished goods with higher value.  The trade imbalance has resulted in an accumulated cash outflow of US$114.83 billion from South Africa to China.

South Africa only raised concerns about these alarming trends in 2024, at the ninth FOCAC meeting.

In other words, China's partnership is definitely not a boon for South Africa.  China feeds on other nations, they do not save other nations.  The narrative that China will swoop in to protect SA if the US permanently cuts off foreign aid and investment is perhaps based on an outdated perception of China's economic strength.  Or, it's based on delusion.

South Africa's 32% unemployment rate, instability in infrastructure and depressing violent crime spike are not going to be solved by fizzling investment from China.  China can't even save itself and has taken to rigging nearly all of it's economic indicators instead of trying to fix the problem.  Their investment plans are falling by the wayside because they can't afford to support Africa anymore.  In the meantime, the CCP pays lip service to greater financial cooperation, but the shrinking numbers tell us the real story. 

If the South African government thinks they will be able to attach like a barnacle to China's economic ship as a way to "stick it to Trump", then they are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

The situation remains very combustible and could easily explode at the slightest spark...

Russia and the US rarely agree on much, but their top diplomats just sounded the alarm about Syria, which should convince objective observers that there’s credence to their warnings. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “The situation in the Middle East is particularly troubling, especially in Syria, where groups of radical militants commit real acts of ethnic cleansing and mass executions on ethnic and religious grounds.”

This was a reference to March’s Kristallnacht-like killings of Syria’s Alawite minority.

As for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he said that “It is our assessment that, frankly, the transitional authority, given the challenges they’re facing, are maybe weeks — not many months — away from potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions, basically the country splitting up.” He was likely alluding not only to the mass killings of Syria’s Alawites, but recent tensions with the Druze minority and potential problems in implementing spring’s national reintegration deal with the Kurds.

Prior to these top diplomats’ warnings, there was some cautious optimism about Syria’s future after Russia was able to retain its bases there for the time being, Trump met Jolani/Sharaa, and the US and then the EU lifted sanctions on Syria. Nevertheless, the aforesaid three positive developments were still overshadowed by the abovementioned problems, which pair with the Israeli-Turkish rivalry in Syria to create a very combustible situation.

To make matters worse, Russia’s Khmeimim airbase was recently attacked by what Russian milblog Rybar claimed were Uzbek militants, who might have gone rogue for whatever reason but Rybar suspects that they actually intended to send a plausibly deniable hostile message from the new authorities.

Whatever their true motivation might be, it shows how volatile the situation remains in Syria, which could prompt all relevant foreign stakeholders into seriously considering their contingency plans there.

These are Russia, the US, Turkiye, Israel, and even the Iranian-led “Resistance Axis” to a degree, and the interplay between them could decisively shape Syria’s future. 

Apart from the previously described Israeli-Turkish rivalry, Israel was reportedly lobbying the US to keep Russia’s bases in Syria earlier this year, while another report claimed that Israel is engaged in secret Emirati-mediated talks with Syria. There are also recent reports about the Trump-Bibi rift, which might be irreconcilable, to consider too.

Another influential variable could be the nascent Russian-US “New Détente”, which might see them coordinate their activities in Syria, just like Turkiye and the US might do the same after Trump congratulated Erdogan for last December’s regime change. Observers also shouldn’t rule out that the “Resistance Axis” might have some “sleeper cells” across Syria waiting for the right time to “awake”. The chaotic interplay between these relevant foreign stakeholders could easily “Balkanize” Syria.

Syria might therefore be in for some tough times ahead due to these factors. 

To recap, the new authorities’ persecution of minorities might push some of them into taking up arms, after which they could be patronized by the identified foreign stakeholders. 

Some of these external players might then exploit these partners as proxies for dividing-and-ruling Syria. 

If another full-scale war ensues, then the region will once again be destabilized, and another tidal wave of refugees might crash into Europe.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Sweden Democrats have announced they will campaign in the 2026 general election on a pledge to stop migration to the country.

In an op-ed for Svenska Dagbladet published on Wednesday, party leader Jimmie Åkesson and migration policy spokesperson Ludvig Aspling said Sweden’s national security must take precedence over the right to asylum, marking a hardening of the party’s already tough stance on immigration.

“Sweden’s safety must come first — even when it conflicts with the right of asylum,” Åkesson wrote in a Facebook post linking to the article.

“Before the 2026 election, we will therefore demand that Sweden be given the opportunity to completely stop migration.”

The article itself proceeds to criticize the foundation of the European Union’s asylum system, calling it flawed because it deprives individual member states of the right to determine how many asylum seekers they admit.

The nationalist duo suggests that the current rights-based asylum regime, which sets no theoretical upper limit on the number of people who can be granted protection so long as they meet the legal criteria, is not fit for purpose.

According to the party, this legal framework has created a “strange situation,” where countries like Greece, Poland, and Finland have effectively sealed their borders to asylum seekers, yet received approval from Brussels. Åkesson noted that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen even praised Greece for previously closing its border with Turkey, calling it “Europe’s shield.”

“We see it as completely obvious that migration from certain countries is a direct threat to national security here in our country as well,” Åkesson and Aspling stated.

“It is time for Sweden to start adapting its actions to reality and stop treating EU rules as if they were Swedish law.”

While Åkesson initially vowed to give Swedish voters the chance to “completely stop migration,” the article suggests a Sweden Democrats administration would initially clamp down on asylum policy and pause migration from specific regions, reserving the right to halt migration in its entirety should the deteriorating security situation in Sweden not improve.

The duo cited an increase in bombings, shootings, religious extremism, and criminal networks as justification for exceptional measures, arguing that these conditions meet the threshold of an extraordinary situation, comparable to those that once allowed the Swedish government to temporarily override ordinary immigration laws. That provision was abolished in 1976, but the Sweden Democrats now want it reinstated.

“If public security does not improve significantly before [the election], we will then demand that the ordinary immigration law be put out of play during the term of office,” the party stated. 

This would involve pausing migration from Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, with limited exceptions, and expelling the roughly 6,000 foreign nationals identified by Swedish police as having links to gang crime.

The party also hinted that “other unconventional measures may also be relevant” depending on the security situation.

The Sweden Democrats have helped to prop up the current center-right administration in the country, lending it the votes it needs to govern effectively in exchange for pledges to tighten asylum and immigration rules and bolster law and order.

But, according to Åkesson and Aspling, steering immigration policy toward the EU’s minimum legal standards is no longer sufficient, and Stockholm must go further to preserve the Swedish way of life.

“It is time for Sweden to also become part of Europe’s shield,” they concluded.

Åkesson has previously called for a ban on new citizenship applications into Sweden under the current government, criticizing what he claims is the “completely crazy policy” of allowing applications by “individuals from deeply dysfunctional countries where there are often completely different values than those that characterize our Swedish culture.”

At his party’s annual conference in November 2023, the Swedish nationalist made headlines after he advocated in favor of Swedish authorities being handed the power to requisition and demolish mosques that are proven to be used to promote messages incompatible with Western values.

“It is not a right to come to our country and build monuments to a foreign and imperialist ideology,” Åkesson told his party’s faithful, also demanding a ban on the construction of new mosques.

Read more here...

Authored by John Mills via The Epoch Times,

Cuba has been impoverished by years of communist control, but it possesses a strategic vantage point that China prizes.

Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in his congressional testimony on May 6 that Cuba is a “strategic battleground” with China. Twenty sensitive U.S. government facilities in Florida are in range of the expanding Chinese Cyber and Signals Intelligence Collection network in Cuba.

Even before the Russians minimized their presence in Cuba in 2002, the Chinese were eyeing the Caribbean country.

Berg said that in February 1999, then-Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian visited Cuba and met with his counterpart, then-Defense Minister Raúl Castro.

“According to an article in El Nuevo Herald, the two reportedly signed an agreement granting China access to a number of former Soviet listening stations across the island, including the Bejucal base less than 10 miles from the old Lourdes station,” he noted.

As part of the path toward resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy pledged publicly not to invade Cuba. The Soviets pledged to remove nuclear and “offensive” weapons from Cuba. The Soviets maintained a reduced presence in Cuba for the rest of the Cold War, including an intelligence collection station at Lourdes, outside of Havana, and occasional naval and air visits, while the United States maintained a robust overwatch of Cuba from bases in southern Florida.

Chinese Military and Intelligence Network Grows in Cuba

In the summer of 2023, Cuba leapt onto the front pages with the sudden, surprise news release about a Chinese spy presence in the country. After the media report, the initial response from the Pentagon was to deny the topic. 

Then, The Associated Press reported there was an anonymous Biden administration official who confirmed that this started in 2019, which was a clever way of deflecting responsibility toward President Donald Trump. 

Berg pointed out that then-National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby “reversed course and admitted to China’s spy bases in Cuba, but insisted that its presence had existed since 2019 under the first Trump administration, implying the Biden administration had ‘inherited’ the challenge.”

“Around the same time, reports surfaced that China was pursuing the construction of a military training base in Cuba,” he added. 

Kirby had apparently missed the 1999 visit by Gen. Chi Haotian. In July 2024, The Wall Street Journal released additional imagery and reported that the Chinese military and intelligence footprint grew even larger than first reported.

The Chinese regime’s presence in Cuba is just one element of Chinese surveillance surrounding Florida. China has been operating gas and oil platforms that may have intelligence collection capabilities in the Gulf of America (previously known as the Gulf of Mexico) on the western side of Florida.

Gen. Glen VanHerck, former commander of U.S. Northern Command, pointed out, before the Chinese spy balloon episode, the danger of the Chinese infrastructure presence in the Bahamas, only 50 miles to the right of Florida.

Cuba Receives Promises of Chinese Support

Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez in Moscow on May 9 during the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II. 

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said about the meeting, “China is ready to work with Cuba to further strengthen their ironclad friendship, build a closer China–Cuba community with a shared future, and set an example of solidarity and cooperation between socialist countries and sincere interaction between developing countries.”   

In addition, the BRICS alliance—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—welcomed Cuba into the organization on Jan. 1, 2025, saying that the Caribbean country’s membership would allow it to become “a relevant player on the international stage.” Beijing dominates policy and plans for BRICS.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed an alliance with Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and South Africa in its “no limits” strategy to take on the United States, and it appears Cuba is entering this grouping of communist and totalitarian countries.

CCP Lures Latin American Countries With Financial Offer

Following the U.S.–China tariff truce, China hosted a forum with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Beijing on May 13. Left-leaning leaders in Latin America, such as Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Chilean President Gabriel Boric, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, were in attendance.  

The CCP used a Belt and Road Initiative power play and extended a credit line of $9.2 billion to the Latin American countries in attendance, with a very important caveat: The currency used in the line of credit would be the Chinese yuan.

The move, which excluded the global reserve currencies like the U.S. dollar, aimed to promote the yuan while China deepens its ties in the Americas. Of all the opportunities in the Americas, Cuba offers China the greatest return on investment. The short distance to the United States from Cuba allows the CCP a key intelligence observation point and a way to create a counterbalance of world support for Taiwan. 

There may not yet be missiles in Cuba, or at least they haven’t been identified, but another Cuban crisis is developing. As a Foreign Affairs article said, “Trump Will Disrupt Three Decades of ‘Benign Neglect’ of American focus on the Americas, with Cuba likely being one of the starting points.

*  *  *

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

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.