Europe Is About To Commit Financial Self-Immolation & Its Leaders Know It

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

Italy’s decision to stand with Belgium against the confiscation of Russian sovereign assets is not a diplomatic footnote. It is a moment of clarity breaking through the fog of performative morality that has engulfed Brussels. Strip away the slogans and the truth is unavoidable: the seizure of Russian sovereign reserves will not change the course of the war in Ukraine by a single inch.

This is not about funding Ukraine, it is about whether sovereign property still exists in a Western financial system that has quietly replaced law with cult-like obedience. That is why panic has entered the room.

The European Commission wants to pretend this is a clever workaround, a one-off, an emergency measure wrapped in legal contortions and moral posturing masquerading as hysteria. But finance does not function on intentions, rage, or narratives. It functions on precedent, trust, and enforceability. And once that trust is broken, it does not return.

The modern global financial system rests on a single, unglamorous principle, that State assets held in foreign jurisdictions are legally immune from political confiscation.

via EU Commission 

That principle underwrites reserve currencies, correspondent banking, sovereign debt markets, and cross-border investment. It is why central banks like Russia’s (once) accepted euros instead of bullion shipped under armed guard. It is why settlement systems like Euroclear exist at all. Once that rule is broken, capital does not debate. It reprices risk instantly and it leaves.

Confiscation sends a message to every country outside the Western political orbit: your savings are safe only as long as you remain politically compliant.

That is not a rules-based order. It is a selectively enforced order whose rules change the moment compliance ends. What we have is a compliance cartel, enforcing law upward and punishment downward, depending on who obeys and who resists.

Belgium’s fear is not legalistic. It is actuarial. Hosting Euroclear means hosting systemic risk. If Russia or any future target successfully challenges the seizure, Belgium could be exposed to claims that dwarf the sums being discussed. Belgium is therefore right to be skeptical of Europe’s promise to underwrite such colossal risk, given the bloc’s now shattered credibility. No serious financial actor would treat such guarantees as reliable.

Italy’s hesitation is not ideological. It is mathematical. With one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens, Rome understands what happens when markets begin questioning the neutrality of reserve currencies and custodians.

Neither country suddenly developed sympathy for Moscow. They simply did the arithmetic before the slogans.

Paris and London, meanwhile, thunder publicly while quietly insulating their own commercial banks’ exposure to Russian sovereign assets, exposure measured not in rhetoric, but in tens of billions. French financial institutions alone hold an estimated €15–20 billion, while UK-linked banks and custodial structures account for roughly £20–25 billion, much of it routed through London’s clearing and custody ecosystem rather than sitting on government balance sheets.

This hypocrisy and cowardice are not accidental. Paris and London sit at the heart of global custodial banking, derivatives clearing, and FX settlement, nodes embedded deep within the plumbing of global finance. Retaliatory seizures or accelerated capital flight would not be symbolic for them; they would be catastrophic.

So the burden is shifted outward. Smaller states are expected to absorb systemic risk while core financial centers preserve deniability, play a double game, and posture as virtuous.

This is anything but European solidarity. It is class defense at the international level.

The increasingly shrill insistence from the Eurocrats that the assets must be seized betrays something far more revealing than hysteria or resolve: the unmasking of a project sustained by delusion and Russophobic dogma, in which moral certainty did not arise from conviction, but functioned as a mechanism for managing cognitive dissonance, a means of avoiding realities that any serious strategy would already have been forced to confront.

Not confidence, but exposure. Exposure of a war Europe never possessed the power to decide, only the capacity to prolong. Exposure of a financial system discovering that money, once stripped of neutrality and weaponized, forfeits its credibility as capital. And exposure of a ruling class confronting the reality that performance, however theatrical, cannot substitute for power that has long since been exhausted – power Europe relinquished decades ago when it outsourced real sovereignty to Washington.

Looting Russian reserves will not shorten the conflict. It will not pressure Moscow into capitulation. It will not meaningfully finance Ukraine’s future. And this is not because Europe has miscalculated, it is because Europe has knowingly abandoned reality.

There is no serious actor in Europe who does not understand how wars are won. They know that Russia’s war effort is driven by industrial throughput, manpower depth, logistics resilience, and continental scale and that on every one of these axes Russia has expanded its advantage while Europe has accelerated its collapse. Russia has retooled its defense-industrial base for sustained output, secured energy and raw materials at scale, reoriented trade beyond Western choke points, and absorbed sanctions as a catalyst for growth. This is not conjecture. It is observable fact.

This move will permanently accelerate reserve diversification away from the euro, expand bilateral settlement, hasten gold repatriation, and entrench non-Western clearing systems, and it will do so immediately.

What is being exposed here is not Russian vulnerability, but Western exhaustion. When economies can no longer compete through production, innovation, or growth, they turn to banditry. Asset seizure is not a sign of strength, but he terminal behavior of a rentier system that has exhausted surplus and begun consuming its own foundations.

This decision does not defend any lingering illusion of Western dominance. It advertises its expiry. The turn toward policing speech in Europe did not happen in a vacuum.

The Digital Services Act, platform intimidation, and the policing of dissent is all about pre-emptive damage control. European elites understand that the consequences of this policy will land squarely on households.

The people who will pay for this are not sitting in Commission buildings, they are the ones whose pensions, currencies, and living standards are being quietly offered up to preserve a collapsing illusion of power.

That is why dissent had to be neutralized before confiscation could be attempted. Not after. Criticism was pre-emptively reclassified as disinformation. Debate was recoded as existential danger. Speech itself was reframed as a security threat.

In their desperation to punish Russia, Europe’s leadership is handing Moscow something far more valuable than €210 billion. They are validating every argument held by the Global Majority about Western hypocrisy, legal nihilism, and financial coercion. They are demonstrating that sovereignty within the Western system is provisional, granted conditionally, revoked politically.

Empires do not collapse because they are challenged. They collapse because they cannibalize the systems that once made them legitimate.

This seizure will not be remembered as a blow against Moscow. It will be remembered as the moment Europe told the world that property rights end where obedience begins.

Once that message is received, there is no reset.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 07:20

Europe Is About To Commit Financial Self-Immolation & Its Leaders Know It

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

Italy’s decision to stand with Belgium against the confiscation of Russian sovereign assets is not a diplomatic footnote. It is a moment of clarity breaking through the fog of performative morality that has engulfed Brussels. Strip away the slogans and the truth is unavoidable: the seizure of Russian sovereign reserves will not change the course of the war in Ukraine by a single inch.

This is not about funding Ukraine, it is about whether sovereign property still exists in a Western financial system that has quietly replaced law with cult-like obedience. That is why panic has entered the room.

The European Commission wants to pretend this is a clever workaround, a one-off, an emergency measure wrapped in legal contortions and moral posturing masquerading as hysteria. But finance does not function on intentions, rage, or narratives. It functions on precedent, trust, and enforceability. And once that trust is broken, it does not return.

The modern global financial system rests on a single, unglamorous principle, that State assets held in foreign jurisdictions are legally immune from political confiscation.

via EU Commission 

That principle underwrites reserve currencies, correspondent banking, sovereign debt markets, and cross-border investment. It is why central banks like Russia’s (once) accepted euros instead of bullion shipped under armed guard. It is why settlement systems like Euroclear exist at all. Once that rule is broken, capital does not debate. It reprices risk instantly and it leaves.

Confiscation sends a message to every country outside the Western political orbit: your savings are safe only as long as you remain politically compliant.

That is not a rules-based order. It is a selectively enforced order whose rules change the moment compliance ends. What we have is a compliance cartel, enforcing law upward and punishment downward, depending on who obeys and who resists.

Belgium’s fear is not legalistic. It is actuarial. Hosting Euroclear means hosting systemic risk. If Russia or any future target successfully challenges the seizure, Belgium could be exposed to claims that dwarf the sums being discussed. Belgium is therefore right to be skeptical of Europe’s promise to underwrite such colossal risk, given the bloc’s now shattered credibility. No serious financial actor would treat such guarantees as reliable.

Italy’s hesitation is not ideological. It is mathematical. With one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens, Rome understands what happens when markets begin questioning the neutrality of reserve currencies and custodians.

Neither country suddenly developed sympathy for Moscow. They simply did the arithmetic before the slogans.

Paris and London, meanwhile, thunder publicly while quietly insulating their own commercial banks’ exposure to Russian sovereign assets, exposure measured not in rhetoric, but in tens of billions. French financial institutions alone hold an estimated €15–20 billion, while UK-linked banks and custodial structures account for roughly £20–25 billion, much of it routed through London’s clearing and custody ecosystem rather than sitting on government balance sheets.

This hypocrisy and cowardice are not accidental. Paris and London sit at the heart of global custodial banking, derivatives clearing, and FX settlement, nodes embedded deep within the plumbing of global finance. Retaliatory seizures or accelerated capital flight would not be symbolic for them; they would be catastrophic.

So the burden is shifted outward. Smaller states are expected to absorb systemic risk while core financial centers preserve deniability, play a double game, and posture as virtuous.

This is anything but European solidarity. It is class defense at the international level.

The increasingly shrill insistence from the Eurocrats that the assets must be seized betrays something far more revealing than hysteria or resolve: the unmasking of a project sustained by delusion and Russophobic dogma, in which moral certainty did not arise from conviction, but functioned as a mechanism for managing cognitive dissonance, a means of avoiding realities that any serious strategy would already have been forced to confront.

Not confidence, but exposure. Exposure of a war Europe never possessed the power to decide, only the capacity to prolong. Exposure of a financial system discovering that money, once stripped of neutrality and weaponized, forfeits its credibility as capital. And exposure of a ruling class confronting the reality that performance, however theatrical, cannot substitute for power that has long since been exhausted – power Europe relinquished decades ago when it outsourced real sovereignty to Washington.

Looting Russian reserves will not shorten the conflict. It will not pressure Moscow into capitulation. It will not meaningfully finance Ukraine’s future. And this is not because Europe has miscalculated, it is because Europe has knowingly abandoned reality.

There is no serious actor in Europe who does not understand how wars are won. They know that Russia’s war effort is driven by industrial throughput, manpower depth, logistics resilience, and continental scale and that on every one of these axes Russia has expanded its advantage while Europe has accelerated its collapse. Russia has retooled its defense-industrial base for sustained output, secured energy and raw materials at scale, reoriented trade beyond Western choke points, and absorbed sanctions as a catalyst for growth. This is not conjecture. It is observable fact.

This move will permanently accelerate reserve diversification away from the euro, expand bilateral settlement, hasten gold repatriation, and entrench non-Western clearing systems, and it will do so immediately.

What is being exposed here is not Russian vulnerability, but Western exhaustion. When economies can no longer compete through production, innovation, or growth, they turn to banditry. Asset seizure is not a sign of strength, but he terminal behavior of a rentier system that has exhausted surplus and begun consuming its own foundations.

This decision does not defend any lingering illusion of Western dominance. It advertises its expiry. The turn toward policing speech in Europe did not happen in a vacuum.

The Digital Services Act, platform intimidation, and the policing of dissent is all about pre-emptive damage control. European elites understand that the consequences of this policy will land squarely on households.

The people who will pay for this are not sitting in Commission buildings, they are the ones whose pensions, currencies, and living standards are being quietly offered up to preserve a collapsing illusion of power.

That is why dissent had to be neutralized before confiscation could be attempted. Not after. Criticism was pre-emptively reclassified as disinformation. Debate was recoded as existential danger. Speech itself was reframed as a security threat.

In their desperation to punish Russia, Europe’s leadership is handing Moscow something far more valuable than €210 billion. They are validating every argument held by the Global Majority about Western hypocrisy, legal nihilism, and financial coercion. They are demonstrating that sovereignty within the Western system is provisional, granted conditionally, revoked politically.

Empires do not collapse because they are challenged. They collapse because they cannibalize the systems that once made them legitimate.

This seizure will not be remembered as a blow against Moscow. It will be remembered as the moment Europe told the world that property rights end where obedience begins.

Once that message is received, there is no reset.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 07:20

Europe Is About To Commit Financial Self-Immolation & Its Leaders Know It

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

Italy’s decision to stand with Belgium against the confiscation of Russian sovereign assets is not a diplomatic footnote. It is a moment of clarity breaking through the fog of performative morality that has engulfed Brussels. Strip away the slogans and the truth is unavoidable: the seizure of Russian sovereign reserves will not change the course of the war in Ukraine by a single inch.

This is not about funding Ukraine, it is about whether sovereign property still exists in a Western financial system that has quietly replaced law with cult-like obedience. That is why panic has entered the room.

The European Commission wants to pretend this is a clever workaround, a one-off, an emergency measure wrapped in legal contortions and moral posturing masquerading as hysteria. But finance does not function on intentions, rage, or narratives. It functions on precedent, trust, and enforceability. And once that trust is broken, it does not return.

The modern global financial system rests on a single, unglamorous principle, that State assets held in foreign jurisdictions are legally immune from political confiscation.

via EU Commission 

That principle underwrites reserve currencies, correspondent banking, sovereign debt markets, and cross-border investment. It is why central banks like Russia’s (once) accepted euros instead of bullion shipped under armed guard. It is why settlement systems like Euroclear exist at all. Once that rule is broken, capital does not debate. It reprices risk instantly and it leaves.

Confiscation sends a message to every country outside the Western political orbit: your savings are safe only as long as you remain politically compliant.

That is not a rules-based order. It is a selectively enforced order whose rules change the moment compliance ends. What we have is a compliance cartel, enforcing law upward and punishment downward, depending on who obeys and who resists.

Belgium’s fear is not legalistic. It is actuarial. Hosting Euroclear means hosting systemic risk. If Russia or any future target successfully challenges the seizure, Belgium could be exposed to claims that dwarf the sums being discussed. Belgium is therefore right to be skeptical of Europe’s promise to underwrite such colossal risk, given the bloc’s now shattered credibility. No serious financial actor would treat such guarantees as reliable.

Italy’s hesitation is not ideological. It is mathematical. With one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens, Rome understands what happens when markets begin questioning the neutrality of reserve currencies and custodians.

Neither country suddenly developed sympathy for Moscow. They simply did the arithmetic before the slogans.

Paris and London, meanwhile, thunder publicly while quietly insulating their own commercial banks’ exposure to Russian sovereign assets, exposure measured not in rhetoric, but in tens of billions. French financial institutions alone hold an estimated €15–20 billion, while UK-linked banks and custodial structures account for roughly £20–25 billion, much of it routed through London’s clearing and custody ecosystem rather than sitting on government balance sheets.

This hypocrisy and cowardice are not accidental. Paris and London sit at the heart of global custodial banking, derivatives clearing, and FX settlement, nodes embedded deep within the plumbing of global finance. Retaliatory seizures or accelerated capital flight would not be symbolic for them; they would be catastrophic.

So the burden is shifted outward. Smaller states are expected to absorb systemic risk while core financial centers preserve deniability, play a double game, and posture as virtuous.

This is anything but European solidarity. It is class defense at the international level.

The increasingly shrill insistence from the Eurocrats that the assets must be seized betrays something far more revealing than hysteria or resolve: the unmasking of a project sustained by delusion and Russophobic dogma, in which moral certainty did not arise from conviction, but functioned as a mechanism for managing cognitive dissonance, a means of avoiding realities that any serious strategy would already have been forced to confront.

Not confidence, but exposure. Exposure of a war Europe never possessed the power to decide, only the capacity to prolong. Exposure of a financial system discovering that money, once stripped of neutrality and weaponized, forfeits its credibility as capital. And exposure of a ruling class confronting the reality that performance, however theatrical, cannot substitute for power that has long since been exhausted – power Europe relinquished decades ago when it outsourced real sovereignty to Washington.

Looting Russian reserves will not shorten the conflict. It will not pressure Moscow into capitulation. It will not meaningfully finance Ukraine’s future. And this is not because Europe has miscalculated, it is because Europe has knowingly abandoned reality.

There is no serious actor in Europe who does not understand how wars are won. They know that Russia’s war effort is driven by industrial throughput, manpower depth, logistics resilience, and continental scale and that on every one of these axes Russia has expanded its advantage while Europe has accelerated its collapse. Russia has retooled its defense-industrial base for sustained output, secured energy and raw materials at scale, reoriented trade beyond Western choke points, and absorbed sanctions as a catalyst for growth. This is not conjecture. It is observable fact.

This move will permanently accelerate reserve diversification away from the euro, expand bilateral settlement, hasten gold repatriation, and entrench non-Western clearing systems, and it will do so immediately.

What is being exposed here is not Russian vulnerability, but Western exhaustion. When economies can no longer compete through production, innovation, or growth, they turn to banditry. Asset seizure is not a sign of strength, but he terminal behavior of a rentier system that has exhausted surplus and begun consuming its own foundations.

This decision does not defend any lingering illusion of Western dominance. It advertises its expiry. The turn toward policing speech in Europe did not happen in a vacuum.

The Digital Services Act, platform intimidation, and the policing of dissent is all about pre-emptive damage control. European elites understand that the consequences of this policy will land squarely on households.

The people who will pay for this are not sitting in Commission buildings, they are the ones whose pensions, currencies, and living standards are being quietly offered up to preserve a collapsing illusion of power.

That is why dissent had to be neutralized before confiscation could be attempted. Not after. Criticism was pre-emptively reclassified as disinformation. Debate was recoded as existential danger. Speech itself was reframed as a security threat.

In their desperation to punish Russia, Europe’s leadership is handing Moscow something far more valuable than €210 billion. They are validating every argument held by the Global Majority about Western hypocrisy, legal nihilism, and financial coercion. They are demonstrating that sovereignty within the Western system is provisional, granted conditionally, revoked politically.

Empires do not collapse because they are challenged. They collapse because they cannibalize the systems that once made them legitimate.

This seizure will not be remembered as a blow against Moscow. It will be remembered as the moment Europe told the world that property rights end where obedience begins.

Once that message is received, there is no reset.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 07:20

Ford Takes Record $19.5 Billion Charge As EV Bet Implodes, Pivots To Grid Batteries

Shares of Ford in New York have yet to hit a new high since the debut of the all-electric F-150 Lightning in April 2022. What was pitched as a flagship EV push has since devolved into an epic miscalculation, with the automaker now preparing to take $19.5 billion in charges, mostly in the fourth quarter, as it unwinds and overhauls its electric vehicle strategy.

Ford is overhauling its entire electrification roadmap. The reset includes the cancellation of three future EV programs, the termination of the current F-150 Lightning, and a shift toward new offerings across multiple powertrains, including a future extended-range hybrid vehicle variant of the F-Series.

The pivot also entails a complete restructuring of battery operations, highlighted by the breakup of its partnership with South Korean battery maker SK On. The next chapter of Ford's strategy is a pivot toward grid-scale energy storage systems.

We've explained to readers that lithium prices are on the rise as EV battery makers pivot to energy storage systems:

• Grid-Scale Battery Boom Sparks Lithium’s Comeback

• Wall Street Eyes Lithium as Battery Storage Demand Poised to Spark New Upcycle

Last year, Ford lost a staggering $5.1 billion in its EV division and expects this year to be even worse. The pivot puts the struggling automaker's EV division on track for profitability by the end of the decade.

Here are the key highlights of the pivot:

• Offers broad choice with gas, hybrids, and EVs: Ford will offer a range of hybrids to complement efficient gas engines. The Universal EV Platform will underpin multiple models. By 2030, about 50% of Ford's global volume will be hybrids, extended-range EVs, and electric vehicles, versus 17% today.

• Fills U.S. plants with affordable new models: New Built Ford Tough pickups will be assembled at BlueOval City in Tennessee, and a new gas and hybrid van will be produced at the Ohio Assembly Plant. Ford plans to hire thousands of new employees in the U.S. in the next few years.

• Launches battery energy storage business: Ford will leverage wholly owned plants in Kentucky and Michigan and leading LFP technology to provide solutions for energy infrastructure and growing data center demand. Ford plans to begin shipping BESS systems in 2027 with 20 GWh of annual capacity.

• Improves profitability: Actions are expected to drive accretive returns and accelerate margin improvements across Ford Model e, Ford Pro, and Ford Blue. Ford Model e is now expected to reach profitability by 2029, with improvements beginning in 2026.

• Rationalizes U.S. EV-related assets and product roadmap: Ford expects to record about $19.5 billion in special items, with the majority in the fourth quarter. The company expects about $5.5 billion in cash effects, with most paid in 2026 and the remainder in 2027.

• Raises guidance: The company raised 2025 adjusted EBIT guidance to about $7 billion, citing continued underlying business strength and cost improvements. It reaffirmed adjusted free cash flow guidance, trending toward the high end of the $2 billion to $3 billion range.

Goldman analysts led by Mark Delaney offered clients their first take on the restructuring of Ford's EV unit:

We believe the realignment and restructuring actions will help improve the P&L as Ford reduces Model e losses and increases production of more profitable Blue and Pro vehicles. Over the longer term, we expect a key debate will center on how these actions impact Ford's ability to reach Model e profitability, particularly as it increasingly competes with Chinese OEMs outside of China. We think successful execution on the UEV platform and EREV technology, as well as software and digital services, will be key factors. On the ESS business, industry participants have historically seen varied margins, and we believe costs and the company's ability to deliver a full solution will be important determinants of long-term profitability.

On capital allocation:

We do not expect these charges to affect Ford's dividend. Recall that Ford's dividend target is based on 40% to 50% of adjusted free cash flow, and we believe these charges will be excluded from the adjusted FCF calculation. In addition, the company has a strong cash position on the balance sheet, in our view.

Goldman maintained a Neutral rating on the stock, raised EPS estimates to $1.16, $1.65, and $1.80 for 2025, 2026, and 2027, respectively, and lifted its 12-month price target to $14 from $13, based on an unchanged 8x multiple on normalized EPS.

Ford shares have yet to recover since the F-150 EV debuted in April 2022.

In November, we reported that Ford mulled scrapping the EV truck:

• Ford Mulls Scrapping F-150 Lightning After Dismal Demand, Mounting Losses

The F-150 EV is shaping up to be America's first major EV casualty. Henry Ford would likely be turning over in his grave after such a massive miscalculation in chasing the "green" narrative. The question now is whether the board will hold management accountable for drinking the green Kool-Aid.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 06:59

Ford Takes Record $19.5 Billion Charge As EV Bet Implodes, Pivots To Grid Batteries

Shares of Ford in New York have yet to hit a new high since the debut of the all-electric F-150 Lightning in April 2022. What was pitched as a flagship EV push has since devolved into an epic miscalculation, with the automaker now preparing to take $19.5 billion in charges, mostly in the fourth quarter, as it unwinds and overhauls its electric vehicle strategy.

Ford is overhauling its entire electrification roadmap. The reset includes the cancellation of three future EV programs, the termination of the current F-150 Lightning, and a shift toward new offerings across multiple powertrains, including a future extended-range hybrid vehicle variant of the F-Series.

The pivot also entails a complete restructuring of battery operations, highlighted by the breakup of its partnership with South Korean battery maker SK On. The next chapter of Ford's strategy is a pivot toward grid-scale energy storage systems.

We've explained to readers that lithium prices are on the rise as EV battery makers pivot to energy storage systems:

• Grid-Scale Battery Boom Sparks Lithium’s Comeback

• Wall Street Eyes Lithium as Battery Storage Demand Poised to Spark New Upcycle

Last year, Ford lost a staggering $5.1 billion in its EV division and expects this year to be even worse. The pivot puts the struggling automaker's EV division on track for profitability by the end of the decade.

Here are the key highlights of the pivot:

• Offers broad choice with gas, hybrids, and EVs: Ford will offer a range of hybrids to complement efficient gas engines. The Universal EV Platform will underpin multiple models. By 2030, about 50% of Ford's global volume will be hybrids, extended-range EVs, and electric vehicles, versus 17% today.

• Fills U.S. plants with affordable new models: New Built Ford Tough pickups will be assembled at BlueOval City in Tennessee, and a new gas and hybrid van will be produced at the Ohio Assembly Plant. Ford plans to hire thousands of new employees in the U.S. in the next few years.

• Launches battery energy storage business: Ford will leverage wholly owned plants in Kentucky and Michigan and leading LFP technology to provide solutions for energy infrastructure and growing data center demand. Ford plans to begin shipping BESS systems in 2027 with 20 GWh of annual capacity.

• Improves profitability: Actions are expected to drive accretive returns and accelerate margin improvements across Ford Model e, Ford Pro, and Ford Blue. Ford Model e is now expected to reach profitability by 2029, with improvements beginning in 2026.

• Rationalizes U.S. EV-related assets and product roadmap: Ford expects to record about $19.5 billion in special items, with the majority in the fourth quarter. The company expects about $5.5 billion in cash effects, with most paid in 2026 and the remainder in 2027.

• Raises guidance: The company raised 2025 adjusted EBIT guidance to about $7 billion, citing continued underlying business strength and cost improvements. It reaffirmed adjusted free cash flow guidance, trending toward the high end of the $2 billion to $3 billion range.

Goldman analysts led by Mark Delaney offered clients their first take on the restructuring of Ford's EV unit:

We believe the realignment and restructuring actions will help improve the P&L as Ford reduces Model e losses and increases production of more profitable Blue and Pro vehicles. Over the longer term, we expect a key debate will center on how these actions impact Ford's ability to reach Model e profitability, particularly as it increasingly competes with Chinese OEMs outside of China. We think successful execution on the UEV platform and EREV technology, as well as software and digital services, will be key factors. On the ESS business, industry participants have historically seen varied margins, and we believe costs and the company's ability to deliver a full solution will be important determinants of long-term profitability.

On capital allocation:

We do not expect these charges to affect Ford's dividend. Recall that Ford's dividend target is based on 40% to 50% of adjusted free cash flow, and we believe these charges will be excluded from the adjusted FCF calculation. In addition, the company has a strong cash position on the balance sheet, in our view.

Goldman maintained a Neutral rating on the stock, raised EPS estimates to $1.16, $1.65, and $1.80 for 2025, 2026, and 2027, respectively, and lifted its 12-month price target to $14 from $13, based on an unchanged 8x multiple on normalized EPS.

Ford shares have yet to recover since the F-150 EV debuted in April 2022.

In November, we reported that Ford mulled scrapping the EV truck:

• Ford Mulls Scrapping F-150 Lightning After Dismal Demand, Mounting Losses

The F-150 EV is shaping up to be America's first major EV casualty. Henry Ford would likely be turning over in his grave after such a massive miscalculation in chasing the "green" narrative. The question now is whether the board will hold management accountable for drinking the green Kool-Aid.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 06:59

Porsche To Ferrari: The EVs Drawing The Most Attention Ahead Of 2026

A December 2025 study of the electric vehicle market names the 2026 Porsche Cayenne Electric as the most anticipated EV set to launch next year. Conducted by B2B automotive platform eCarsTrade, the research analyzed more than 20 upcoming electric models and ranked them based on global search interest related to pricing, specifications, range, and release timing.

The Cayenne Electric stands out clearly, attracting around 911,000 monthly searches worldwide. Buyers across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are closely following the model, which is expected to deliver up to 1,139 horsepower in its Turbo version—making it the most powerful production Porsche ever—and feature an 800-volt system capable of charging at up to 400 kilowatts.

Close behind, the MG Cyberster has generated more than 800,000 searches, drawing attention as one of the first mass-market electric roadsters, with a starting price near $73,000 in Europe, China, and the UK.

(View the full study here)

Audi also features prominently in the rankings. The Q6 e-tron, which shares its platform and charging technology with the Porsche Macan Electric, has attracted roughly 793,000 potential buyers at a starting price of $63,800, while the Audi A6 e-tron Sportback adds to the brand’s strong presence.

Volkswagen’s ID.7, positioned as the electric successor to the Passat, has also drawn significant interest from fleet and company-car buyers, with more than 700,000 people researching the $50,000 sedan for its long-range highway capability.

Family-focused electric SUVs are another area of strong demand. Hyundai’s three-row Ioniq 9, offering seating for seven and a 300-mile range at a $60,600 starting price, has recorded 665,000 searches as buyers look for practical electric alternatives to traditional large SUVs.

The study also notes growing curiosity around high-end models, including Ferrari’s first electric vehicle, the Ferrari Elettrica, which has generated more than 300,000 searches despite an estimated starting price above $535,000.

According to eCarsTrade, interest in these models reflects broader market momentum, with electric vehicles expected to account for about 27% of all new car sales in 2026. The findings suggest that established automakers such as Porsche, Audi, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are gaining ground in the EV space, driven by demand from both fleet buyers and individual consumers who place greater trust in familiar brands when making major purchases.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 05:45

Porsche To Ferrari: The EVs Drawing The Most Attention Ahead Of 2026

A December 2025 study of the electric vehicle market names the 2026 Porsche Cayenne Electric as the most anticipated EV set to launch next year. Conducted by B2B automotive platform eCarsTrade, the research analyzed more than 20 upcoming electric models and ranked them based on global search interest related to pricing, specifications, range, and release timing.

The Cayenne Electric stands out clearly, attracting around 911,000 monthly searches worldwide. Buyers across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are closely following the model, which is expected to deliver up to 1,139 horsepower in its Turbo version—making it the most powerful production Porsche ever—and feature an 800-volt system capable of charging at up to 400 kilowatts.

Close behind, the MG Cyberster has generated more than 800,000 searches, drawing attention as one of the first mass-market electric roadsters, with a starting price near $73,000 in Europe, China, and the UK.

(View the full study here)

Audi also features prominently in the rankings. The Q6 e-tron, which shares its platform and charging technology with the Porsche Macan Electric, has attracted roughly 793,000 potential buyers at a starting price of $63,800, while the Audi A6 e-tron Sportback adds to the brand’s strong presence.

Volkswagen’s ID.7, positioned as the electric successor to the Passat, has also drawn significant interest from fleet and company-car buyers, with more than 700,000 people researching the $50,000 sedan for its long-range highway capability.

Family-focused electric SUVs are another area of strong demand. Hyundai’s three-row Ioniq 9, offering seating for seven and a 300-mile range at a $60,600 starting price, has recorded 665,000 searches as buyers look for practical electric alternatives to traditional large SUVs.

The study also notes growing curiosity around high-end models, including Ferrari’s first electric vehicle, the Ferrari Elettrica, which has generated more than 300,000 searches despite an estimated starting price above $535,000.

According to eCarsTrade, interest in these models reflects broader market momentum, with electric vehicles expected to account for about 27% of all new car sales in 2026. The findings suggest that established automakers such as Porsche, Audi, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are gaining ground in the EV space, driven by demand from both fleet buyers and individual consumers who place greater trust in familiar brands when making major purchases.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 05:45

Britain's New Spy Chief Warns Of 'Aggressive, Expansionist, And Revisionist' Russia

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Britain’s new intelligence chief warned on Dec. 15 that the UK is operating in an era when “the front line is everywhere,” as she set out an assessment of global threats and described Russia as an “aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” power determined to export instability across Europe and beyond.

Blaise Metreweli, who recently became head of the Secret Intelligence Service—commonly known as MI6—said that Russia’s campaign against Ukraine and its wider hybrid operations pose an acute and enduring danger to Britain and its allies, according to a preview of her first public speech released by the British government.

“The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug in the Russian approach to international engagement, and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus,” Metreweli said.

‘The Front Line Is Everywhere’

Speaking from MI6 headquarters in London, Metreweli said that as Russia and other hostile actors rewrite the rules of conflict through cyber operations, information warfare, and covert sabotage, the global threat environment is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected.

“The front line is everywhere,” she said, warning that the UK faces a new “age of uncertainty.”

Metreweli said Britain’s support for Ukraine will remain firm and that pressure on Moscow will be sustained despite the length and cost of the war.

“Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring,” she said. “The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained.”

NATO Warns Russia Could Target Allies Next

Her remarks come as European leaders have issued increasingly blunt warnings about Russia’s intentions beyond Ukraine.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said last week that allied countries could become “Russia’s next target,” saying that Moscow’s willingness to absorb massive losses in Ukraine demonstrated a readiness to confront the wider alliance.

“We need to be crystal clear about the threat,” Rutte said. “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way.”

Rutte called for a rapid rise in defense spending to deter aggression and prevent the kind of wide-scale conflict that past generations experienced.

“Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured,” he said.

“Imagine it, a conflict reaching every home, every workplace, destruction, mass mobilization, millions displaced, widespread suffering, and extreme losses. It is a terrible thought, but if we deliver on our commitments, this is a tragedy we can prevent.”

In June, NATO allies agreed to raise defense spending targets to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035—more than double the current 2 percent benchmark and in line with demands long made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Sanctions and Diplomacy

Metreweli’s speech also follows a series of British and European actions aimed at countering Russian and Chinese influence operations.

The UK recently sanctioned multiple Russian entities accused of conducting information warfare, as well as two China-based companies linked to what the British government described as “indiscriminate cyber activities” targeting Britain and its allies.

Separately, the European Union on Dec. 15 announced fresh sanctions against individuals and companies supporting Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which transports oil and generates revenue for the war effort, as part of a broader effort to restrict Moscow’s ability to finance its military operations.

Metreweli’s remarks in London coincided with fresh talks in Berlin on Dec. 15 involving U.S. envoys, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European officials aimed at securing peace and stability in Europe amid pressure from Russia.

U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, held talks with Zelenskyy and other delegates on Dec. 14 in Berlin, as part of efforts to bring the Ukraine war to an end.

“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more,” Witkoff said in an update on social media. “A lot of progress was made.”

Trump has pressed for a quick end to the nearly four-year war, but a compromise that both Russia and Ukraine would accept has been elusive.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 05:00

Britain's New Spy Chief Warns Of 'Aggressive, Expansionist, And Revisionist' Russia

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Britain’s new intelligence chief warned on Dec. 15 that the UK is operating in an era when “the front line is everywhere,” as she set out an assessment of global threats and described Russia as an “aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” power determined to export instability across Europe and beyond.

Blaise Metreweli, who recently became head of the Secret Intelligence Service—commonly known as MI6—said that Russia’s campaign against Ukraine and its wider hybrid operations pose an acute and enduring danger to Britain and its allies, according to a preview of her first public speech released by the British government.

“The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug in the Russian approach to international engagement, and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus,” Metreweli said.

‘The Front Line Is Everywhere’

Speaking from MI6 headquarters in London, Metreweli said that as Russia and other hostile actors rewrite the rules of conflict through cyber operations, information warfare, and covert sabotage, the global threat environment is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected.

“The front line is everywhere,” she said, warning that the UK faces a new “age of uncertainty.”

Metreweli said Britain’s support for Ukraine will remain firm and that pressure on Moscow will be sustained despite the length and cost of the war.

“Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring,” she said. “The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained.”

NATO Warns Russia Could Target Allies Next

Her remarks come as European leaders have issued increasingly blunt warnings about Russia’s intentions beyond Ukraine.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said last week that allied countries could become “Russia’s next target,” saying that Moscow’s willingness to absorb massive losses in Ukraine demonstrated a readiness to confront the wider alliance.

“We need to be crystal clear about the threat,” Rutte said. “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way.”

Rutte called for a rapid rise in defense spending to deter aggression and prevent the kind of wide-scale conflict that past generations experienced.

“Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured,” he said.

“Imagine it, a conflict reaching every home, every workplace, destruction, mass mobilization, millions displaced, widespread suffering, and extreme losses. It is a terrible thought, but if we deliver on our commitments, this is a tragedy we can prevent.”

In June, NATO allies agreed to raise defense spending targets to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035—more than double the current 2 percent benchmark and in line with demands long made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Sanctions and Diplomacy

Metreweli’s speech also follows a series of British and European actions aimed at countering Russian and Chinese influence operations.

The UK recently sanctioned multiple Russian entities accused of conducting information warfare, as well as two China-based companies linked to what the British government described as “indiscriminate cyber activities” targeting Britain and its allies.

Separately, the European Union on Dec. 15 announced fresh sanctions against individuals and companies supporting Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which transports oil and generates revenue for the war effort, as part of a broader effort to restrict Moscow’s ability to finance its military operations.

Metreweli’s remarks in London coincided with fresh talks in Berlin on Dec. 15 involving U.S. envoys, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European officials aimed at securing peace and stability in Europe amid pressure from Russia.

U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, held talks with Zelenskyy and other delegates on Dec. 14 in Berlin, as part of efforts to bring the Ukraine war to an end.

“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more,” Witkoff said in an update on social media. “A lot of progress was made.”

Trump has pressed for a quick end to the nearly four-year war, but a compromise that both Russia and Ukraine would accept has been elusive.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 05:00

Is China In A Better Position To Win The Rare Earth Mineral War

During an October swing through Southeast Asia, US President Donald Trump struck same-day agreements with Malaysia and Thailand to deepen cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, underscoring Washington’s push to diversify supply chains away from China, according to SCMP. 

According to the White House, Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim agreed to expand collaboration on building and securing critical mineral and rare earth supply chains. Using similar language, Washington said it would also “strengthen cooperation [with Thailand] on critical minerals supply chains development and expansion,” including exploration, extraction and processing.

The back-to-back deals reflect how resource-rich economies have become central battlegrounds in the US-China rivalry over rare earths. Analysts say Beijing currently holds the advantage, having spent decades engaging countries across Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. These nations often view China as a “partner that actually builds,” with investment that comes with fewer political conditions than US funding.

China’s dominance is structural. It mines about 70 per cent of the world’s rare earths and controls roughly 90 per cent of global processing capacity, meaning even minerals extracted elsewhere are often sent to China for refinement. As Marina Zhang of the University of Technology Sydney noted, this long-term engagement has given Beijing a “commanding lead,” particularly in downstream processing.

Enrique Dans of IE Business School said China already controls the “chokepoints that matter,” from separation to magnet manufacturing, allowing it to “lock in long-term offtakes and joint ventures in resource-rich countries.” He contrasted that with a US approach that “tends to arrive with conditions, compliance, and slower money,” adding that many governments see Beijing as the partner that delivers visible projects and jobs quickly.

Sun Chenghao of Tsinghua University said China’s model — combining infrastructure, trade and mineral cooperation — has given it a more positive image in the Global South, while the US is increasingly seen as “aggressive.” Although Washington retains influence, he said “China still holds a relative advantage in the rare earth sector,” especially in emerging resource-rich economies.

SCMP writes that the rivalry is intensifying. Rare earths now sit at the centre of a strategic contest that both powers see as vital to economic security, defence manufacturing and technological leadership — with Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America likely to remain key theatres in the years ahead.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 04:15

Is China In A Better Position To Win The Rare Earth Mineral War

During an October swing through Southeast Asia, US President Donald Trump struck same-day agreements with Malaysia and Thailand to deepen cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, underscoring Washington’s push to diversify supply chains away from China, according to SCMP. 

According to the White House, Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim agreed to expand collaboration on building and securing critical mineral and rare earth supply chains. Using similar language, Washington said it would also “strengthen cooperation [with Thailand] on critical minerals supply chains development and expansion,” including exploration, extraction and processing.

The back-to-back deals reflect how resource-rich economies have become central battlegrounds in the US-China rivalry over rare earths. Analysts say Beijing currently holds the advantage, having spent decades engaging countries across Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. These nations often view China as a “partner that actually builds,” with investment that comes with fewer political conditions than US funding.

China’s dominance is structural. It mines about 70 per cent of the world’s rare earths and controls roughly 90 per cent of global processing capacity, meaning even minerals extracted elsewhere are often sent to China for refinement. As Marina Zhang of the University of Technology Sydney noted, this long-term engagement has given Beijing a “commanding lead,” particularly in downstream processing.

Enrique Dans of IE Business School said China already controls the “chokepoints that matter,” from separation to magnet manufacturing, allowing it to “lock in long-term offtakes and joint ventures in resource-rich countries.” He contrasted that with a US approach that “tends to arrive with conditions, compliance, and slower money,” adding that many governments see Beijing as the partner that delivers visible projects and jobs quickly.

Sun Chenghao of Tsinghua University said China’s model — combining infrastructure, trade and mineral cooperation — has given it a more positive image in the Global South, while the US is increasingly seen as “aggressive.” Although Washington retains influence, he said “China still holds a relative advantage in the rare earth sector,” especially in emerging resource-rich economies.

SCMP writes that the rivalry is intensifying. Rare earths now sit at the centre of a strategic contest that both powers see as vital to economic security, defence manufacturing and technological leadership — with Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America likely to remain key theatres in the years ahead.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 04:15

Privacy For The Powerful, Surveillance For The Rest: EU's Proposed Tech Regulation Goes Too Far

Authored by Elen Irazabal Arana and Nikolai G. Wenzel via TheDailyEconomy.org,

Last month, we lamented California’s Frontier AI Act of 2025. The Act favors compliance over risk management, while shielding bureaucrats and lawmakers from responsibility. Mostly, it imposes top-down regulatory norms, instead of letting civil society and industry experts experiment and develop ethical standards from the bottom up.

Perhaps we could dismiss the Act as just another example of California’s interventionist penchant. But some American politicians and regulators are already calling for the Act to be a “template for harmonizing federal and state oversight.” The other source for that template would be the European Union (EU), so it’s worth keeping an eye on the regulations spewed out of Brussels.

The EU is already way ahead of California in imposing troubling, top-down regulation. Indeed, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024 follows the EU’s overall precautionary principle. As the EU Parliament’s internal think tank explains, “the precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.” The precautionary principle gives immense power to the EU when it comes to regulating in the face of uncertainty — rather than allowing for experimentation with the guardrails of fines and tort law (as in the US). It stifles ethical learning and innovation. Because of the precautionary principle and associated regulation, the EU economy suffers from greater market concentration, higher regulatory compliance costs, and diminished innovation — compared to an environment that allows for experimentation and sensible risk management. It is small wonder that only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European.

From Stifled Innovation to Stifled Privacy

Along with the precautionary principle, the second driving force behind EU regulation is the advancement of rights — but cherry-picking from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of rights that often conflict with others. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016 was imposed with the idea of protecting a fundamental right to personal data protection (this is technically separate from the right to privacy, and gives the EU much more power to intervene — but that is the stuff of academic journals). The GDPR ended up curtailing the right to economic freedom.

This time, fundamental rights are being deployed to justify the EU’s fight against child sexual abuse. We all love fundamental rights, and we all hate child abuse. But, over the years, fundamental rights have been deployed as a blunt and powerful weapon to expand the EU’s regulatory powers. The proposed Child Sex Abuse regulation (CSA) is no exception. What is exceptional, is the extent of the intrusion: the EU is proposing to monitor communications among European citizens, lumping them all together as potential threats rather than as protected speech that enjoys a prima facie right to privacy.

As of 26 November 2025, the EU bureaucratic machine has been negotiating the details of the CSA. In the latest draft, mandatory scanning of private communications has thankfully been removed, at least formally. But there is a catch. Providers of hosting and interpersonal communication services must identify, analyze, and assess how their services might be used for online child sexual abuse, and then take “all reasonable mitigation measures.” Faced with such an open-ended mandate and the threat of liability, many providers may conclude that the safest — and most legally prudent — way to show they have complied with the EU directive is to deploy large-scale scanning of private communications.

The draft CSA insists that mitigation measures should, where possible, be limited to specific parts of the service or specific groups of users. But the incentive structure points in one direction. Widespread monitoring may end up as the only viable option for regulatory compliance. What is presented as voluntary today risks becoming a de facto obligation tomorrow.

In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.” No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.

The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.

After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.

But, wait. There’s more…

Widespread Monitoring? Well, Not Completely Widespread

Despite the moral imperative of protecting children — a moral imperative so compelling that the EU is willing to violate other core values to advance it — the proposed CSA act introduces a convenient exception. Anything falling under national security, and any electronic communication service that is not publicly available (i.e. available only to elected officials and bureaucrats) would remain entirely untouched. Private chats among citizens require scrutiny — but the conversations of those who claim to protect us are off limits.

As the good minister said, “behind every single image and video there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse.” If that is indeed true of every “single image and video,” why would it not also be true of the messages shielded by the CSA’s national security and non-public exceptions? Does the horror somehow dissipate when the users are politicians or bureaucrats? Is the unacceptable suddenly made acceptable when it concerns those who write the rules?

In the EU’s hierarchy of rights, protecting children trumps privacy. But protecting Eurocrats trumps protecting children. In the end, modern technology gives politicians unprecedented opportunities to monitor citizens, while exempting themselves from scrutiny.

There is no chatter yet — that we know of — about imposing similar measures in the US. But, from the wealth tax to AI regulation — and the very origins of the American administrative state — bad ideas from Europe have a nasty way of making their way across the Pond. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 03:30

Privacy For The Powerful, Surveillance For The Rest: EU's Proposed Tech Regulation Goes Too Far

Authored by Elen Irazabal Arana and Nikolai G. Wenzel via TheDailyEconomy.org,

Last month, we lamented California’s Frontier AI Act of 2025. The Act favors compliance over risk management, while shielding bureaucrats and lawmakers from responsibility. Mostly, it imposes top-down regulatory norms, instead of letting civil society and industry experts experiment and develop ethical standards from the bottom up.

Perhaps we could dismiss the Act as just another example of California’s interventionist penchant. But some American politicians and regulators are already calling for the Act to be a “template for harmonizing federal and state oversight.” The other source for that template would be the European Union (EU), so it’s worth keeping an eye on the regulations spewed out of Brussels.

The EU is already way ahead of California in imposing troubling, top-down regulation. Indeed, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024 follows the EU’s overall precautionary principle. As the EU Parliament’s internal think tank explains, “the precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.” The precautionary principle gives immense power to the EU when it comes to regulating in the face of uncertainty — rather than allowing for experimentation with the guardrails of fines and tort law (as in the US). It stifles ethical learning and innovation. Because of the precautionary principle and associated regulation, the EU economy suffers from greater market concentration, higher regulatory compliance costs, and diminished innovation — compared to an environment that allows for experimentation and sensible risk management. It is small wonder that only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European.

From Stifled Innovation to Stifled Privacy

Along with the precautionary principle, the second driving force behind EU regulation is the advancement of rights — but cherry-picking from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of rights that often conflict with others. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016 was imposed with the idea of protecting a fundamental right to personal data protection (this is technically separate from the right to privacy, and gives the EU much more power to intervene — but that is the stuff of academic journals). The GDPR ended up curtailing the right to economic freedom.

This time, fundamental rights are being deployed to justify the EU’s fight against child sexual abuse. We all love fundamental rights, and we all hate child abuse. But, over the years, fundamental rights have been deployed as a blunt and powerful weapon to expand the EU’s regulatory powers. The proposed Child Sex Abuse regulation (CSA) is no exception. What is exceptional, is the extent of the intrusion: the EU is proposing to monitor communications among European citizens, lumping them all together as potential threats rather than as protected speech that enjoys a prima facie right to privacy.

As of 26 November 2025, the EU bureaucratic machine has been negotiating the details of the CSA. In the latest draft, mandatory scanning of private communications has thankfully been removed, at least formally. But there is a catch. Providers of hosting and interpersonal communication services must identify, analyze, and assess how their services might be used for online child sexual abuse, and then take “all reasonable mitigation measures.” Faced with such an open-ended mandate and the threat of liability, many providers may conclude that the safest — and most legally prudent — way to show they have complied with the EU directive is to deploy large-scale scanning of private communications.

The draft CSA insists that mitigation measures should, where possible, be limited to specific parts of the service or specific groups of users. But the incentive structure points in one direction. Widespread monitoring may end up as the only viable option for regulatory compliance. What is presented as voluntary today risks becoming a de facto obligation tomorrow.

In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.” No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.

The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.

After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.

But, wait. There’s more…

Widespread Monitoring? Well, Not Completely Widespread

Despite the moral imperative of protecting children — a moral imperative so compelling that the EU is willing to violate other core values to advance it — the proposed CSA act introduces a convenient exception. Anything falling under national security, and any electronic communication service that is not publicly available (i.e. available only to elected officials and bureaucrats) would remain entirely untouched. Private chats among citizens require scrutiny — but the conversations of those who claim to protect us are off limits.

As the good minister said, “behind every single image and video there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse.” If that is indeed true of every “single image and video,” why would it not also be true of the messages shielded by the CSA’s national security and non-public exceptions? Does the horror somehow dissipate when the users are politicians or bureaucrats? Is the unacceptable suddenly made acceptable when it concerns those who write the rules?

In the EU’s hierarchy of rights, protecting children trumps privacy. But protecting Eurocrats trumps protecting children. In the end, modern technology gives politicians unprecedented opportunities to monitor citizens, while exempting themselves from scrutiny.

There is no chatter yet — that we know of — about imposing similar measures in the US. But, from the wealth tax to AI regulation — and the very origins of the American administrative state — bad ideas from Europe have a nasty way of making their way across the Pond. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 03:30

Brussels Slams Brakes On 2035 Combustion Engine Ban

The European Commission is preparing to retreat from its planned 2035 ban on new combustion-engine car sales, yielding to pressure from Germany, Italy and automakers struggling to compete with U.S. and Chinese rivals, according to Reuters. The announcement is expected Tuesday.

EU and industry sources say the ban could be delayed by five years or softened indefinitely, turning a once-firm rule into something more aspirational. The reversal would mark the bloc’s biggest climb-down from its green agenda in the past five years.

"The European Commission will be putting forward a clear proposal to abolish the ban on combustion engines," said Manfred Weber, head of the European Parliament’s largest political group. "It was a serious industrial policy mistake."

Traditional automakers such as Volkswagen and Stellantis have lobbied hard for relief, arguing EV demand has fallen short, costs remain high and charging infrastructure is uneven. EU tariffs on Chinese EVs have barely dented the pressure.

"It's not a sustainable reality today in Europe," Ford CEO Jim Farley said last week, adding industry needs were "not well balanced" with EU CO2 targets.

EV-focused companies warn the rethink hands China an even bigger advantage in electrification.

"The technology is ready, charging infrastructure is ready, and consumers are ready," said Polestar CEO Michael Lohscheller. "So what are we waiting for?"

Reuters writes that the 2023 law was meant to force a rapid shift to batteries or fuel cells, with fines for non-compliance. But European carmakers still trail Tesla and Chinese groups like BYD and Geely on scale and cost. Earlier this year, the EU already granted automakers “breathing space” by spreading 2025 compliance over three years.

Manufacturers now want to keep selling combustion engines alongside plug-in hybrids, range-extender EVs and vehicles running on so-called CO2-neutral fuels. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled openness to e-fuels and “advanced biofuels” in October.

"We recommend a multi-technology approach," said Todd Anderson of Phinia, adding the internal combustion engine will "be around for the rest of the century."

EV industry players say regulatory backtracking will undermine investment.

"It's definitely going to have an effect," said ChargePoint CEO Rick Wilmer.

Automakers also want the 2030 target of a 55% cut in car emissions phased in over several years and the 50% reduction target for vans dropped. Germany wants climate credits for low-carbon steel and other upstream measures.

Environmental groups say the EU should stick to the 2035 deadline, arguing biofuels are scarce, expensive and not truly carbon-neutral.

"Europe needs to stay the course on electric," said William Todts of T&E. "It's clear electric is the future."

Whether Brussels actually stays the course, or keeps rewriting the rules when reality intervenes, remains to be seen.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 02:45

Brussels Slams Brakes On 2035 Combustion Engine Ban

The European Commission is preparing to retreat from its planned 2035 ban on new combustion-engine car sales, yielding to pressure from Germany, Italy and automakers struggling to compete with U.S. and Chinese rivals, according to Reuters. The announcement is expected Tuesday.

EU and industry sources say the ban could be delayed by five years or softened indefinitely, turning a once-firm rule into something more aspirational. The reversal would mark the bloc’s biggest climb-down from its green agenda in the past five years.

"The European Commission will be putting forward a clear proposal to abolish the ban on combustion engines," said Manfred Weber, head of the European Parliament’s largest political group. "It was a serious industrial policy mistake."

Traditional automakers such as Volkswagen and Stellantis have lobbied hard for relief, arguing EV demand has fallen short, costs remain high and charging infrastructure is uneven. EU tariffs on Chinese EVs have barely dented the pressure.

"It's not a sustainable reality today in Europe," Ford CEO Jim Farley said last week, adding industry needs were "not well balanced" with EU CO2 targets.

EV-focused companies warn the rethink hands China an even bigger advantage in electrification.

"The technology is ready, charging infrastructure is ready, and consumers are ready," said Polestar CEO Michael Lohscheller. "So what are we waiting for?"

Reuters writes that the 2023 law was meant to force a rapid shift to batteries or fuel cells, with fines for non-compliance. But European carmakers still trail Tesla and Chinese groups like BYD and Geely on scale and cost. Earlier this year, the EU already granted automakers “breathing space” by spreading 2025 compliance over three years.

Manufacturers now want to keep selling combustion engines alongside plug-in hybrids, range-extender EVs and vehicles running on so-called CO2-neutral fuels. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled openness to e-fuels and “advanced biofuels” in October.

"We recommend a multi-technology approach," said Todd Anderson of Phinia, adding the internal combustion engine will "be around for the rest of the century."

EV industry players say regulatory backtracking will undermine investment.

"It's definitely going to have an effect," said ChargePoint CEO Rick Wilmer.

Automakers also want the 2030 target of a 55% cut in car emissions phased in over several years and the 50% reduction target for vans dropped. Germany wants climate credits for low-carbon steel and other upstream measures.

Environmental groups say the EU should stick to the 2035 deadline, arguing biofuels are scarce, expensive and not truly carbon-neutral.

"Europe needs to stay the course on electric," said William Todts of T&E. "It's clear electric is the future."

Whether Brussels actually stays the course, or keeps rewriting the rules when reality intervenes, remains to be seen.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 02:45

Germany's Municipal Financial Crisis: The Green Transformation Backfires

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

For years, politicians managed to hide the damage caused by the green transformation. Now, deep cracks are appearing in municipal finances amid the severe economic crisis gripping the country. Cities like Stuttgart serve as showcases for the future of the republic.

For a long time, Stuttgart’s city treasurer was more than just a steward of solid numbers. He was regarded as the uncrowned king of fiscal policy in the region—and held a position envied by many colleagues. The robust foundation of the automotive industry and its extensive supplier network funneled generous tax revenues into the city’s coffers for years, particularly from trade taxes.

As recently as 2023, Stuttgart recorded a record 1.6 billion euros in trade tax revenue—a sum that gave the city extraordinary financial leeway. Social projects, infrastructure initiatives, municipal ambitions—the local government could spend freely.

Cracks in the Model Municipality

Then came 2024. Early cracks in Germany’s economic foundation, building up over years, began to appear in Stuttgart as well. By the end of the fiscal year, the city faced a deficit of 6.8 million euros—a first warning that things might be spiraling out of control.

In green-led Baden-Württemberg, officials explained the shortfall with one-off effects and general problems in the German economy—problems they firmly believed could be managed under the state’s green transformation.

Then 2025 arrived—and with it, shock. Trade tax revenues collapsed, expected to bring only around 850 million euros into the city’s coffers for the year. The supplementary budget shows Stuttgart now faces a deficit of 890 million euros—a fiscal hammer blow, reflecting the massive collapse of Germany’s core industries, including automotive, machinery, and chemicals.

The Moment of Truth

The picture is the same across the country. For 2025, the German County Association forecasts a cumulative municipal deficit of around 35 billion euros—a historic figure unseen since World War II, and notably, for Germany, once considered a model of fiscal prudence.

The moment of truth has arrived. Ideologues have run their course. What follows are retreating maneuvers, frantic repair attempts, and the reflex to stabilize past policies artificially with ever-larger debt programs. The house of cards is stacked higher before it inevitably collapses.

Recent experiences with Berlin’s debt policies allow a fairly precise prediction of what comes next. Parts of the so-called “special fund”—new federal debt taken on outside the regular budget—will likely be repackaged into municipal aid packages to plug ever-growing budget holes.

If municipal finances worsen, the next escalation stage is already prepared: a consolidation of debt across the states, accompanied by the issuance of so-called special bonds. Initially through the federal states, guaranteed by the federal government, possibly involving the KfW Bank, labeled as infrastructure investments. Political imagination knows almost no bounds—at least until the bond market puts its foot down and abruptly ends the spree.

Germany has become, as a result of prolonged, fatal political mismanagement, a fiscal parasite. The attempt to pull tomorrow’s purchasing power into the present through debt is fundamentally flawed. It generates growing mountains of debt, forces higher levies, and gradually erodes citizens’ purchasing power through rising inflation.

Predictable Reaction

Many municipalities respond predictably. Across the board, trade tax rates are being drastically increased. The Rhineland-Palatinate capital of Mainz, for example, raised its rate from 310 to 440 percent—a significant burden for local businesses.

Other municipalities, like Wörth with a 65-point increase or Bad Dürkheim with 45 points, illustrate the strategy: higher levies amid declining economic performance—a death spiral for the local economy and, in the medium term, for tax revenue itself.

At the same time, massive austerity programs are being implemented. Germany faces a redefinition of public services. Municipally run, loss-making swimming pools, sports facilities, and recreational centers are now on the chopping block. Put simply: after years of delay, the manic cult of green transformation is now presenting its bill.

And it comes unexpectedly high for many, because people believed the promises of green central planners, who claimed that the complex, finely tuned network of domestic industry could be replaced by a centrally planned green fantasy. A historic error and a regression into the disastrous world of socialist feasibility illusions.

The Green Dream Is Being Lied Into Existence

A quick glance at state-funded media is enough to see how politics and state-aligned outlets attempt to deceive the public about the true state of the German economy. Single, typically heavily subsidized green projects are celebrated, while the real world suffers—with around 24,000 corporate insolvencies and hundreds of thousands of job losses this year alone.

During prime-time broadcasts, this dramatic decline is systematically overshadowed by other topics. The media effort by the green power complex to maintain the illusion of a climate-socialist Elysium reaches grotesque extremes.

Ironically, we see the same process on a geopolitical level, with attempts to turn the Russian central bank’s assets at Euroclear into a system of credit collateral. Essentially, everyone is bankrupt, and the EU staggers in panic mode toward a geopolitical catastrophe.

Every new deficit—whether at the federal level, in social funds, or in municipalities—fails to precisely measure a country’s loss of prosperity, which now reflexively flees into a debt crisis. In Berlin, officials seriously believe they can offset declining economic output with money printing. But as the saying goes: if wealth could be printed, one could also award degrees without merit.

Germany is now attempting to do both simultaneously. In the end, the country will experience its green miracle.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 02:00

Germany's Municipal Financial Crisis: The Green Transformation Backfires

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

For years, politicians managed to hide the damage caused by the green transformation. Now, deep cracks are appearing in municipal finances amid the severe economic crisis gripping the country. Cities like Stuttgart serve as showcases for the future of the republic.

For a long time, Stuttgart’s city treasurer was more than just a steward of solid numbers. He was regarded as the uncrowned king of fiscal policy in the region—and held a position envied by many colleagues. The robust foundation of the automotive industry and its extensive supplier network funneled generous tax revenues into the city’s coffers for years, particularly from trade taxes.

As recently as 2023, Stuttgart recorded a record 1.6 billion euros in trade tax revenue—a sum that gave the city extraordinary financial leeway. Social projects, infrastructure initiatives, municipal ambitions—the local government could spend freely.

Cracks in the Model Municipality

Then came 2024. Early cracks in Germany’s economic foundation, building up over years, began to appear in Stuttgart as well. By the end of the fiscal year, the city faced a deficit of 6.8 million euros—a first warning that things might be spiraling out of control.

In green-led Baden-Württemberg, officials explained the shortfall with one-off effects and general problems in the German economy—problems they firmly believed could be managed under the state’s green transformation.

Then 2025 arrived—and with it, shock. Trade tax revenues collapsed, expected to bring only around 850 million euros into the city’s coffers for the year. The supplementary budget shows Stuttgart now faces a deficit of 890 million euros—a fiscal hammer blow, reflecting the massive collapse of Germany’s core industries, including automotive, machinery, and chemicals.

The Moment of Truth

The picture is the same across the country. For 2025, the German County Association forecasts a cumulative municipal deficit of around 35 billion euros—a historic figure unseen since World War II, and notably, for Germany, once considered a model of fiscal prudence.

The moment of truth has arrived. Ideologues have run their course. What follows are retreating maneuvers, frantic repair attempts, and the reflex to stabilize past policies artificially with ever-larger debt programs. The house of cards is stacked higher before it inevitably collapses.

Recent experiences with Berlin’s debt policies allow a fairly precise prediction of what comes next. Parts of the so-called “special fund”—new federal debt taken on outside the regular budget—will likely be repackaged into municipal aid packages to plug ever-growing budget holes.

If municipal finances worsen, the next escalation stage is already prepared: a consolidation of debt across the states, accompanied by the issuance of so-called special bonds. Initially through the federal states, guaranteed by the federal government, possibly involving the KfW Bank, labeled as infrastructure investments. Political imagination knows almost no bounds—at least until the bond market puts its foot down and abruptly ends the spree.

Germany has become, as a result of prolonged, fatal political mismanagement, a fiscal parasite. The attempt to pull tomorrow’s purchasing power into the present through debt is fundamentally flawed. It generates growing mountains of debt, forces higher levies, and gradually erodes citizens’ purchasing power through rising inflation.

Predictable Reaction

Many municipalities respond predictably. Across the board, trade tax rates are being drastically increased. The Rhineland-Palatinate capital of Mainz, for example, raised its rate from 310 to 440 percent—a significant burden for local businesses.

Other municipalities, like Wörth with a 65-point increase or Bad Dürkheim with 45 points, illustrate the strategy: higher levies amid declining economic performance—a death spiral for the local economy and, in the medium term, for tax revenue itself.

At the same time, massive austerity programs are being implemented. Germany faces a redefinition of public services. Municipally run, loss-making swimming pools, sports facilities, and recreational centers are now on the chopping block. Put simply: after years of delay, the manic cult of green transformation is now presenting its bill.

And it comes unexpectedly high for many, because people believed the promises of green central planners, who claimed that the complex, finely tuned network of domestic industry could be replaced by a centrally planned green fantasy. A historic error and a regression into the disastrous world of socialist feasibility illusions.

The Green Dream Is Being Lied Into Existence

A quick glance at state-funded media is enough to see how politics and state-aligned outlets attempt to deceive the public about the true state of the German economy. Single, typically heavily subsidized green projects are celebrated, while the real world suffers—with around 24,000 corporate insolvencies and hundreds of thousands of job losses this year alone.

During prime-time broadcasts, this dramatic decline is systematically overshadowed by other topics. The media effort by the green power complex to maintain the illusion of a climate-socialist Elysium reaches grotesque extremes.

Ironically, we see the same process on a geopolitical level, with attempts to turn the Russian central bank’s assets at Euroclear into a system of credit collateral. Essentially, everyone is bankrupt, and the EU staggers in panic mode toward a geopolitical catastrophe.

Every new deficit—whether at the federal level, in social funds, or in municipalities—fails to precisely measure a country’s loss of prosperity, which now reflexively flees into a debt crisis. In Berlin, officials seriously believe they can offset declining economic output with money printing. But as the saying goes: if wealth could be printed, one could also award degrees without merit.

Germany is now attempting to do both simultaneously. In the end, the country will experience its green miracle.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 02:00

Aristocracy, Meritocracy, Technocracy, And Revolution

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

All human societies have informal social classes or formal social castes that separate groups of people within the same community.  Generally speaking, notions of aristocracy and hereditary nobility started on the battlefield.  Warrior chiefs of clans became minor kings after killing more rivals without dying themselves.  Rather than remaining in a constant state of tribal conflict, the chiefs of other clans bent the knee and became lesser lords.  Because kings and lords prefer their heirs to be kings and lords, too, bloodlines afforded children the social status that their ancestors had earned on the battlefield.

A ruling king who provided security and stability earned deference from those under his protection.  Over time, tribes combined to become nations.  Chieftains cooperated to form royal courts.  And the heirs of warrior chiefs adopted customs and traditions that symbolically separated those who rule from those who are ruled.

During social upheavals, the ruling aristocracy is often overthrown.  This provides hereditary nobles an incentive not only to quell rebellions quickly but also to find ways to keep the interests of non-nobles aligned with the aristocratic class.  Gifts of land, titles, and property buy a certain amount of loyalty.  The creation of minor offices apportions power to those deemed “worthy” of holding it.  The historic growth of administrative bureaucracies creates a path for non-nobles to exercise their talents in the service of those who rule.

To the consternation of Europe’s aristocratic class, the Great War ushered in a popular revolution against the hereditary order.  Several centuries of a growing middle class, increased literacy, industrial innovation, entrepreneurialism, and more widespread property ownership helped to create the social conditions for broad swaths of Europe’s populations to question why bloodlines should matter more than intelligence, talent, and hard work.  Many European families who lost fathers and sons during the First World War blamed European nobles for the calamity.

By the time the Second World War had provided an extra helping of self-destructive ruin, many of Europe’s noble houses were no more.  Those that had survived were acutely wary of suffering the fates of so many cousins who had been hanged, burned, or shot.  For the surviving members of Europe’s aristocracy to endure, they had no choice but to hand considerable political powers to the common people.  The twentieth century shepherded government reforms, suffrage for men and women without property, public welfare statutes, and expanded opportunities for common people to become part of the State’s governing bureaucracy.

While these reforms were celebrated as triumphs for “democracy,” it is important to understand that they did not completely supplant the vestiges of European aristocracy.  In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords still recognized the inherent right to rule of certain families.  Men with noble titles still ran central banks, trading houses, and clandestine agencies.  The attachés of those administrative lords still came from the “best families” and attended the “finest schools.”  Increasingly, however, the children of middle class families competed for and secured positions within the larger bureaucratic staff.

This twentieth century transition — in which citizens from low social classes were more broadly included in the functions of government — marked the social pivot to what Westerners call “meritocracy.”  

No longer would a person’s bloodline serve as the limits of what that person might achieve in this life.  Instead, natural intelligence, hard work, and determination could provide a person of any means the opportunity to rise as high as he might wish.

“Meritocracy” was an alluring idea to sell to the common people who had already destroyed so much of the aristocrats’ cherished social order in the first half of the twentieth century.  

Out with the nobles!  In with the people who deserve to have power!  From the point of view of someone in the lower or middle classes, a system that rewards skill, smarts, and determination sounds much fairer.

However, “meritocracy” provides an ancillary benefit to a ruling class seeking to maintain control: It keeps the most ambitious members of the non-noble classes competing against each other for a small number of powerful positions and reinforces the legitimacy of the governing system as a whole.  People who study, sacrifice, and struggle to obtain a little power within a governing bureaucracy are not inclined to question, criticize, or delegitimize that system once vested with a modicum of authority inside of it.

With the rise of the “meritocracy,” residual ruling class families found endless opportunities to keep unsuspecting commoners chasing their tails.  

A hundred years ago, “gentlemen” in positions of power had, at most, a college education.  The transition toward “meritocracy” convinced members of the lower classes that they needed all kinds of postgraduate degrees to prove their “expertise.”  

Just keep studying, kids, and you might finally have the right credentials to do the same job as a bunch of lords once did before they had reached the age of twenty-two! 

 In the meantime, stay poor, follow the rules, question nothing, and the ruling class might find a position for you once you’ve begged long enough.

In pursuit of “meritocracy,” commoners have been conditioned to believe that you cannot be successful without at least a college education.  In turn, the remnants of the noble ruling class have turned colleges into indoctrination laboratories that reinforce the ideologies of the ruling system.  Members of the Old Guard, in other words, have found the perfect mechanism through which to subordinate the very people otherwise inclined to overthrow them.  

Say ‘Hello’ to the new nobility; it looks just like the old one!

Unfortunately for the powers that be, there are widening cracks now in the “meritocracy” illusion.  Those cracks began with “affirmative action” programs in the United States that perpetuated racial discrimination, and they have continued to expand this century with the broad initiatives across the West in support of so-called “diversity, inclusion, and equity.”  Preferential admissions and hiring decisions in favor of special classes of people identified by their skin color, ethnicity, sexual disposition, disability, or perceived “victimhood” have blown up the perception that “meritocracy” exists at all.

Instead, what is increasingly obvious is that the same aristocrats who have always made the rules are once again decreeing which classes of commoners will be allowed to mingle among their ranks.  

Out with the meritocratic!  In with the multi-racial trans-furries who have trouble doing math!  As institutions in the West expose themselves as part of an unjust and prejudicial political system, the legitimacy of the ruling class is increasingly under attack.

For the first time in many decades, Westerners have begun to notice that much of the old aristocracy supposedly supplanted by the “meritocracy” remains nonetheless in charge.  Surprise!  A century after the supposed end of hereditary rule, men and women with feudal titles still control the European Council, transnational governing bodies, international treaty organizations, and all the central banks.  In other words, the illusion of “meritocracy” gave the ruling class just enough camouflage to survive several more generations.

What happens now?  

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, says that artificial intelligence will soon replace most human jobs.  

He insists that there will be a universal high income that every common peasant receives.  He says people will want for nothing…except purpose.

Perhaps Musk is right.  

Perhaps the lower classes will consent to a small number of elites ruling over them in perpetuity.  

Perhaps they will consent to mass surveillance, censorship, and State-sponsored “truths.”  

Perhaps they will agree to let the families of billionaires behave as entourages within royal courts in support of a coterie of technocratic kings.

Or perhaps we are destined for social upheaval.  

Perhaps what started on the battlefield will return to it. 

 Perhaps the ruling aristocracy will finally be overthrown.  

Regardless, the future will be interesting.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/15/2025 - 23:25

Aristocracy, Meritocracy, Technocracy, And Revolution

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

All human societies have informal social classes or formal social castes that separate groups of people within the same community.  Generally speaking, notions of aristocracy and hereditary nobility started on the battlefield.  Warrior chiefs of clans became minor kings after killing more rivals without dying themselves.  Rather than remaining in a constant state of tribal conflict, the chiefs of other clans bent the knee and became lesser lords.  Because kings and lords prefer their heirs to be kings and lords, too, bloodlines afforded children the social status that their ancestors had earned on the battlefield.

A ruling king who provided security and stability earned deference from those under his protection.  Over time, tribes combined to become nations.  Chieftains cooperated to form royal courts.  And the heirs of warrior chiefs adopted customs and traditions that symbolically separated those who rule from those who are ruled.

During social upheavals, the ruling aristocracy is often overthrown.  This provides hereditary nobles an incentive not only to quell rebellions quickly but also to find ways to keep the interests of non-nobles aligned with the aristocratic class.  Gifts of land, titles, and property buy a certain amount of loyalty.  The creation of minor offices apportions power to those deemed “worthy” of holding it.  The historic growth of administrative bureaucracies creates a path for non-nobles to exercise their talents in the service of those who rule.

To the consternation of Europe’s aristocratic class, the Great War ushered in a popular revolution against the hereditary order.  Several centuries of a growing middle class, increased literacy, industrial innovation, entrepreneurialism, and more widespread property ownership helped to create the social conditions for broad swaths of Europe’s populations to question why bloodlines should matter more than intelligence, talent, and hard work.  Many European families who lost fathers and sons during the First World War blamed European nobles for the calamity.

By the time the Second World War had provided an extra helping of self-destructive ruin, many of Europe’s noble houses were no more.  Those that had survived were acutely wary of suffering the fates of so many cousins who had been hanged, burned, or shot.  For the surviving members of Europe’s aristocracy to endure, they had no choice but to hand considerable political powers to the common people.  The twentieth century shepherded government reforms, suffrage for men and women without property, public welfare statutes, and expanded opportunities for common people to become part of the State’s governing bureaucracy.

While these reforms were celebrated as triumphs for “democracy,” it is important to understand that they did not completely supplant the vestiges of European aristocracy.  In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords still recognized the inherent right to rule of certain families.  Men with noble titles still ran central banks, trading houses, and clandestine agencies.  The attachés of those administrative lords still came from the “best families” and attended the “finest schools.”  Increasingly, however, the children of middle class families competed for and secured positions within the larger bureaucratic staff.

This twentieth century transition — in which citizens from low social classes were more broadly included in the functions of government — marked the social pivot to what Westerners call “meritocracy.”  

No longer would a person’s bloodline serve as the limits of what that person might achieve in this life.  Instead, natural intelligence, hard work, and determination could provide a person of any means the opportunity to rise as high as he might wish.

“Meritocracy” was an alluring idea to sell to the common people who had already destroyed so much of the aristocrats’ cherished social order in the first half of the twentieth century.  

Out with the nobles!  In with the people who deserve to have power!  From the point of view of someone in the lower or middle classes, a system that rewards skill, smarts, and determination sounds much fairer.

However, “meritocracy” provides an ancillary benefit to a ruling class seeking to maintain control: It keeps the most ambitious members of the non-noble classes competing against each other for a small number of powerful positions and reinforces the legitimacy of the governing system as a whole.  People who study, sacrifice, and struggle to obtain a little power within a governing bureaucracy are not inclined to question, criticize, or delegitimize that system once vested with a modicum of authority inside of it.

With the rise of the “meritocracy,” residual ruling class families found endless opportunities to keep unsuspecting commoners chasing their tails.  

A hundred years ago, “gentlemen” in positions of power had, at most, a college education.  The transition toward “meritocracy” convinced members of the lower classes that they needed all kinds of postgraduate degrees to prove their “expertise.”  

Just keep studying, kids, and you might finally have the right credentials to do the same job as a bunch of lords once did before they had reached the age of twenty-two! 

 In the meantime, stay poor, follow the rules, question nothing, and the ruling class might find a position for you once you’ve begged long enough.

In pursuit of “meritocracy,” commoners have been conditioned to believe that you cannot be successful without at least a college education.  In turn, the remnants of the noble ruling class have turned colleges into indoctrination laboratories that reinforce the ideologies of the ruling system.  Members of the Old Guard, in other words, have found the perfect mechanism through which to subordinate the very people otherwise inclined to overthrow them.  

Say ‘Hello’ to the new nobility; it looks just like the old one!

Unfortunately for the powers that be, there are widening cracks now in the “meritocracy” illusion.  Those cracks began with “affirmative action” programs in the United States that perpetuated racial discrimination, and they have continued to expand this century with the broad initiatives across the West in support of so-called “diversity, inclusion, and equity.”  Preferential admissions and hiring decisions in favor of special classes of people identified by their skin color, ethnicity, sexual disposition, disability, or perceived “victimhood” have blown up the perception that “meritocracy” exists at all.

Instead, what is increasingly obvious is that the same aristocrats who have always made the rules are once again decreeing which classes of commoners will be allowed to mingle among their ranks.  

Out with the meritocratic!  In with the multi-racial trans-furries who have trouble doing math!  As institutions in the West expose themselves as part of an unjust and prejudicial political system, the legitimacy of the ruling class is increasingly under attack.

For the first time in many decades, Westerners have begun to notice that much of the old aristocracy supposedly supplanted by the “meritocracy” remains nonetheless in charge.  Surprise!  A century after the supposed end of hereditary rule, men and women with feudal titles still control the European Council, transnational governing bodies, international treaty organizations, and all the central banks.  In other words, the illusion of “meritocracy” gave the ruling class just enough camouflage to survive several more generations.

What happens now?  

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, says that artificial intelligence will soon replace most human jobs.  

He insists that there will be a universal high income that every common peasant receives.  He says people will want for nothing…except purpose.

Perhaps Musk is right.  

Perhaps the lower classes will consent to a small number of elites ruling over them in perpetuity.  

Perhaps they will consent to mass surveillance, censorship, and State-sponsored “truths.”  

Perhaps they will agree to let the families of billionaires behave as entourages within royal courts in support of a coterie of technocratic kings.

Or perhaps we are destined for social upheaval.  

Perhaps what started on the battlefield will return to it. 

 Perhaps the ruling aristocracy will finally be overthrown.  

Regardless, the future will be interesting.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/15/2025 - 23:25

John Mearsheimer: Why Diplomacy Is Going Nowhere & Ukraine Is Doomed

With Zelensky having much-belatedly dropped aspirations for Ukraine's NATO membership, European officials are now openly admitting what pretty much everyone knew but was afraid to say.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas has newly acknowledged in fresh remarks that Ukraine's membership in the military alliance is now obviously "out of the question" - but that the European Union now needs to provide concrete security guarantees.

"Now if this [Ukraine’s NATO membership] is not in question, or this is out of the question, then we need to see what are the security guarantees that are tangible. They can’t be papers, or promises, they have to be real troops, real capabilities," she told reporters ahead of an EU Foreign Ministers meeting.

Kallas asserted that "in the last 100 years, Russia has attacked at least 19 countries," and so this means "the security guarantees are needed for all other members" in the EU.

Image via European Union

Europe is likely still going to propose some scheme not acceptable to Moscow, such as "Article 5-style" security guarantees, falling just short of NATO membership. But Russian leaders are just going to see keep viewing this as but a recipe for future conflict. 

This is precisely what Zelensky is now demanding in place of dropping the NATO bid. "We are talking about bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States — namely, Article 5-like guarantees ... as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others," he recently told Financial Times.

While rejecting the US deal which hinges on significant territorial concessions, Zelensky is hailing his new stance as some kind of grand compromise.

"These security guarantees are an opportunity to prevent another wave of Russian aggression," he had said over the weekend. "And this is already a compromise on our part." But this should have been taken off the table all the way back in February of 2022, on the eve of the Russian invasion, or even well before. Of course, he's much too late 'offering' this 'concession'. 

As we pointed out earlier, the open secret has for years been that the Washington and EU establishments know full well that it was historic and recent constant NATO expansion which led to this horrific, grinding war. This reality is so well understood that in their private, non-official commentary even former top Biden officials fully admit the fact.

Yet these same Biden officials had while in government pursued policies fueling the Ukrainian proxy war as they wanted to 'weaken' Russia. They considered the issue of NATO expansion as a prime rationale of Russia's invasion to be an off-limits talking point.

All of the above developments suggest that diplomacy is still going nowhere, also as Kiev has still not been induced to offer anything 'real' (from Moscow's perspective) that would be enough to permanently end the war and achieve lasting peace.

According to a recent podcast appearance by geopolitical analyst and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, "there is virtually no reason to think that a peace agreement can be struck to end the war, despite all the diplomatic maneuvering that has been taking place in recent months."

He continued... "For sure, diplomacy is a good thing in principle, but in practice it is going nowhere in this case. Russian demands are completely at odds with Ukrainian and European demands. And neither side is willing to budge an inch. Moreover, many seem to think that the proposal the Trump administration is pushing is a joint US-Russian plan — one that both Moscow and Washington support — when in fact there is no evidence that the Russians have accepted Trump’s 27-point plan."

"Indeed, that proposal is unacceptable to the Russians as they made clear on December 4th. Diplomacy will only become relevant when there is a major development on the battlefield that tells both sides that it is time to negotiate an armistice, turning the hot war into a frozen conflict." Watch the full interview below:

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/15/2025 - 23:00