Zero Rss

65,000 Small German Retail Stores Have Disappeared As Economic Downturn Hits Europe's 'Powerhouse'

Via Remix News,

The number of small retail stores in Germany has declined drastically since 2010. According to a recent analysis by the credit agency Creditreform and the Handelsblatt Research Institute, there were 236,143 small retail stores with annual sales of less than €250,000 in 2010. For 2025, the sales tax statistics show only 170,770 such stores, a drop of 28 percent, reports Junge Freiheit.

Across all size categories, the number of stores shrank by only 16 percent during the same period, meaning the smaller, owner-operated players are being hit far harder. Small and medium-sized enterprises have been left with barely any financial reserves, a bad sign for the country’s battle with continuous bankruptcies.

According to the report, just over 316,000 retail stores overall remain. The German Retail Federation (HDE) warns that the number of stores could drop below 300,000 in 2026, threatening the vitality of city centers.

“The retail sector is among the fastest-shrinking sectors of the German economy,” Creditreform states in its report, with specialty stores in city centers, on side streets, and in shopping malls affected the most. Creditreform economist Patrik-Ludwig Hantzsch points to a combination of factors: inflation, consumer weakness, rising operating costs, and increasing competitive pressure.

In 2025, 2,440 retailers went bankrupt — a 9 percent increase increase over 2024— with fashion stores, bookstores, and bakeries particularly affected.

HDE President Alexander von Preen argues that politicians should lower energy costs and payroll taxes, while landlords should adopt more flexible, revenue-based rents to reduce vacancies.

Research from the Institute for Retail Research in Cologne shows that empty storefronts damage city centers by discouraging visitors, weakening city image, reducing foot traffic, and causing financial losses for municipalities and nearby businesses.

At the same time, non-food discount chains such as Action, Tedi, Hema, Woolworth, and Thomas Philipps are gaining market share in household goods, toys, stationery, and other categories. An IfH survey found that 85 percent of Germans have shopped at such stores in the past two years.

Creditreform says cities and retailers must adapt.

Traditional shopping-focused city centers are no longer effective in many areas, so cities should better combine shopping, leisure, dining, and living spaces. Small retailers are encouraged to focus on specialization, customer service, digital presence, and unique shopping experiences to remain competitive.

But with these changes, much of the identity of cities may be threatened.

“With the decline of smaller specialist retailers, many city centers are losing their distinctiveness and thus their heart,” says HDE CEO Stefan Genth.

With Germany battling an overburdened social system, surging federal deficit, soaring energy prices, and a massive spike in crime and costs due to migration, the choice of retailers in city centers may be the least of its problems. And yet, this barometer pays testament to all the rest.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 03:30

Trump Toughens Terms Of Iran Deal Framework, As Bessent Pinpoints Tehran's 'Big Mistake' Summary

• NYT on Sunday: President Trump has toughened the terms of a potential framework for a deal to end the war in Iran.
• Washington seeks to ratchet pressure, but Tehran still not budging on issue of remaining nuclear material.
• Bessent describes the "big mistake" Iran made to Fox - attacking its neighbors & losing friends; also says of the Iranians "they're going to have to start taking down the wells."
• Israeli PM Netanyahu says he has "instructed the Israeli military to expand the maneuver in Lebanon" after the occupation of the strategic Beaufort Castle, which he says marks "a dramatic change" in Israel’s operations.

//--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 30% · No 70%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump Toughens the Terms of Potential Deal

Fresh Sunday reporting in the NY Times says President Trump has responded to Iran's refusal to budge on giving up its nuclear material by tightening US conditions as part of a Memorandum of Understanding to get back to the peace negotiating table.

"President Donald Trump has toughened the terms of a potential framework for a deal to end the war in Iran, and has sent those proposed changes back to Iran for consideration, according to three officials," NY Times writes, but didn't disclose what the precise changes are.

The report then speculates on where these changes likely focus: "Trump has been concerned about parts of the potential deal that would include unfreezing funds for the Iranians, two officials said."

Iran's Tasnim:

If Trump proposes changes to the draft agreement, Iran will make its own revisions as well.

Nothing is finalized. Iran says it will only accept terms it agrees with and is also prepared for the possibility of no deal. pic.twitter.com/KzWnxlWG8G

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 31, 2026

Citing frustration at the slow pace of Iran's response to the proposals, it adds, "He has been harshly critical of President Barack Obama for doing the same in the more than decade-old agreement that was signed to curtail Iran’s nuclear program."

Tightening the proposals is meant to ratchet up the pressure and 'force' the Islamic Republic to respond quicker and agree to a deal. However, the Iranians have time and again rejected being 'dictated to' by Washington, as its top negotiator Ghalibaf spelled out days ago.

Meanwhile there's been a recent change in tone when talking about Iran's military, from Trump himself:

"We’ve actually left their military alone — people would be surprised to hear that."

President Trump says Iran's military hasn't been hit as aggressively because it's "somewhat moderate" compared to other elements of the regime.

He argues that wiping out "everybody" could cause… pic.twitter.com/gG84lDSrlD

— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 31, 2026 Iran Still Not Budging on Nuclear File

This also comes after a two-hour Friday Situation Room meeting Friday wherein it became clear there was no deal yet to be finalized. According to more from the Times:

The official added that Trump’s changes — a new, tougher proposal — were potentially intended to speed up the process by putting pressure on Iran to accept the framework already sent to Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, for approval.

Reaching the supreme leader has been difficult, so any changes to the document, known as the memorandum of understanding, could mean additional delays.

But for pressure to work, there has to be signs Iranian leaders are getting nervous or desperate - and so far they've not urged Washington or Pakistani mediators for some kind of grand compromise. Instead they've repeatedly sworn that Iran's highly enriched uranium will never be transferred to the possession of the United States.

Iran Decries Constant False 'Speculation'

The Sunday latest from Iran's Foreign Ministry:

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says “dialogue and an exchange of messages are ongoing” with the United States amid stalled negotiations.

He told Iranian news agency IRNA that “it is not possible to judge until a clear conclusion is reached; everything that is being said now is speculation and should not be taken seriously until it is certain”.

Bessent: Iran's 'Big Mistake'

Still, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is busy on the Sunday news shows talking tough. He told Fox in a new interview that Iran made a "big mistake" by attacking its neighbors in the Persian Gulf, within the past week. A US base in Kuwait was also reportedly just attacked by a ballistic missile, which was reportedly intercepted - but falling debris injured five US personnel.

"We had many very good allies who maybe weren't completely transparent with us on the money — Iranian money that was in their banking systems — all of a sudden became very compliant in terms of being willing to turn over accounts or help us freeze block accounts," Bessent told Fox News.

"And then the third part was the incredible blockade. I really think it's the economic blockade of funds and the physical blockade of the ships not going in or out of the Iranian ports," he added. "Kharg Island is shut down. That's their big oil loading facilities, and that means that they're going to have to start taking down the wells," Bessent said. And yet, there's nothing officially disclosed to show this is actually happening - though the Iranians have no incentive to publicize it. But time will tell.

Bessent:

A big mistake that the Iranians made was attacking their GCC neighbors, their neighbors in the Gulf, because we had many very good allies who maybe weren't completely transparent with us on the money, Iranian money that was in their banking systems, all of a sudden… pic.twitter.com/trfonLETXI

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 31, 2026 IDF Plunges Deep into Lebanon, Captures Crusader Castle

Some Lebanon war latest, via Al Jazeera, as ceasefire unravels:

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has “instructed the Israeli military to expand the maneuver in Lebanon” after the occupation of the strategic Beaufort Castle, which he says marks “a dramatic change” in Israel’s operations.

• The Israeli military claims to have killed 900 Hezbollah “terrorists” since the start of the “ceasefire” on April 16. It added that the army had struck dozens of Hezbollah sites since this morning.

• Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has accused Israel of pursuing a “scorched-earth policy” as Israeli forces expand their ground invasion.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 03:10

Interest In Politics Often Ranks Low

Interest in politics varies among countries and for many of the 34 nations surveyed by Statista Consumer Insights between April 2025 and March 2026, politics was in the bottom half of the most frequently named personal interests out of 18 surveyed. The topic ranked lowest in India (16 out of 18), Malaysia (16) and Saudi Arabia (16).

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, the share of respondents naming politics as an interest also varied between countries where it ranked similarly.

You will find more infographics at Statista

For example, 20 percent of French people interested in politics constituted rank 15, while in Mexico rank 13 equated to 27 percent of respondents expressing an interest in politics.

In the United States, 24 percent named politics and current events as an interest of theirs - rank 13 out of 18.

The biggest share of people said they were interested in politics in Brazil and Finland, at 41 percent and 33 percent, respectively.

The topic ranked highest in Germany at rank 7.

Topics that were more popular than politics in all surveyed countries were sports, movies/music/TV, food and dining, as well as health and fitness.

Travel was more popular in all countries except Thailand, where both were tied at 38 percent.

The topic of VIPs and celebrities was consistently less interesting than politics across the board.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 02:45

The Slow Disappearance Of Cash In Europe

Authored by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Under the guise of fighting money laundering, the EU is making anonymous economic activity progressively harder...

Starting in July 2027, Europeans will no longer be allowed to pay businesses or professionals more than €10,000 in cash (roughly $11,500). Any transaction above €3,000 (just under $3,500) will require mandatory customer identification. This is another step toward political uniformity across Europe, stripping countries of autonomy and subtly pushing citizens toward the digital euro.

This measure, part of the new Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), applies directly to all Member States. Under the pretext of fighting money laundering, Brussels is imposing yet another form of forced harmonization that ignores the principle of subsidiarity: the idea that decisions should be made at the level closest to citizens and national governments.

What was once a matter regulated by individual countries is now becoming a uniform mandate from Brussels.

This is a thinly disguised restriction not only on political freedom, but above all on economic freedom. Cash remains one of the last truly private means of exchange still available; unlike digital transactions, cash does not automatically create a centralized record accessible to banks or public authorities.

The use of cash is often associated with the intention to hide illicit activity. Yet the ability to conduct private and discreet transactions is a natural extension of property rights and freedom of contract. Many law-abiding citizens prefer cash for entirely legitimate reasons, including protection against financial instability or potential capital controls.

From that date onward, professionals will be forced to turn every transaction above €3,000 into a bureaucratic process involving identity verification, data collection, and the risk of penalties. This is yet another regulatory imposition that raises the cost of doing business, similar to the introduction of VAT in Europe decades ago, which pushed many small businesses to close their doors or move into the informal economy because of increased bureaucracy and compliance costs. Small entrepreneurs, already pressured by high taxes and excessive red tape, will once again bear the heaviest burden.

What were once simple voluntary exchanges will become sources of additional costs, delays, and state intrusion.

Once again, centralized authorities are creating regulatory complexity under the difficult-to-challenge justification of fighting crime, even though each country already has its own rules in this area.

More liberal countries such as Germany will lose flexibility, since they previously had no general limit on cash payments. The uniformity imposed by Brussels ignores cultural differences, particularly differing levels of trust in institutions. In some countries, cash culture remains deeply rooted, and confidence in digital systems is significantly lower.

This measure represents a gradual erosion of individual autonomy. If using cash becomes increasingly inconvenient for merchants and consumers, people will naturally migrate toward digital payments. Over time, this initially convenient shift will make the introduction of the digital euro far easier.

It is difficult to believe that it is mere coincidence that these restrictions are scheduled to take effect in July 2027 at roughly the same time the European Central Bank (ECB) plans to launch the first pilots of the digital euro. Cash becomes inconvenient and potentially risky at the same time digital money is presented as the practical alternative.

Once the principle is established that the state can limit private cash transactions, there is a strong tendency for those limits to become progressively stricter. European countries themselves demonstrated this pattern when they still controlled these rules nationally. Belgium, for example, steadily lowered its cash payment ceiling over the years to the current €3,000.

The most likely outcome is that the new European-wide limit of €10,000, which may seem relatively high today, will gradually be reduced further until using cash for most significant transactions becomes impractical. In reality, the vast majority of cash transactions are already well below this threshold. According to studies by the ECB, around 81 percent of all point-of-sale payments are below €25, and cash is predominantly used for small everyday purchases. This means that the €10,000 limit will mainly affect legitimate higher-value transactions, such as the payment of certain professional services that many citizens and small businesses still prefer to carry out in cash.

The digital euro, presented as a complement to cash, will arrive at a moment when cash has already been substantially weakened. Unlike cash, this system is traceable, programmable, and potentially subject to holding limits, expiration mechanisms, or usage restrictions.

China has already offered real-world examples. In several pilots of its digital yuan, authorities tested expiration dates on funds, meaning the money would lose its value if not spent by a certain date. This turns money from a reliable store of value into a tool that encourages spending according to government timelines. Such features demonstrate how programmable digital currencies can be used to control economic behavior, punish saving, and steer consumption in line with state priorities.

These are conditions fundamentally incompatible with the freedom that cash provides.

This accelerated yet discreet path toward a fully digital monetary system opens the door to an unprecedented level of financial surveillance and control in European history. By overriding the principle of subsidiarity, it will affect almost the entire continent.

The road to total societal control passes through the restriction of economic freedom.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 02:00

Shutting Down Federal Bee Labs Threatens The US Food System

Authored by Jennie Durant via TheConversation.com,

America’s bees and beekeepers are losing a valuable ally just when they need its help most.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to soon close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, a 6,500-acre agricultural research station in Maryland that is home to the nation’s premier bee research and disease diagnosis hub, the Beltsville Bee Research Lab.

The closure comes at a critical moment for bees. In winter 2025, many beekeepers lost over half their operations as pesticide-resistant varroa mites spread, bringing deadly viruses. The losses have led to low honey production, and soaring fuel costs have made shipping bees cross-country for agricultural pollination increasingly expensive, further stressing the industry.

Beekeeping involves keeping colonies as healthy as possible. Often, beekeepers need help. Allagash Brewing/Flickr, CC BY

During my 14 years researching bees and beekeepers, and in writing my new book, “Bitter Honey: Big Ag’s Threat to Bees and the Fight to Save Them,” I’ve seen beekeepers frequently turn to the USDA bee labs for support during crises like this. Because honey bees contribute roughly US$15 billion to U.S. crop production – native and managed bees pollinate more than 130 crops – these labs help stabilize the nation’s food system.

Today, that scientific support system is at risk, just as beekeepers face their greatest challenges and native bee populations continue to decline.

Why the Beltsville Bee Lab matters

USDA’s bee researchers have served beekeepers for over 130 years, including nearly 90 years at the Beltsville station. One of the Beltsville Bee Lab’s standout services is its bee disease diagnostic service, where beekeepers can send samples for analysis free of charge.

Since the early 2000s, Beltsville researchers have helped beekeepers respond to varroa mites – a primary driver of high colony losses each year. Now, the lab is helping them prepare for a deadlier mite that is infesting honey bees in Asia, Tropilaelaps mercedesae, or “tropi” mites – by developing detection and response protocols that beekeepers can use to protect their colonies.

Varroa mites are the leading source of stress on honey bees, affecting half of all colonies at times. Other major stressors affect large numbers of colonies as well. Farm Doc Daily/University of Illinois

While the Beltsville Bee Lab supports beekeepers nationwide, it’s located in a prime farming and beekeeping region. Its closure would leave a critical research gap in the Northeast, where beekeepers help pollinate cranberries, squash, blueberries and other crops.

Its location has also allowed researchers to conduct extensive studies on winter colony losses, research that would be difficult to replicate at the remaining USDA bee labs, which are primarily located in more temperate climates.

Hidden costs of bee lab closures

The USDA states that it will decommission the entire Beltsville Agricultural Research Center because building maintenance and renovations would cost an estimated $500 million. But closing the lab could cost beekeepers, farmers and consumers far more.

For example, in winter 2025, beekeepers experienced their highest losses in U.S. history. Many opened their colonies in January that year and found that more than 60% of their colonies had died – nearly 1.7 million colonies nationwide. Beekeepers contacted Beltsville, and researchers quickly flew out to test affected colonies for pesticide residues, diseases and varroa mites, data that could help guide beekeepers’ treatment response.

Entomologist Jay Evans explains what the Beltsville Bee Lab does and the diseases bees face.

A few weeks later, as the lab’s scientists were working on the crisis, the Trump administration fired probationary researchers and staff at the bee labs, along with thousands of other employees across the USDA. The Beltsville team was hobbled, and the remaining staff restricted from communicating with beekeepers.

Because of the communication lockdown, it took nearly six months for researchers to deliver their findings. By then, the season was over and beekeepers had been forced to navigate the crisis on their own.

The loss of bee colonies ultimately cost beekeepers an estimated $600 million in lost honey production, pollination income and colony replacement costs – far more than the one-time projected costs to modernize the entire Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

These losses can hit consumer pocketbooks too.

When beekeepers lose nearly half their operations, they often need to charge farmers more for pollination services to stay afloat. Those added costs can ripple through the food system and affect what everyone pays for the fruits, vegetables and nuts that depend on pollinators.

Beekeepers often transport their bees across the country to meet pollination needs and produce honey at different times of year. The map shows the movement of bees out of California to other states in summer and fall. Jennifer K. Bond, et al., USDA Economic Research Service, 2021

More cuts planned to US pollinator research

The Beltsville Bee Lab closure is not an isolated case. The administration has proposed eliminating the U.S. Geological Survey’s Ecosystems Mission Area, a move that could defund the USGS Bee Lab, an essential resource for research on native bees.

It also plans to decommission 16 USGS research centers nationwide, including the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in North Dakota, the highest honey-producing state in the nation. For decades, beekeepers have brought colonies to forage on grasslands in the region. Researchers have been tracking how the shift from grasslands to crops has affected honey bee health and beekeeper revenue.

The U.S. Forest Service also faces widespread cuts, including the planned closure of 57 of its 77 research stations throughout the United States. Since the Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of federal lands that support native plants and pollinators, those closures could affect crucial pollinator habitat as well.

All kinds of bees are valuable for pollinating crops and flowers, not just managed honey bees. Jean Hort/Flickr Creative Commons

These closures risk a severe brain drain.

When the first Trump administration moved the USDA Economic Research Service from Washington to Kansas City, Missouri, in 2019, the agency lost over 75% of its experienced research staff. A recent survey suggests that history may repeat itself. If the reorganization goes through, farmers and beekeepers will lose experts with decades of institutional and technical knowledge.

The Beltsville Bee Lab is a key part of the often-unappreciated federal research infrastructure that supports the health of pollinators and the nation’s food supply.

If the USDA and the USGS move forward with their plans to close bee labs and research sites, the result could be slower responses to bee threats, weaker tracking of native bee populations and diminished pollinator habitat for bees – all of which raise costs and risks for beekeepers, farmers and everyone who depends on the food system.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 23:20

US Officials Suspect Iran Used Chinese Missile To Bring Down F-15E Warplane: Report

Via The Cradle

US officials believe that a Chinese-made shoulder-fired missile was likely used by Iranian forces to shoot down a US F-15E Strike Eagle over southwestern Iran last month, NBC News reported Saturday. 

The incident marks the first time in decades that the US has had to acknowledge that one of its jets was shot down by enemy fire, although three F-15Es were also shot down in Kuwait in March. 

Illustrative, via Reuters/stringer

Washington insists the Kuwait incident was due to 'friendly fire,' even as Iran claims responsibility.

Following the downing of the F-15E in southwestern Iran, the Pentagon allegedly launched a two-day rescue operation to recover the aircraft’s two-man crew, whose names and photos have not yet been made public.

While US officials continue to investigate the specifics of the shootdown, intelligence sources suggest that Beijing may also have provided Tehran with an advanced, long-range early-warning radar, the YLC-8B, designed to track stealth aircraft. 

US President Donald Trump previously said that Chinese President Xi Jinping had personally "promised" him that Beijing would not supply military hardware to Iran, adding, "That’s a beautiful promise. I take him at his word. I appreciated it."

However, reports of Chinese-manufactured man-portable air defense systems, or Manpads, being found on the battlefield have raised questions about those assurances. 

In response to the allegations, the Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a statement rejecting the claims as "groundless smear and ill-intentioned association," saying that "China always acts prudently and responsibly on the export of military products," in accordance with international regulations.

Recent US intelligence indicates that Beijing might be planning to supply more air defense weapons to Iran soon. 

Iran Suspected of Using Chinese-Made MANPADS to Shoot Down U.S. F-15E Fighter pic.twitter.com/nlZTMNV0JR

— Army Recognition (@ArmyRecognition) May 30, 2026

While China has historically provided an economic lifeline and dual-use technology to Iran, US officials noted that previous assistance has not had a "decisive operational impact" on the current conflict.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 22:10

The Democrat Establishment Is Starting To Worry About Spencer Pratt

The last person California Democrats expected to keep them up at night is Spencer Pratt. Yet here we are.

The former reality television personality-turned-independent mayoral candidate has spent the past several weeks doing something that Los Angeles's political establishment convinced itself was impossible: making incumbent Mayor Karen Bass look vulnerable.

Conventional wisdom held that a candidate like Pratt, a former television personality with no governing experience, running as an independent in a deep-blue city, had no realistic path to victory. The conventional wisdom was wrong, or at a minimum, it failed to account for how much patience voters had actually lost with the Democratic Party's incompetence.

At some point, even reliable Democratic constituencies reach a limit for how much they can tolerate. Bass may be finding out precisely where that limit sits.

Between April 19 and May 15, Pratt's campaign has raised roughly $2.7 million. Over that same stretch, Bass pulled in just $282,000. Bass has been raising money since 2024, and her total haul since then is approximately $2.8 million. Pratt nearly matched it in less than a month.

The two candidates are now separated by less than $100,000 in cash on hand, with Pratt sitting on roughly $1.42 million and Bass on approximately $1.32 million.

The money story alone would be enough to rattle the machine. The polls are another story. Pratt has been performing well in the polls, with Bass only leading by single digits in recent surveys, which means Pratt could advance to a runoff with Bass.

In a city where Democratic registration is so overwhelming that Republican candidates don't bother showing up on general election ballots, this is a huge red flag for the Bass campaign.

The Democrat establishment has heard the message loud and clear and is starting to panic. On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an endorsement of Bass - just five days before the primary.

"The work Karen Bass is doing in Los Angeles is making our entire state stronger, with an 18% decline in homelessness while it grew nationally, historic drops in violent crime, boosting film production in L.A., and protecting our communities against ICE. She has my full support for reelection," Newsom said in a statement.

Whatever the merits of the endorsement's substance, its timing speaks for itself. It reeks of desperation.

If no candidate receives a majority on the June 2nd election, a runoff election will be held on November 3rd. Newsom, making an endorsement in the race's final days, is clearly hoping to boost Bass and avoid a runoff.

Pratt was unimpressed by Newsom's 11th-hour endorsement. He responded by calling Newsom and Bass "alleged criminal partners," tying them together through their shared record on the catastrophic January wildfires and the city's homelessness crisis.

"It's not shocking because their alleged criminal partners, not only did they work together in their negligence and burning down 7,000 houses and 12 people alive, but they're both complicit in laundering, what, 24 billion dollars to actually increase homelessness," Pratt said.

He went further, attacking the homelessness statistics Newsom cited and accusing both Newsom and Bass of making them up.

"Those are not real numbers," Pratt insisted. "Anybody with eyeballs in the state of California or Los Angeles knows that there has not been a reduction in one homeless person. Actually, there's been an increase of naked drug addict zombies in front of every kid's playground, every kid's school, every coffee shop."

"They both should be in jail together," he added.

🚨 JUST IN: Spencer Pratt SCORCHES Gavin Newsom for endorsing Karen Bass for re-election

"They both should be in JAIL together."

"They're alleged criminal partners! Not only did they work together in their negligence in burning down 7,000 houses and 12 people alive, but… pic.twitter.com/8KFPuaXYoS

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 28, 2026

A runoff now appears likely, and Pratt heads into it with momentum, money, and a message that is clearly resonating.

November represents more than a municipal race. It's a test of whether California's progressive one-party model can withstand sustained confrontation with its own results.

The Democrat establishment has reason to worry. The polls and the fundraising say so.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 21:45

AI's Coming Reality Check: When The Physics Finally Hits The Hype

Authored by Chris MacIntosh vis InternationalMan.com,

In five years, we’ll all likely be chuckling and shaking our heads over AI. Because today, the tech feels free and limitless, doesn’t it?

People are generating endless content: images, videos, memes, code snippets, social posts. Companies are bolting AI onto products by default, the way every Fortune 500 company suddenly discovered they were “sustainable” five years ago.

There’s much deliberation on AI right now, and it splits into two main camps of thesis:

• The majority — those who will die on its hill of promise, convinced we’re months away from effective altruism, UBI, and sentient toasters.

• And the minority — usually older, more experienced types — who don’t fully understand it, but look at numbers, remember the dot-com bust, and think this rhymes. We’ll leave that debate to the dinner parties.

What interests us is something more boring. Physics. Because here’s the thing: AI isn’t free.

Every token represents electricity. Something your average developer, product manager, user, or investor gives precisely zero thought to.

Electricity means power plants, transmission lines, grid infrastructure — yes. It also means hot sheds; capital-intensive data centres and all the equipment, cooling systems, and real estate that go with them. Real things. Physical things.

We are surrounded by hype without consideration for the physics.

Right now, there’s a disconnect between the physical cost of this technology and the price users pay for it.

That gap is being covered by Wall Street, venture capital, pension funds, hyperscaler balance sheets, and strategic spending on “growth” (a word which here means “losses we’ve chosen to rebrand”).

The question is: what happens when that gap closes?

Scenario 1: The Industry Matures

No outright collapse, but financial discipline arrives. A novel concept in Silicon Valley. Low-value usage disappears first. “AI slop” dies because the people generating junk stop when it costs them actual money. Turns out nobody’s willing to pay real dollars to have a chatbot write their LinkedIn thought leadership posts. Tragic.

Serious users — those deriving profit or genuine productivity gains — remain. Growth slows but doesn’t stop. GPU upgrade cycles stretch from two years to three or five or seven. Valuations compress. The froth comes off but the infrastructure remains important.

The boardroom shifts from “infinite logarithmic growth” to “focus only on what’s profitable.” Less bubble burst, more long, slow leak of disappointment. A bit like ESG.

Scenario 2: Energy as the Arbiter

Now overlay structurally higher energy prices. You know, the thing everyone was told wouldn’t matter because we’d all be running on solar and unicorn farts by now. If power becomes materially more expensive while capital markets tighten simultaneously, the economics get a lot harder.

Inference costs rise. Training LLMs gets hella more expensive. Shareholders start feeling like they’re holding the next NFT apes. Spending slows sharply. Many AI firms disappear. Hyperscalers pull back, maybe with taxpayer assistance (they are, after all, strategically important to those in power — funny how that works).

GPU cycles extend further. Seven-plus years between major upgrades becomes normal outside the top tier. Markets correct hard. Confidence takes a long time to rebuild.

This is not the end of AI, but a reset. Users will fondly remember the “good old days” when it was free. When one could generate a movie scene and post on X about how they just ended a billion-dollar production company’s business model. Peak delusion makes for great content.

Scenario 3: AI Actually Delivers

There is also the upside case, though we admit it’s included here much like a “minority” conspicuously placed on a corporate board — a box-ticking exercise.

In this scenario, AI meaningfully increases productivity across enterprises. It reduces costs durably. It embeds itself in everything from coding to logistics to research. The sentient toaster.

Higher energy prices don’t kill demand because efficiency gains outweigh them. Hardware cycles remain short. Today’s valuations look justified in hindsight and Jensen Huang’s leather jacket gets its own wing at the Smithsonian.

For anyone familiar with us, you’ll know we think this is the most unlikely scenario. And yet it’s by far the consensus view. Which, if you’ve been paying attention to consensus views over the past decade (“inflation is transitory,” “ESG is the future,” “commercial real estate is fine”) should tell you something.

The gap between expectations and likely reality remains wide open. For Insider members, you’re familiar with the portfolio positioning and Nasdaq hedge.

What Really Matters

The key variable isn’t whether AI is impressive or useful (it is). The key variable is whether AI becomes a true profit engine or remains a subsidised cost centre dressed up in a hoodie and a TED talk.

If profitable and productivity-enhancing, current valuations are justified and the gravy train keeps chugging. If it remains mostly hype layered over weak economics, spending contracts, hardware cycles extend, and we could have an absolute humdinger of an economic “event.”

A ten-year stagnation would require something extreme: demand dropping significantly, hyperscalers becoming hyposcalers, capital markets wanting nothing to do with AI, and energy remaining expensive — all at once. Stranger things have happened. Just ask anyone who bought Peloton at $170.

Almost 50 years of history show this eventually reverts to the mean… and the pendulum swings the other way.

*  *  *

The AI boom is just one example of a much larger shift already underway—where economics, politics, energy, and culture are colliding in ways most investors are not prepared for. That’s why we’ve prepared a special report, Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. In it, you’ll discover the key trends unfolding right now, the risks they pose to your money and personal freedom, and what a contrarian money manager believes you could do to stay one step ahead. Get your free copy of Clash of the Systems now.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 21:00

California Chemical Tank Emergency At F-35 Supplier Comes Amid Far-Left Campaign Against Defense Firms

By the end of last week, dozens of lawsuits had been filed against GKN Aerospace after a tank explosion risk at its Garden Grove, California, facility forced 40,000 residents to evacuate the area over Memorial Day weekend.

An apparent malfunctioning storage tank containing methyl methacrylate, a volatile, flammable chemical, sparked fears of an explosion across Garden Grove, Anaheim, Stanton, Buena Park, Cypress, and Westminster.

Local authorities lifted the final evacuation orders last Tuesday after pressure inside the tank stabilized and officials ruled out the worst-case explosion scenario.

While much of this has already been reported, what has not been widely discussed is that GKN Aerospace's Garden Grove facility is part of the critical supply chain that manufactures components for the F-35 stealth fighter jet. This comes as far-left Marxist groups, under the guise of 'Palestine,' have targeted critical nodes of the F-35 supply chain across the West.

See here:

• Far-Left Radicals Attack F-35 Stealth Jet's UK Supply Chain

🚨 Activists Sabotage the Tech That Keeps F-35s From Getting Hit by Missiles

Only hours into 2026, an “autonomous” direct-action group says it broke into Bruntons Aero Products in Musselburgh, outside Edinburgh, and destroyed machinery used to manufacture aerospace components… pic.twitter.com/i8EY6CLboS

— Stu Smith (@thestustustudio) January 1, 2026

GKN's own website states that its Garden Grove production line manufactures the "world-leading F-35 canopy," as well as other advanced military and commercial aircraft transparency systems. This makes the facility deeply embedded in the F-35 supply chain.

This all matters because the chemical emergency at the Garden Grove facility was not just an industrial incident. It may have a profound impact on canopy production for the world's most advanced stealth fighter jet program, while orders for the jet ramp up among U.S. allies.

In recent weeks, Canary Mission claimed on X that Palestine Action and its U.S.-based network, Unity of Fields, had circulated a target map containing personal information and civilian addresses allegedly tied to Israel's defense-industrial base in the US.

Palestine Action, a group known for targeting Israeli defense-linked facilities and recently banned in the UK, published an online “Target Map” containing civilian addresses and personal information allegedly tied to Israel’s defense industry. pic.twitter.com/I8aMZp7dEV

— Canary Mission (@canarymission) May 21, 2026

InfluenceWatch describes Unity of Fields as the former Palestine Action U.S. and says its US branch is focused on "their goal is to dismantle the ability for the Israeli state to carry out its foreign policy objectives by obstructing the facilities that produce arms for Israel."

InfluenceWatch has also reported that Marxist James "Fergie" Chambers, an heir to the Cox Enterprises family fortune, has provided financial support for Palestine Action members.

InfluenceWatch noted, "Palestine Action was created in July 2020. Its opening act was to vandalize the U.K. headquarters of defense contractor Elbit Systems, which conducts business with the State of Israel."

The Garden Grove tank failure has reportedly been blamed on a faulty valve in the cooling system. While that suggests an industrial malfunction, the timing cannot be ignored. Radical left networks have increasingly targeted the F-35 supply chain and defense contractors, placing facilities like GKN's Garden Grove site in the crosshairs of left-wing pro-terror groups.

While no direct link has been established - the incident is likely to be a wake-up call for US defense firms.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 20:25

Monolithic 3D Silicon Chips Achieve Near-Perfect Yields At Low Temperatures

Authored by Neetika Walter via Interesting Engineering,

Researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have developed a way to stack high-performance silicon circuits directly on top of one another, a breakthrough that could help the semiconductor industry keep increasing computing power without shrinking transistors further.

The 200-mm wafer contains multiple silicon layers stacked for monolithic 3D chip integration.University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

The approach tackles one of the biggest challenges facing chipmakers as Moore's law begins to slow. For decades, the industry boosted performance by making transistors smaller and packing more of them onto a chip. But as devices approach fundamental physical limits, further miniaturization is becoming increasingly difficult.

Instead of shrinking components, the Illinois team is building upward. By stacking multiple layers of silicon circuits, engineers can increase transistor density, reduce communication distances inside chips, and improve energy efficiency.

The researchers say their process could accelerate the development of monolithic three-dimensional chips, a long-sought technology that many experts see as the next step in semiconductor scaling.

Building Chips Upward

"Take something as simple as static random-access memory, which is universal in CPUs and GPUs. Today it takes six microelectronic devices called transistors on a single plane to store one bit of information. With vertical integration, you can distribute them across multiple layers. It's like replacing a sprawling suburb with high-rises: you get the same functionality, but the spatial footprint is reduced while making communication between layers faster and more efficient," said Qing Cao, associate professor of materials science and engineering.

While three-dimensional chip technologies already exist commercially, most rely on bonding together separately manufactured wafers. That approach creates relatively large connections between layers and limits how densely components can be integrated.

Monolithic three-dimensional integration takes a different route by building each circuit layer directly on top of the previous one. The method allows much denser vertical connections and more precise alignment between layers, potentially leading to faster and more efficient chips.

The challenge has been temperature. Manufacturing high-performance silicon devices typically requires temperatures approaching 1,000 degrees Celsius. However, once the first layer of circuits and metal wiring is completed, additional layers must remain below about 400 degrees Celsius to avoid damaging existing structures.

To overcome this barrier, the researchers developed a process that transfers ultrathin single-crystalline silicon nanomembranes onto completed circuit layers. The bonding process requires temperatures no higher than 200 degrees Celsius, staying well within the industry's thermal budget.

Beyond Moore's Limits

"Vertical integration is already starting to make its way into commercial devices, particularly in specialized AI hardware, but monolithic integration is what unlocks the full promise of 3D chips. For the first time, we have met the thermal budget of monolithic 3D integration using standard single-crystalline silicon and delivered unprecedented performance," Cao said.

The team also redesigned transistor fabrication to avoid high-temperature processing steps. Instead of conventional transistor structures, they used junctionless transistors that can be prepared before the stacking process begins.

Using the technique, the researchers built three stacked silicon layers containing 625 transistors each. The devices achieved yields between 98% and 100% while delivering performance comparable to standard silicon transistors fabricated at much higher temperatures.

The researchers also demonstrated three-dimensional logic circuits and static random-access memory cells by connecting the layers with vertical metal links.

"But most importantly, we've shown that this process is scalable," Cao said. "You can keep stacking layers beyond the three we demonstrated."

The researchers are now working to transfer the technology into an industrial semiconductor foundry with support from industry partners including IBM, Intel, and TSMC.

The study was published in the journal Nature.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 19:50

Israel Seizes Crusader Beaufort Castle, Marking Deepest Plunge Into Lebanon In Decades

Fresh Sunday reports say that Israel's military has made its deepest plunge into Lebanon in nearly three decades, having captured a strategic crusader castle site and UNESCO World Heritage Landmark, Beaufort castle.

It was last captured in 1982, when the IDF later pushed all the way north to occupy portions of Beirut. The army posted photographic proof via its Arabic spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, who issued an image on X showing Israeli troops walking outside the castle. An Israeli flag has also been raised over the stone fortress complex.

via IDF

The castile overlooks the Litani River, which Israeli forces have been pushing north of, and has stood for nearly 1,000 years - and was at various times used by Crusader knights, Saladin’s Jerusalem army, the Mamlukes, and Ottomans. In the 1980s, fighters from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) even occupied it for a time. The name Beaufort is Old French for "beautiful fortress."

Soon the heels of the historic site's capture, the IDF repeated a warning to everyone south of the Zahrani, saying they must evacuate or else face the possibility of coming under attack and thus death or injury.

"Anyone present near Hezbollah elements, facilities or means of combat endangers their life," an IDF spokesman said. The castle appears to have been shelled by the IDF before the final ground assault.

According to more details via The Times of Israel:

Troops took over territory in the Beaufort Ridge and Wadi Saluki stream area and expanded strikes north of the Litani River after the Hezbollah terror group fired multiple rockets and drones at Israel on Saturday afternoon and evening, forcing schools near the border with Lebanon to close on Sunday.

Footage from Sunday morning showed Israeli and IDF flags flying over the citadel, a strategic medieval Crusader-built fortress with symbolic importance in the history of Israel’s military entanglements in Lebanon. Shelling was audible and smoke rose from the surrounding area.

The fortress, also known as Qalaat al-Shakif, commands sweeping views of the Galilee Panhandle in northern Israel, as well as the Nabatieh area in southern Lebanon, making it a position of considerable strategic value.

Footage of IDF forces taking Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/D8Vr0qVfQH

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 31, 2026

The day prior to the takeover, northern Israel had come under heavy Hezbollah rocket and drone attack. These rocket waves have been stepped up as it's become clear the Lebanon ceasefire has effectively collapsed.

The past week has seen hundreds of projectiles fired on southern Lebanon. Gong back to early March, over 3,180 Lebanese have been killed, with more than 9,000 wounded - according to Lebanese health officials. The figures do not distinguish between armed combatants or civilians.

Critics of Israel have warned that Netanyahu is trying to sabotage Trump's efforts to find a final peace deal with Iran. The Israelis have long worried that Washington could in the end settle for a 'bad deal' - or one that doesn't ensure the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program and highly enriched uranium.

Lebanon’s LBCI airs footage of the flags of Israel and Sayeret Golani flying over Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon, north of the Litani River. pic.twitter.com/wCsqvQ6Ue1

— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) May 31, 2026

The US-mediated truce was really only something that was meant to prevent Israel from bombing Beirut and other government centers once again.

Washington has been trying to put the pressure on the Lebanese government and national army to finally disarm Hezbollah - but this has remained unrealistic as the army is weak and underfunded (ironically in part due to limitations imposed by the US).

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 19:15

The End Of Digital Trust: How Quantum Computing Could Upend Security, Business, & Global Stability

Authored by Julio Rivera via American Greatness,

The scariest technology threats are usually the boring ones. Not the giant killer robots. Not the science fiction stuff. Not the dramatic movie scenes where somebody in sunglasses launches cyberattacks from a glowing underground bunker while alarms blare in the background. The truly dangerous threats arrive quietly. Q-Day falls squarely into that category.

To most people, the phrase sounds like something Netflix would slap on a conspiracy thriller thumbnail. In reality, it refers to the moment quantum computers become powerful enough to break the encryption systems that protect modern digital life. And when cybersecurity experts talk about this possibility, they don’t sound excited. No, they sound exhausted—because they know how unprepared much of the world still is.

Encryption is the invisible architecture underneath almost everything people interact with daily. Online banking. Cloud storage. Corporate systems. Government communications. Military operations. Healthcare records. Financial transactions. Satellites. Power infrastructure. Nearly every digital system that matters relies on cryptographic protections developed for a pre-quantum world.

That world is running out of time. Experts increasingly warn that quantum computing breakthroughs are advancing faster than expected, while organizations remain painfully slow to adapt. And corporate leadership still doesn’t fully grasp the seriousness of what’s coming.

A lot of companies approach cybersecurity the way people approach oil changes. They know they’re supposed to deal with it eventually, but they’d rather postpone the expense until smoke starts coming out of something important. Meanwhile, cybercriminals and hostile governments are operating several moves ahead.

The phrase “harvest now, decrypt later” has become one of the most alarming concepts in modern cybersecurity. Adversaries are already stealing encrypted information today with the expectation that future quantum systems will eventually crack the protections surrounding it.

That means the threat isn’t waiting for some future technological milestone. The threat has already started. And the scope of what’s potentially vulnerable is staggering. Intellectual property. Trade secrets. Proprietary AI systems. Pharmaceutical research. Defense communications. Infrastructure schematics. Diplomatic cables. Financial data. Internal corporate strategy. Decades of archived encrypted communications that organizations assumed would remain secure indefinitely.

A lot of executives still imagine cyberattacks as noisy smash-and-grab operations. Ransom notes. Locked systems. Flashing warnings. But some of the most effective compromises are almost embarrassingly subtle.

“Stealer” malware remains devastatingly efficient in the current cyber landscape, quietly extracting passwords, session cookies, authentication credentials, browser data, crypto wallets, and sensitive company access without triggering major alarms. Fake file deletion warnings and fraudulent system compromise messages still trick countless ordinary users into handing over access voluntarily. Some of the oldest scams in the book continue working because panic overrides common sense faster than any firewall can react.

Quantum computing doesn’t replace those existing threats; it magnifies them. And the implications extend far beyond corporate cybersecurity budgets.

If hostile governments achieve practical quantum decryption capabilities before widespread migration to post-quantum cryptography occurs, global security dynamics could shift dramatically overnight. Military communications, intelligence systems, satellite infrastructure, weapons logistics, and secure diplomatic channels all potentially become vulnerable in ways modern governments have never fully experienced before.

That kind of uncertainty changes how nations behave. Secure communications aren’t just a convenience for modern governments; they are foundational to deterrence, alliances, military coordination, intelligence operations, and geopolitical stability itself. Once nations begin doubting the integrity of those systems, mistrust escalates rapidly.

Which is why the recent diplomatic summit between China and the United States should have produced far more discussion about continuing to modernize the increasingly outdated 1979 science and technology agreement between the two countries. That framework belongs to an era before cyber warfare, before AI competition, before semiconductor dependency battles, and certainly before the looming quantum race currently shaping long-term national security strategy.

The technological relationship between global superpowers is no longer some side issue tucked away in academic policy circles. It is the policy circle.

And while governments maneuver strategically, private industry continues lagging dangerously behind. Many companies still rely on fragmented security practices, aging infrastructure, weak endpoint protection, and reactive cyber strategies designed for a threat environment that no longer exists. The time to improve cyber resilience started long ago.

The timeline problem makes everything worse. Migrating critical systems toward quantum-resistant cryptography takes years. Large enterprises often don’t even have complete inventories of where vulnerable encryption exists across their networks.

So, while the public still treats quantum computing like futuristic science fiction, cybersecurity professionals are staring at calendars.

Because unlike Y2K, there may not be one dramatic moment where everybody suddenly realizes the danger has arrived.

Instead, the erosion could happen gradually.

Silent infiltration. Invisible interception.

Archived communications quietly unlocked years later. Competitive advantages disappearing without obvious explanation. State actors obtaining access to sensitive information nobody ever imagined could be exposed.

That’s the nightmare scenario. Not chaos. Not collapse. Simply the slow realization that the digital locks humanity built around its most sensitive information no longer work the way everyone assumed they did.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 18:40

Berkshire Buys Taylor Morrison For $6.8 Billion In First Big Deal Under Greg Abel

Less than a month after we mused at Berkshire's most recent cash hoard which as of March 31 stood just shy of $400 billion, and wondered who Warren Buffett's replacement Greg Abel will acquire first...

... we got the answer on Sunday afternoon, when Berkshire announced it will acquire homebuilder Taylor Morrison Home Corp. in an all-cash deal worth about $6.8 billion. Which means that after the deal, Berkshire still has $390 billion in T-bills collecting about 3.5%. 

The offer of $72.50 per common share represents a 24% premium to the home builder’s latest closing price on Friday. The deal is expected to close in the second half of this year.

Taylor Morrison is one of the largest community developers and homebuilders in the US and also offers financial services like home loans, titles, escrow and insurance to consumers, according to the statement. The firm has more than 350 communities across 12 states. The existing Taylor Morrison management team, including Chief Executive Officer Sheryl Palmer, will continue to lead the firm, according to the statement.

“We are excited to welcome Taylor Morrison into Berkshire’s portfolio,” Greg Abel, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, said in a statement Sunday. “Over time, we expect to unify our site-built homebuilding operations into a combined platform enabling us to deliver the dream of homeownership to more Americans.”

This is the first multibillion-dollar acquisition under Abel, who took over Berkshire Hathaway earlier this year after Warren Buffett retired last year.  While investors have been satisfied with Abel’s command over the sprawling conglomerate, some have been hoping that a deal could support Berkshire’s shares, which fell 5.6% so far this year, largely due to Berkshire's lack of exposure to the AI bubble. The S&P 500 index gained 10.7% in the same period.

It is unclear if the deal signals that Abel believes the bottom for the US housing market is coming, or if Berkshire is buying a homebuilder during a brutal housing labor shortage, giving companies like Taylor Morrison operating leverage despite sky high mortgage rates. In any case, while millions of Americans have been hoping and praying that 8% mortgage will crash the housing market - which has never been more unaffordable - and allow them to enter at lower price, the investor with the biggest cash pile in history just bought a builder outright with cash from under the rug, as a three million home supply deficit clearly overrides the soaring cost of capital. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 17:40

Oil's Peace Dividend Is Real, But Normalization Is Not A Light Switch

Authored by Stephen Innes via The Dark Side Of The Boom,

• Markets can remove geopolitical risk premium far faster than physical energy systems can recover.

• The real post-war story may be strategic reserve rebuilding rather than simply falling oil prices.

• Canada's emerging Pacific LNG corridor highlights how Asia is increasingly seeking supply routes that bypass Hormuz altogether.

• The shift from efficiency to resilience could become one of the most important structural drivers of oil and LNG demand over the coming decade.

• The U.S.-Iran war may eventually end, but the infrastructure and energy-security investments it triggers could shape global markets for years to come.

Normalization Is Not A Light Switch

The market is increasingly behaving as though the U.S.-Iran war is ending and the oil market is about to return to normal. I suspect that view is only half right. The war may indeed be moving toward its final chapters, but the physical energy system does not heal as quickly as financial markets.

Traders can reprice risk in minutes, while tankers, inventories, insurance markets, refinery supply chains, LNG terminals, pipelines, export infrastructure, and strategic reserves move on an entirely different clock. That distinction may ultimately become one of the defining energy trades of the next 12 months because while markets are already beginning to price the end of the conflict, they are nowhere close to pricing what comes next.

Financial markets are discounting machines. They do not wait for events to occur; they attempt to price conditions months into the future. Once traders become convinced that the probability of a prolonged disruption to the Hormuz disruption is fading, the risk premium embedded in crude prices begins to evaporate immediately. Long positions accumulated during the height of the conflict are reduced. Hedges are unwound. Volatility sellers return. Systematic funds reverse positioning.

The market begins trading the world it expects to exist rather than the one that exists today. That process is already underway, which is why crude can fall sharply long before the physical market has actually recovered. But reopening Hormuz and normalizing the oil market are two entirely different events, and I think investors are increasingly at risk of conflating them.

Think of the global energy system as a giant circulatory network. Hormuz is one of its major arteries. Reopening the artery is critical, but it does not instantly restore the patient's health. During the conflict, the world did not simply lose supply. It consumed inventories as a substitute for supply. According to the IEA, global oil inventories suffered extraordinary drawdowns as the crisis unfolded.

March alone saw roughly 129 million barrels disappear from storage, followed by another 117 million barrel draw in April. Combined, nearly a quarter billion barrels were removed from global stockpiles in just two months. At the same time, global supply losses reached an estimated 12.8 million barrels per day, while Gulf production remained roughly 14.4 million barrels per day below pre-war levels. Those are not the statistics of a market that can simply flip a switch and return to equilibrium.

They are the statistics of a market that has been living off its emergency reserves.

That is why I believe many investors are focusing on the wrong milestone. The real question is not when Hormuz reopens. The real question is what happens after it reopens. Even if shipping resumes tomorrow, producers still need time to restore output. Tankers must be repositioned. Export schedules need rebuilding. Insurance markets require confidence that transit routes are secure. Refiners must recalibrate supply chains after months of operating under emergency conditions.

The entire logistical ecosystem needs time to regain rhythm. History consistently shows that restoring physical flows takes far longer than restoring access.

The tanker market itself offers an important clue. Many investors assume vessel traffic will immediately return to pre-war levels, but shipowners, insurers, cargo traders, and refiners are unlikely to behave with complete confidence simply because a ceasefire is announced. Months of elevated risk have changed behaviour. Insurance premiums remain elevated. Security assessments remain cautious. Commercial decisions tend to lag political headlines.

In fact, the first weeks following a reopening may actually produce temporary bottlenecks as vessels rush to move cargoes simultaneously. Freight rates could remain elevated even as crude prices fall, creating a market dynamic that appears contradictory on the surface but is entirely consistent with a system transitioning from crisis toward recovery. Markets may celebrate peace while the physical supply chain is still untangling months of disruption.

Yet even that may prove to be only the first chapter of the post-war story. The consensus view assumes that Asia will simply return to business as usual once the Hormuz reopens. I think that assumption misses the deeper lesson of this conflict. If there is one thing policymakers across Asia have learned over the past several months, it is that energy security can no longer be treated as a background issue.

Just as Europe never looked at Russian gas the same way after Ukraine, Asia may never look at its dependence on Middle Eastern energy the same way after Hormuz.

This is where I think the market is missing the next major theme entirely. Most investors are focused on falling oil prices, but the more important development may be what governments do after prices fall. The first phase of normalization is the removal of the geopolitical risk premium. The second phase is rebuilding commercial inventories. The third phase is strategic stockpiling.

The fourth phase is a multi-year energy-security buildout that could reshape energy demand and infrastructure investment across Asia for years to come. In other words, the market is pricing peace while potentially overlooking the structural consequences of the war itself.

For decades, governments optimized their energy systems for efficiency. Inventories were minimized. Storage costs were reduced. Supply chains were streamlined. The assumption was that global markets would always provide sufficient supply when needed. Hormuz shattered that assumption. Policymakers have now witnessed firsthand what happens when a single geopolitical chokepoint threatens the flow of energy to billions of people.

When governments experience a shock of that magnitude, they rarely conclude they need fewer reserves. They almost always conclude they need more.

China is perhaps the clearest example. Beijing was already expanding strategic petroleum reserves before the conflict, but the war has likely reinforced the urgency of that effort. Japan is expanding LNG storage capacity while reassessing its broader energy-security framework. South Korea is reviewing reserve policies and pursuing deeper regional energy cooperation. India continues expanding both crude storage and LNG import capacity.

Across Southeast Asia, governments are increasingly asking how many days of import protection they truly need in a world where energy security can disappear overnight.

But the story does not stop at inventories.

What makes this cycle different from previous oil shocks is that governments are increasingly responding not only by storing more energy but by redesigning how energy reaches them in the first place. The lesson many Asian policymakers appear to have taken from the U.S.-Iran war is that diversification is no longer simply an economic choice. It is becoming a national security requirement.

That realization is already beginning to reshape global energy infrastructure. For years, Canada possessed some of the world's largest natural gas reserves but lacked the infrastructure to export it efficiently to Asia. Western Canadian gas was largely trapped by geography, forced to flow south into North America rather than west across the Pacific. Today, that is changing.

The completion of Coastal GasLink and the launch of LNG Canada on British Columbia's Pacific Coast have created a direct energy corridor linking the Montney shale basin to Asian consumers. Additional projects such as Cedar LNG, Woodfibre LNG, and Ksi Lisims LNG could substantially expand Canada's export capacity over the coming decade.

The significance extends well beyond supply growth. A cargo leaving Kitimat reaches North Asia faster than many competing export routes and, more importantly, bypasses Hormuz entirely. For buyers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Thailand, and Southeast Asia, that is becoming a strategic advantage rather than merely a logistical one. The market keeps asking when Middle Eastern supply returns. Policymakers are increasingly asking how to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern supply altogether.

Viewed through that lens, the post-war story is no longer simply about rebuilding inventories. It is about building redundancy. China is expanding storage. Japan is expanding LNG infrastructure. South Korea is strengthening energy-security partnerships. India is increasing import flexibility. Canada is building export capacity. Utilities across Asia are locking in longer-term supply agreements. The common thread is resilience.

In many respects, this resembles what happened after the 1973 oil embargo. The crisis itself eventually faded, but the infrastructure decisions it triggered lasted for decades. Strategic petroleum reserves were created. Pipelines were built. Storage facilities expanded. Import routes diversified. Energy policy changed permanently. The same process may now be unfolding across Asia.

The U.S.-Iran war may eventually fade from the headlines, but the infrastructure investments it has triggered could shape global energy flows for the next generation.

The result is that the next source of oil and gas demand may not come from consumers driving more or factories producing more. It may come from governments buying more. Every barrel that enters a strategic reserve is a barrel removed from the spot market. Every LNG cargo redirected to storage is unavailable for immediate consumption.

Viewed through that lens, reopening Hormuz may not immediately trigger the inventory rebuild many traders expect because governments themselves could become among the largest buyers in the market. The same countries that spent the war drawing down inventories may now spend years rebuilding and expanding them.

The LNG side of the equation may be even more significant. Unlike crude oil, LNG inventories are generally smaller and less flexible. Many Asian economies maintain relatively limited emergency gas reserves. The experience of both the European gas crisis and the disruption in Hormuz has accelerated discussions around strategic LNG storage, additional regasification terminals, expanded reserve facilities, diversified import infrastructure, and longer-term supply agreements.

The conversation is no longer simply about securing the cheapest molecule. It is increasingly about securing the most reliable one.

There is another layer that markets may be overlooking. The coming decade is expected to see enormous growth in electricity demand driven by AI infrastructure, data centres, semiconductor manufacturing, and digital industrialization. Across much of Asia, LNG is expected to remain a critical bridge fuel supporting that expansion. Governments are not merely trying to secure energy for today's economy. They are increasingly trying to secure energy for tomorrow's AI economy.

Strategic stockpiling, infrastructure expansion, and structural demand growth may soon be pointing in the same direction.

This is why I remain cautious about the simplistic view that oil will simply collapse back to pre-war levels and stay there. Yes, the geopolitical risk premium can disappear quickly. Yes, tanker traffic can improve. Yes, physical flows can recover.

But simultaneously, inventories must be rebuilt, strategic reserves expanded, LNG security frameworks strengthened, storage facilities constructed, pipelines developed, export routes diversified, and governments across Asia will seek redundancy where previously they sought efficiency. The irony is that the market is currently celebrating the potential end of the war while largely ignoring the structural demand it may have created.

Ultimately, I think the market is still looking at this through a trader's lens, when it should increasingly look at it through a policymaker's lens. Traders see peace and immediately calculate how much risk premium can be extracted from the barrel. Governments see the same peace and begin calculating how many additional barrels and LNG cargoes they need to secure before the next crisis arrives. Those are not the same calculations, and they point toward very different futures.

That is why I believe the oil market is entering a far more complicated phase than many investors appreciate. The peace dividend may arrive quickly. The normalization dividend may take months. But the energy-security dividend, driven by reserve rebuilding, strategic stockpiling, LNG infrastructure expansion, pipeline development, and a region-wide reassessment of supply vulnerability, may take years to fully unfold.

By the time markets recognize that distinction, the next great source of energy demand may already be underway. The U.S.-Iran war may be ending, but the race to secure energy for the next one may just be beginning.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 17:30

What Are Americans Most Worried About?

Statista’s Consumer Insights survey has been tracking which issues adults in the United States consider to be the most important in the country right now, and how they have shifted over time.

The following chart, via Statista's Anna Fleck, provides just a snapshot of these, listing the eight most cited concerns out of a possible 20 options, in the most recent survey wave as well as in the survey wave at the start of the pandemic.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Where health and social security came first in the earlier iteration, likely in reference to Covid-19, it had dropped by eight percentage points by 2025/26.

In the meantime, inflation and the cost of living has risen from third position to first position (+9 p.p).

Other notable changes include a drop in the share of people citing immigration in the latest wave and an increase in the share of people picking housing (previously in rank 14 at 22 percent).

Six of the eight most recent most pressing issues are social, with the sole environmental topic of climate change having dropped off the list, coming in 14th position with 23 percent of respondents picking it, following issues such as education (rank nine), corruption (rank 10) and food and water security (rank 11).

As this chart shows, poverty is now on the minds of more U.S. adults, at least more imminently, than before.

Where it had previously tied in 9th position with education in 2019/20 with a 32 percent share of respondents picking it as one the most important issues facing the country at that time, the share had risen to 33 percent in the latest survey wave.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 16:55

Fighting While Talking, Horses And Security

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Fighting While Talking, Horses, and Security

Some quick updates on recent themes. The latest on Iran is front and center, and if you missed this week’s Around the World, it is worth a look. Not just an Iran update, but we also cover Cuba, Russia/Ukraine, the China Summit, and Nigeria (I certainly need to get more up to speed on Africa). We will examine Universal Basic Income and the Job Market in the section we have decided to label Horses. While it feels like we’ve been talking about ProSec in one shape or form for well over a year (because we have), rather than getting “long in the tooth” it is just starting to get traction.

Fighting While Talking

The definition of “ceasefire” is what both sides make of it. It is easy to think of a “ceasefire” as being as simple as both sides “cease firing” at each other, but that is not how it works in the real world.

The concept of continuing attacks (typically but not always limited in scope) while discussing agreements has gone on since people first started picking up rocks and throwing them at each other. From a U.S. perspective, it was an explicit policy of Nixon and Kissinger when dealing with North Vietnam. Negotiate in Paris. Bomb away in Vietnam.

As the much anticipated announcement after Friday’s “situation room” meeting failed to materialize, we are reading of reports of Iran attacking U.S. bases in Kuwait. This, of course, from an Iranian perspective, is in response to some U.S. attacks last week in Bandar Abbas and in the Strait of Hormuz.

We can only assume negotiations are ongoing, as neither side seems prepared to go back to a higher level of military activity, so this is merely both sides reminding the other that they could go that way, if they wanted to.

Also, from our GIG, it has become very clear that the U.S. blockade of the Strait surprised Iran and created leverage that the initial military attacks had not.

The only thing I can say about the negotiations is that I think most people have become, at best, tired of the endless stream of “we are close” announcements. We’ve lost track of how many times markets have rallied on such announcements (often, but not always in the form of social media posts). At worst, there is a cynicism growing that the announcements are merely political attention-seeking moments, coupled with an “opportunity” to trade. The number of people who immediately search the prediction market sites, or look for large trades in oil or stock futures to see if there is some sort of “confirmation” that the headline is new and real, is almost staggering.

While the front end of the crude oil futures market (which is not the same contract as when this war started) responds very well to peace deal announcements, the longer end of the curve is not as responsive. I’ve been picking the January 2027 WTI contract because it is WTI (so it benefits from U.S. energy independence and it is 2027). It is still $77. Below its high of $83, but not much below. It didn’t get above $77 for the first time until late March. This was below $60 prior to the war. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying Higher For Longer On Energy Prices.

The consensus is that we will not see serious re-escalation, but both the U.S. and Iran seem to be having difficulty in framing a deal as a victory (Iran, because it has been hit hard, and the U.S. because we seem to have moved a long way from “unconditional surrender”).

The one thing that I think is starting to sink in is that higher for longer on energy is real, even with a deal, and that is problematic for a world struggling with affordability.

Horses

What the heck are we talking about horses for? What do horses have to do with anything, let alone AI? We have seen commencement speeches where college graduates have booed the mention of AI. We had the rather unfortunate (in my opinion) term “lower value human capital” enter the lexicon. My editors cringe at some of the things I write and say, but wow!

Not surprisingly, we have seen many in the industry downplay the risks to jobs. Even some leaders who until recently had predicted job losses, especially for white-collar employees, reversed course and are now predicting hiring based on increased efficiencies.

I think the jury is still out on this. There are some examples that I’ve seen that seem to indicate the potential for employment growth.

• One story I’ve seen, but didn’t track down for the report is “AI’s ability to analyze X-rays has led to more radiologists.” Seems plausible and certainly fits the efficiency story (though there may be other reasons we have more radiologists).
• Another report that was circulated, and that I found on social media, discussed how the number of tellers in the U.S. rose even with the introduction of ATMs. You can find the post on Twitter by searching for AI ATM Tellers. This was passed around as an example of how people (tellers in this case) adapt to new technology and become more efficient. The reason I did not include a link to this idea is because I think it is quite flawed and did not feel like starting a fight. It did not normalize for a large growth in the number of people working in the U.S. during the phase that ATMs were rolled out, presumably creating greater need for banking. It didn’t discuss that during the first 20 years of the ATM, the GDP of the U.S. quintupled. It was also a period where suburbia grew. I would argue that if you controlled for the number of people who needed accounts, the increasing complexity of personal finances, and the shift in population, this probably more than accounts for why tellers didn’t fare as badly as initially feared with the introduction of ATMs. Anyway, I’ve ranted too much on this subject, but I think it is important that we think critically about what various technologies have or have not done for employment.

Buggy whip manufacturers. If you take an introductory business school class you will likely hear about the “plight” of buggy whip manufacturers.

A great business until the advent of the automobile. The automobile, over a relatively short period of time, destroyed this business. But the automobile was great! The automobile companies did spectacularly well! (Though many of the early, even well-known ones failed, but that is a concept for another day). The country did well as the automobile (and trucking) reshaped the economy for the better! Isn’t this the perfect example of how a new, efficient technology drives growth and jobs as a whole, even if some sectors lose?

• But what about the horses? According to Grok, there were over 25 million horses and mules in the U.S. around 1920. The “horses” were “employed” on farms and for urban transport. Recent estimates put the horse population at under 7 million today. Now, the horses that are alive today are mostly for recreation, sport, and breeding, rather than working. Far fewer horses today, but those horses that are around live the life of Riley compared to what their ancestors lived.
  • If AI is like what automobiles were to humans, we are in for a great ride!
  • If AI is like what automobiles were to horses, we could be in some trouble, though those left working should be in great shape!
    • I’m probably more in the first camp, but this technology seems very different (or maybe it just seems very different as it is applied directly in areas I know and deal with?). I don’t want to think that we might be the first population that is “creating our own extinction event,” but I have read too much sci-fi to keep that thought completely at bay.

In any case, if anyone reading this can even entertain these thoughts, you know that politicians will try to find ways to capture that animosity. My assumption is that the “control group” of people reading the T-Report are all exploring AI. All trying to figure out how to use it. Many, including myself and Academy Securities, are benefiting from the growth of AI. Data centers, AI, and chips are a core part of ProSec but I can see the rising angst playing out in real time.

Politicians interfering with the industry may become a risk to growth and profitability. It isn’t there yet (this admin is extremely supportive of not just the AI growth, but also the electricity generation and transmission to power the industry). Which might be the perfect time to bring up this little section, that doesn’t quite fit into this theme directly, but seems relevant.

• Keep an eye on South Korea. We are seeing a wave of “AI bonuses” being paid. This is being paid to employees of companies who are doing well because of the boom in AI and data centers (chips, memory etc.). That is the “norm” in the U.S. but sounds like it is unusual in South Korea. The stories probably wouldn’t have attracted my attention at all, since it is so logical from a U.S. perspective, but this is a country that just a couple of weeks ago had started to see political figures discuss paying the citizens from the profits/tax revenues generated by the AI success story – which seems like a potential “slippery slope” way of introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI). Or I guess if you are an advocate of UBI, the potential launching point for a much-needed wealth redistribution.

I recently spoke at a conference for risk management (primarily for large financial institutions). I discussed with the conference organizer the number of AI, cyber, and agentic AI presentations. It seemed like about half the conference was focused on those subjects. The organizer confirmed that was correct and was about the same as the prior year, when they really made a big effort to steer the conference in that direction. What was interesting though was that in 2025, the audience was enthusiastic to learn so much. That it was a relatively new area and the topic resonated. While they have yet to receive final feedback from this year’s conference, the initial feedback was that people wanted case studies and examples, not just high-level perspectives. Everyone knows and is trying to use these technologies (at work and at home). No one needs to be told how important they are. How rapidly they are growing. Just take one look at the stock market and you know that. What people wanted to know this year is how the heck are people using them and what is their experience! I found that interesting and it resonates with me, as I’m probably in that same camp. Some successes mixed with sometimes wondering why I bothered trying AI in the first place. I don’t know what this shift means, but it is interesting (and may explain why AI trainers are getting paid boatloads of money ).

If this seems a little more like thinking out loud than having a strong opinion, that’s because it probably is. But thinking out loud seems like a good way to get our hands around this amazing evolution.

Going Production for Security

We finished a great week of meetings in London this past week. I heard a little bit too much about “defense” bonds and a little too little about ProSec bonds for my tastes (Mike Rodriguez, Academy’s Head of Sustainable Finance, has a great deck on the concept). I’m just kidding about that (not the deck, which is great, but that I heard too much about defense bonds).

Europe is shifting towards security and resiliency rapidly

We could drone on and on about how much things have changed in Europe’s positioning on ESG and how quickly they are moving to something that aligns itself with ProSec but it is the end of a short, but tricky week in markets, so we won’t belabor you with details.
What we will do, instead, is present what Treasury Secretary Bessent (@SecScottBessent) put out in a tweet on Friday (the bold is my handiwork):

• For too long, our political class treated efficiency as a substitute for resilience, and consumption as a measure of prosperity.
• Trade policy, industrial capacity, and national security are inseparable. And to allow foreign dependencies to degrade any one of those domains is to allow them to define America’s future. Under @POTUS’ leadership, we are rebuilding domestic production to restore American sovereignty.

I admit there is a lot of politics in his statement, more than I would like, but it does highlight and encapsulate more of what we have been saying and writing about on ProSec.

I do think there is a LOT MORE ROOM to work with close allies and neighbors than this statement hints at, but that will evolve over time, even with the current administration.

In a fireside chat with the CEO of a player in the energy industry, I latched on to the concept that Canada of all places, might be given one of the rare opportunities for a “do over.” Say 15 years ago, both the U.S. and Canada were well positioned to grow their LNG business. The U.S. did so and is reaping the dividends from that! Canada got mired in regulation and has been pretty much left in the starting blocks. But now, with the world looking for alternatives to the Middle East, Canada has been given another chance to get out of the gate and try to take advantage of the shifting needs.

While I already chafe, a little, at the U.S. admin’s rhetoric that comes across as America Only, that is not how Europe sees it. In part Europe doesn’t have an abundance of all the natural resources they might need, so they will be forced to work with trusted partners. The U.S. can and will be a part of that, but semantics and talking points do matter over time. New alliances will be formed or solidified and there is a great opportunity, across the globe, to join in the ProSec theme (I almost said movement, because that is a bit political, but…)

• Here is a link to ProSec 2026 if you haven’t seen it or want a refresh.
• If you have interest in seeing our thoughts on the framework for a ProSec Bond, feel free to reach out to your coverage officer at Academy.

We are in the early stages of shifting from one stable order (rules-based with China flaunting the rules, to another, with more (but not total) independence). See Molotov Cocktails.

Bottom Line

This coming week we should:

• Learn more about the status between the U.S. and Iran. In either case, I think the higher for longer theme for energy prices will sink in and start to price itself into markets even more than it already has.
• Get some more clarity on the job market (within the kind of insanely large margins for error that we just somehow learn to deal with).

I’m sticking with the view that we have a tale of two economies: the AI, data center, and chip economy vs the Affordability economy. They are intertwined, with some degree of overlap.

• The AI/Data Center/Chip economy is okay for jobs for now (the building of data centers and the infrastructure to support them creates a lot of jobs). It has been GREAT for stock market indices.
• The affordability economy is a drag on some consumption and confidence. This part of the economy is sucking more households into it, here and abroad, and that is not good.

Bond yields have dropped in the past week, which has been good and in no small part has been helped by the ongoing barrage of “open the Strait” headlines.

I expect that to reverse course as we are near the bottom end of the range on 10s and I am now fully in the camp that 10s hit 5% before they hit 4%. Any effort to cut rates by the Fed, given the current state of economic data, would likely end up in higher long-end bond yields, because it is increasingly difficult to come up with a narrative to support a cut. That is a very different view than I had before the war started (and some big headline NFP job numbers were released).

It would be nice to get some resolution with Iran so we can move back to all the usual uncertainties like spending, jobs, AI, inflation, the Fed, etc.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 16:20

The New Yorker Thinks Patriotism Is "Problematic"

In a meandering essay name dropping every dress-to-impress academic figure from Voltaire to Alexis de Tocqueville to Howard Zinn, The New Yorker has set out on a quest to explain how the progressive left can essentially despise the country they live in the name of social justice, while also adopting the perks of "patriotism" so they can own the Chuds.

The publication throws around some curious stats and asserts that patriotism is on the decline because, as they argue, patriotism today requires people to be blind to the injustices of the past.  They note:

"...We seem to be in a down moment. A Gallup poll found that, in the past dozen years, the percentage of people in the U.S. who say that they’re “extremely proud to be American” has plunged by sixteen points. A recent Harris poll noted that roughly four in ten Americans have considered relocating outside the country, with younger Americans even more inclined..."

"Last May, Newsweek published an article with the melancholy headline “Why Dual Citizenship Is the New American Dream.” Some commentators ascribe this to financial prudence, but the trend dates back at least to 2016 and the election of Donald Trump..."

Trump, the ever present and useful bogeyman, is obviously to blame.  The New Yorker, of course, glosses over the fact that the majority of the people who feel "less patriotic" in that Gallup poll are Democrats who are highly indoctrinated by establishment media to obsess over "historical injustices."  The outlet applauds the decline, in a way.  It's rooted in the same old DEI and 1619 Project talking points that the woke media has been peddling for over a decade. 

"Patriotism just isn’t cool anymore. Wokeness, having rightly called attention to racial and gender injustices long endemic to American life, helped chill the left’s admiration for the nation..."    

"Ours is a complicated history, made more tortuous by race. Some five hundred Indigenous nations lived here before the first enslaved Africans arrived, in 1619 - a year before the first Pilgrims. That, too, is American history, along with Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, the Great Migration, Black anger, Black humor, and Black culture. This isn’t wokeness; it’s fact. 

Trump’s America has the virtue of simplicity: no initial divisions; no loyalists and patriots, or Native peoples and settlers, or Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He’s not bothered by labor unrest, unfair imprisonment, white-nationalist undercurrents..."

Yes, it is wokeness, and The New Yorker cites some "facts" but as usual they don't tell the whole truth.  It's an approximation of history (using cherry-picked facts) based on the political left's own convenient narratives.  For example, they make no mention of the fact that some of the very first slave owners in US history were black.  Nor do they mention that there were at least 3775 black slave owners in the American South in 1830 and up to 6000 black slave owners by the time the Civil War kicked off. 

They don't mention that the vast majority of the African slaves present in the American colonies were captured and sold by other Africans.  No, leftists can't handle that kind of truth, or they deny it, which is why they can never be patriots.

And why not talk about the uglier side of the indigenous tribes, many of which brutalized and enslaved each other long before the first white man ever set foot on the continent?  Why not mention the rape, genocide and cannibalism common among these groups?  Why not mention that when white settlers arrived, many American Indian tribes sought the protection of Europeans from other indians?

Well, The New Yorker doesn't talk about that because these facts undermine the entire foundation of far-left propaganda:  That the white man is the cause of all the world's problems. 

In reality, every group of people and every race around the globe has committed brutal acts of conquest and slavery.  No one is innocent.  Everyone is guilty.  White people were just the first group to put an end to it all.

But what is patriotism?  That is the question The New Yorker seems to ponder, though what they are really asking is:  "Who gets to define patriotism?"  This is the only thing leftists care about, because the power to define is the power to control.  And they want to control everything.  

For example, the publication harps on once again about the "horrors" of January 6th, and labels it a criminal attack masquerading as an act of patriotism.  Again, no mention of the numerous federal agents planted in the crowd to lead protesters into the building, and no mention of the Capitol Police using tear gas and rubber bullets to anger the crowd into violence. 

"What to my mind isn’t patriotism, though it was sometimes couched as such, was the behavior of the assembled throng that, on January 6, 2021, stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election. Awful as it was, it felt less like an insurrection than like an ugly mob bent on destruction and self-display..."

It's interesting that The New Yorker has such a distaste for the J6 "mob" while lavishing BLM with praise and defending the riots as a proud display of righteous rebellion.  Those mobs were far more destructive and killed numerous people.  All the J6 crowd did was break some windows, walk into the Capitol Building and leave an hour later.      

The New Yorker's examination is not nuanced or complex at all.  It pretends to be, but it is incredibly simplistic:  If you are a hardcore conservative, a traditionalist, a nationalist, an advocate for controlled immigration, an opponent of DEI, or a MAGA voter, you are "not a patriot."  Why?  Because the left says so.  Because they want to dictate the terms of patriotism and if they can't, then patriotism has to go.        

Traditionally in America it has always been the real patriots that get to define what patriotism is.  It's about the people who want to preserve America's founding principles, not rewrite them or erase them in the name of "modernity."  The people who understand that some values are eternal and remain relevant regardless of technological progress or the tides of political correctness. 

It's about loving one's country, not merely tolerating it until you can tear it down in the name of building something you think is better.     

Compared to America's overall accomplishments, the perceived historical "missteps" are meaningless.  They do not matter.  Slavery is irrelevant.  The wars against the native tribes and the "stolen land" are irrelevant.  Jim Crow is irrelevant. Leftists can stew in these past events all they like, but that's not going to win them any points in determining America's future path.    

And this is a reality that woke adherents will never accept, because they are not patriots, they are deconstructionists.  Their goal is to dismantle the western world, and America by extension.  Which means, they conveniently turn a microscope on the portions of US history that are considered oppressive by today's standards and harness those examples as a weapon to attack and dismantle the country as it exists now.  The US is a country increasingly looking to pull back from the brink of progressive revisionism, and they don't like that.

So, activist entities like The New Yorker turn to gaslighting.  For them, history is nothing more than a Molotov Cocktail.  They burn down the past in order to dictate the present.  They clamor to co-opt the American ideal, but they don't actually care about it.  They want to wear it as a skin suit while they dismantle it.  True patriotism is beyond their comprehension.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 15:45

America's LNG Boom Is Real - But China Is Planning Beyond It

Authored by Cyril Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

• The Iran war and Hormuz disruption have turbocharged U.S. LNG exports, giving Washington a major short-term energy dominance boost as Asia and Europe scramble for alternative supply.

• China, however, enters the crisis from a position of greater energy resilience after years of investment in domestic production.

• The U.S. still has a major long-term opportunity, but sustaining dominance will require turning crisis-driven demand into lasting partnerships.

The Iran war has handed the United States a rare opportunity: a new dawn of energy dominance in an increasingly fractured world. With coordinated US-Israeli strikes disrupting the Strait of Hormuz from late February, roughly 20% of global LNG supply has been stripped from the market since early March. Prices have surged across Asia and Europe. And into that vacuum, American gas has flowed.

The numbers speak for themselves. US LNG exports to Asia jumped sharply in April, with nearly a quarter of all American cargoes heading to a region that simply cannot afford to go dark. Deals are being signed, pipelines planned, and $100 billion in private investment is pouring into liquefaction plants and terminals, putting the US on a trajectory toward 220 MTPA of export capacity within five years. The administration's energy dominance agenda, backed by promises to streamline permitting, has given producers a powerful political tailwind and reassured global buyers seeking reliability. Washington's case for American LNG has never been easier to make.

But dominance built on a crisis is not the same as dominance built on trust. And there is a competitor watching this moment very carefully.

China entered this crisis in a structurally different position. Two decades of sustained investment in domestic energy production, spanning generation, storage, and distribution, have left Beijing considerably less exposed to the supply shocks rattling Western and Asian markets alike. Its economy has not been immune, but it has been buffered. That resilience has not gone unnoticed by governments scrambling to explain surging energy bills to their populations. While the US capitalises on the immediate demand surge, China is quietly accumulating something more durable: the perception of strategic foresight.

Yet beneath the boom lies a fault line. The conflict has been a short-term windfall for American producers; cash is flowing and the geopolitical case for US LNG writes itself. But the longer the crisis persists, the more urgently governments around the world will prioritise the same fundamental objective: never being held hostage to a single chokepoint again. The Hormuz disruption has concentrated minds in a way that years of energy dialogues have never quite managed. Countries across Asia and Europe are now accelerating plans to diversify supply sources, build strategic reserves, and develop domestic generation capacity across every available technology. The goal is insulation from the kind of shock this war has delivered, and that shift in priorities will outlast the conflict itself, because the memory of this vulnerability will not fade quickly.

This does not mean the window for American gas has closed. The transition to more resilient, independent energy systems will take decades, and reliable LNG from a powerful economy is precisely what energy-hungry Asian economies need throughout that journey. The US has the reserves, the infrastructure, the financial markets, and the geopolitical credibility that no other supplier can currently match. But Washington cannot afford to mistake a crisis-driven demand surge for a permanent structural advantage, because what buyers are ultimately building toward is a system in which no single disruption, whether in the Strait of Hormuz or anywhere else, can send their economies into shock again. The US needs to be architected into that system as an indispensable partner, not treated as an emergency option.

That requires more than competitive pricing and export capacity. It requires the kind of long-term supply relationships, infrastructure partnerships, and government-to-government commitments that turn a transaction into a dependency, the good kind, built on reliability rather than vulnerability. It requires Washington to show up as a strategic partner invested in the energy security of its buyers. And it requires the Iran conflict to reach a resolution that restores stability to global flows, because sustained disruption ultimately accelerates the very diversification strategies that could reduce the world's reliance on any single fuel source.

That is why forums like Gastech matter far beyond the conference floor. At Gastech 2025 in Milan, a high-profile US delegation led by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum used the event to demonstrate Washington's commitment to the global market and deepen long-term partnerships with European buyers. This September, the same strategic imperative shifts to Asia, as Gastech convenes ministers, industry CEOs, and technology leaders in Bangkok around the urgent supply security and resilience priorities now defining the global energy agenda. Bangkok demands the same level of engagement, but with even greater stakes. Positioned at the heart of the world's fastest-growing demand region, it is where the contracts signed today will shape the architecture of energy relationships for the next decade. It is where the US can arrive not only as the world's largest LNG exporter, but as the partner that helped Asia build the resilient, diversified, and secure energy systems its economies need, with American technology, American capital, and American gas at the centre of that architecture.

The use of energy as a diplomatic instrument, as a foundation for alliances and a signal of long-term intent, has already demonstrated its capacity to stabilise relationships and strengthen the position of reliable partners. But leverage only holds if buyers believe the relationship will endure beyond the current emergency. And that is ultimately what is being decided right now: whether the world organises its energy future around American reliability, or looks elsewhere for the security guarantees it needs.

American energy dominance is real, and the Iran war has made that case powerfully. But dominance has to be earned continuously, through the infrastructure being built, the contracts being signed, and the diplomatic relationships being deepened, conference room by conference room, deal by deal. The window is open. What matters now is how Washington chooses to use it.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 14:00

Did Iran Get Its Hands On A US Stealth Missile? JASSM-ER Wreckage Sparks Reverse-Engineering Fears

The U.S. committed nearly its entire stockpile of stealthy JASSM-ER cruise missiles to the military campaign against Iran and has fired at least 1,000 of these long-range, stealthy, precision cruise missiles to hit high-value IRGC targets.

One of the unavoidable risks of deploying advanced weapons, such as the JASSM-ER, is that unexploded or partially intact systems can fall into enemy hands, allowing adversaries to study U.S. technology, refine countermeasures, and accelerate the development of copycat versions.

A new report from Army Recognition, citing defense journalist Babak Taghvaee, claims Iran has recovered wreckage from a JASSM-ER near Arak, potentially giving Tehran access to fragments of the missile.

"The recovered debris reportedly includes composite airframe sections, structural components, propulsion fragments, and possible avionics elements that could reveal insights into stealth construction, fuel-efficient propulsion, and survivability design," according to the military blog.

Army Recognition cited images posted on X by Taghvaee showing what is described as badly damaged JASSM-ER wreckage recovered in Iran. The missile appears largely intact and possibly unexploded, which, if confirmed, would give Tehran higher-value intelligence on the advanced missile.

The number of AGM-158B JASSM-ER stand-off weapons (stealth cruise missiles) employed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy during the recent war in Iran was enormous. These missiles were used so extensively that debris and remains of them can now be found across various parts of… pic.twitter.com/NKzhR453mK

— Babak Taghvaee - The Crisis Watch (@BabakTaghvaee1) May 27, 2026

This incident is reminiscent of a similar one in 2011, when Iran captured a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel stealth spy drone and claimed to have reverse-engineered the aircraft. Tehran later displayed and tested drones modeled on the RQ-170, including the Shahed-171/Simorgh and Shahed-191/Saegheh families.

Reuters reported in 2014 that Iran claimed a domestically built copy of the RQ-170 had flown.

Today, Iran is one of the leading manufacturers of suicide Shahed drones (besides Russia and Ukraine), which have wreaked havoc on U.S. military bases and allied countries. The U.S. is also ramping up its version of these drones called "Lucas."

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 13:25

Manufacturing Consent For Trump's Invasion Of Cuba

Authored by Natasha Bannan via Common Dreams,

Yves here. I wish I had the time to research and unpack more clearly is the set of legal theories the US is abusing to prosecute Nicholas Maduro and his wife and now to justify the arrest of Raul Castro and the conquest of Cuba. The US seriously takes the position that we can impose strained invocations of US rules against terrorism and engage in extrajudicial seizures, as in kidnapping.

The article below describes how we are now putting a lot of weight on the thin reed of enforcing Batista-era property rights.

These days, most of Havana's streets are fairly empty of cars, but full of people walking or riding bicycles, electric bikes, electric "tricycles," or scooters. Trash has piled up on most corners where regular pick-up has become impossible given that the garbage trucks have no gasoline. The average conversation starts off with comparing who's gone the longest without electricity.

The sympathy flows, as you exchange stories of what else you are going without: water, gas, food, medicine, transportation. People list the family members they haven't been able to see and the medical appointments they've missed. Inevitably, someone will say better days are coming - "because they have to" - and to keep moving forward.

This week alone, the US Department of Justice indicted Raul Castro, the former head of state, who's now 94 years old and largely out of public life. In addition, the Supreme Court gave a green light to Cuban-American-owned companies with property claims in Cuba from 67 years ago to sue tourist industry actors who "profited" from that land.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio continues to grow more and more publicly agitated with Cuba's refusal to bow to his demands, and Trump's consistent incoherence shows an absolute lack of any clear policy position towards Cuba, aside from one that may economically benefit him and/or his family.

The indictment of Castro is a page taken from Trump's playbook on Venezuela from earlier this year. There, the administration indicted a sitting head of state, Nicolas Maduro, as a legal pretext for a military intervention, which was labelled an "emergency" and thus not an act of war that would require Congressional approval.

The administration staged a geopolitical coup d'etat involving international kidnapping, acts of war in plain violation of international law and the U.N. Charter, and then imprisoned that leader as a message to the world of what happens to those who defy US interests. Such indictments serve as purportedly fixed legal fictions for shifting political pretexts.

In Venezuela it was supposedly the state's support for criminal enterprises and gangs, which was the justification for the Trump administration's stated reason for the extrajudicial killing of nearly 200 civilians in piracy actions in the Caribbean. Once Maduro was kidnapped and jailed, the administration has stopped talking gangs and narcotrafficking rings.

In Cuba, the Justice Department's indictment of Raul Castro is a clear response to the political forces that commanded it. As the island nation is not complying rapidly enough to the changes demanded by Washington, the administration has escalated its threats, military preparations, and legal actions, albeit largely symbolic in nature.

Rubio's Escalation Of Threats As Campaign Messaging

For decades, Marco Rubio has pushed for privately what the Cuban-American community in south Florida has not achieved in nearly 70 years: to run Cuba's political and economic system remotely from Miami and Washington.

These remote "owners" of Cuba have driven and financed Rubio's political career, leading to this moment where he is adamantly though unsuccessfully trying to sell the American public that Cuba is a national security threat while simultaneously telling Cubans that their government is too weak to protect them.

That inherent contradiction and incoherence, long the basis of US policy towards Cuba, have never been more dangerous than at this moment when Rubio's rage and blind ambition to cause widespread destruction is bolstered by Trump's monarchical goals.

The contradictory discourse is present in nearly every aspect of Cuba policy. Just this week, Rubio issued an Orwellian statement in response to the ICE arrest of Adys Lastres Morera, the sister of the head of GAESA, a Cuban entity that is connected to large swaths of the Cuban economy. Rubio was right to point out that "[f]or far too long, the family members of terrorist organizations, repressive anti-American regimes and other bad actors . . . have been given a free pass to enjoy the privileges of living in the United States," but the United States also has a long tradition of granting sanctuary to terrorists, dictators, and war criminals.

In particular, Latin American leaders, generals, and intelligence operatives that have long done the US bidding in propping up violent regimes have been granted refuge in south Florida, the home of Rubio and other elected officials who have promoted violence over diplomacy.

Yet what makes international cooperation, collaboration, and survival possible is not just insisting upon respect for international law and human rights by all governments, but strengthening their ability to do so through dialogue and diplomacy. The Trump-Rubio administration has clearly not been serious about using diplomacy to solve global conflicts, and that holds true in Cuba as well.

The administration has tried to identify potential "opposition" in Cuba or political leaders it can "work with" like Delcy Rodriguez in Venezuela. Real US diplomacy looks quite different. Twelve years ago, it brought to Cuba a boom of economic activity, a thriving private sector, better financed public institutions, and riveting cultural exchanges for over a million US residents who found in Cuba a rich cultural, musical, artistic, and academic partner.

Trump and Rubio, though they might articulate the same goals, have different ulterior motives. Their goal is not, and has never been, economic opportunity for Cubans. Instead, they want an economic boon for Cuban-Americans aching to exert political and economic control over a land many have never even visited.

Although Florida no longer plays a significant electoral role in US-Cuba policy, Rubio's recent video talking to the Cuban people - and his messaging in general in escalating threats and aggression towards Cuba - is clearly intended to rally his base. What has caused widespread anxiety and fear among millions in Cuba has nevertheless excited his political base in south Florida.

Inside Cuba

These days in Havana, Cubans are experiencing a duality that has existed for generations who have lived under the threat of US military aggression and the daily reality of economic warfare. Cubans are exhausted. They are increasingly anxious and have reached the bottom of the well of hope. There is a saying that the last thing you lose is hope, meaning it is what you hold on to until the very end. Cubans are at the very end of their ability to see a hopeful future.

I get asked questions daily. Should I take my kids to a shelter? Will the United States bomb Havana? Where is it safe to go? Why don't US citizens stop their government?

Cubans are experts at survival, and that's exactly what they continue to do. As US Southern Command sends the aircraft carrier Nimitz into Caribbean waters, Cubans continue to carry on with daily life like they have done decade after decade. Most days, those around me look for an electric tricycle to take them to work or their child to school or have added a child seat to their bicycles. Cars that run on gasoline have become what one of my friends calls "garage adornments."

Given the daily threat of military intervention and the four-month long oil blockade, activities like sleep have become a luxury. Many families cook or wash clothes at 3:00 a.m. when they get 1-2 hours of electricity. My friend sleeps on the floor with her son near the front door where air drafts can keep them cool in the sweltering heat and humidity. Most of us go without water for days at a time because lack of electricity makes pumping and distributing water impossible.

Another dear friend went 35 days with no water while she, her mother, and her toddler spent weeks traveling from house to house bathing and washing clothes. Cooking and cleaning become infinitely more difficult with no water, gas, or electricity. Some daycare centers use coal to cook lunch for undernourished children.

While we live under the perpetual threat of US military aggression, children continue to play in the street with sticks and deflated balls, families continue to find ways to get to work and buy food, and the deep spiritual and religious traditions that sustain many Cubans are turned to over and over again. War has a name and a face.

It's not just a vague "government." Here there are millions of people who owe the United States nothing and instead have only demanded to live in peace, in their homeland, however flawed it may be.

Originally published at .

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 12:50