Former Obama Speechwriter Admits Shunning MAGA Didn't Work

One of Barack Obama's former millennial speechwriters penned a New York Times opinion piece about his strained relationship with his brother-in-law during the COVID pandemic. Despite their deep cultural differences — the author being a "trust the science" liberal elitist who bowed to the government-corporate machine, fully vaxxed and obedient, while his brother-in-law remained unvaccinated and a free thinker — the two eventually reconnected through surfing. 

Thirty-eight-year-old David Litt, a liberal elitist who attended Yale University and later served as a speechwriter for President Obama, felt inspired to write a New York Times op-ed titled "Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?"

"Then the pandemic hit, and our preferences began to feel like more than differences in taste. We were on opposite sides of a cultural civil war. The deepest divide was vaccination. I wasn't shocked when Matt didn't get the Covid shot. But I was baffled. Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation. It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared," the liberal elite millennial opined. 

Litt continued, "Had Matt been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely." 

But only recently — and through shared surf sessions — did Litt's liberal mind experience a revelation: "These days, ostracism might just hurt the ostracizer more than the ostracizee." 

Litt's renewed bond with Matt didn't erase political disagreements, but it revealed common ground in unexpected places, showing that personal connection can transcend ideological divides and arguing that shunning people in today's highly polarized America is often ineffective and counterproductive, urging people to keep doors open rather than slam them shut over politics. 

Perhaps Litt's maturity is finally kicking in — after all, with time, people tend to become more conservative (by the mid/late 30s). Remember, it wasn't conservatives rushing to become the "Karens of Science" during Covid, pushing to ban the unvaccinated, with some Democrats even threatening them with jail or quarantine camps…

• The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

Never forget! 

Just three years ago, 30% of Democrats believed that children should be taken away from unvaccinated parents.

Nearly 50% of Democrats believed that the unvaccinated should be sent to camps.

This is what a totalitarian ideology looks like. pic.twitter.com/RSWyxRtrzp

— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) May 26, 2025

As Laura Ingraham put it, "The NYT admits that shunning MAGA didn't work." 

Cutting people off and nuking relationships over politics is inherently immature — yet it's a hallmark of immature liberal elite behavior. We would've thought Ivy League education would've taught them better. 

Perhaps the real lesson here is that maturity takes more time for liberals — something Litt had to discover the hard way, out in the surf off the New Jersey coast.

*  *  *

Psst...

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 13:25

Former Obama Speechwriter Admits Shunning MAGA Didn't Work

One of Barack Obama's former millennial speechwriters penned a New York Times opinion piece about his strained relationship with his brother-in-law during the COVID pandemic. Despite their deep cultural differences — the author being a "trust the science" liberal elitist who bowed to the government-corporate machine, fully vaxxed and obedient, while his brother-in-law remained unvaccinated and a free thinker — the two eventually reconnected through surfing. 

Thirty-eight-year-old David Litt, a liberal elitist who attended Yale University and later served as a speechwriter for President Obama, felt inspired to write a New York Times op-ed titled "Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?"

"Then the pandemic hit, and our preferences began to feel like more than differences in taste. We were on opposite sides of a cultural civil war. The deepest divide was vaccination. I wasn't shocked when Matt didn't get the Covid shot. But I was baffled. Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation. It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared," the liberal elite millennial opined. 

Litt continued, "Had Matt been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely." 

But only recently — and through shared surf sessions — did Litt's liberal mind experience a revelation: "These days, ostracism might just hurt the ostracizer more than the ostracizee." 

Litt's renewed bond with Matt didn't erase political disagreements, but it revealed common ground in unexpected places, showing that personal connection can transcend ideological divides and arguing that shunning people in today's highly polarized America is often ineffective and counterproductive, urging people to keep doors open rather than slam them shut over politics. 

Perhaps Litt's maturity is finally kicking in — after all, with time, people tend to become more conservative (by the mid/late 30s). Remember, it wasn't conservatives rushing to become the "Karens of Science" during Covid, pushing to ban the unvaccinated, with some Democrats even threatening them with jail or quarantine camps…

• The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

Never forget! 

Just three years ago, 30% of Democrats believed that children should be taken away from unvaccinated parents.

Nearly 50% of Democrats believed that the unvaccinated should be sent to camps.

This is what a totalitarian ideology looks like. pic.twitter.com/RSWyxRtrzp

— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) May 26, 2025

As Laura Ingraham put it, "The NYT admits that shunning MAGA didn't work." 

Cutting people off and nuking relationships over politics is inherently immature — yet it's a hallmark of immature liberal elite behavior. We would've thought Ivy League education would've taught them better. 

Perhaps the real lesson here is that maturity takes more time for liberals — something Litt had to discover the hard way, out in the surf off the New Jersey coast.

*  *  *

Psst...

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 13:25

Sectarian Purge Masked As 'Wildfire' Under Syria's New Government

Via The Cradle

Less than four months into its rule, Syria’s interim government is under mounting pressure, as each crisis—natural or security-related—casts doubt on its ability to govern and maintain control.

The recent wildfires that tore through northern Latakia were no seasonal accident. They broke out as sectarian killings escalated and suspicions of state complicity grew.

The blaze behind the purge

Never before in Syria had an armed group claimed responsibility for a natural disaster. That changed when Saraya Ansar al-Sunna announced it was behind fires that spread through the Qastal Ma'af region, explicitly stating that the arson attack “led to the fires spreading to other areas, forcing the Nusayris [Alawites] to flee their homes, and causing a number of them to suffocate.”

The statement came just three days into the blazes and only weeks after the same group had claimed responsibility for the June 22 bombing of Mar Elias Church in Damascus’ Douweila neighborhood.

That attack had sparked a rare public dispute between the Interior Ministry and Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. While the ministry blamed ISIS and paraded an arrested cell, the group named a different perpetrator, Muhammad Zain al-Abidin Abu Uthman. Despite vowing to release confessions to back its version, the ministry has remained silent.

Anas Khattab—former Al-Qaeda commander and Nusra Front co-founder, now serving as interior minister—only deepened the contradictions during his visit to the fire zone. He insisted there was "no evidence" of arson, even as his own ministry investigated suspects. 

Khattab’s refusal to acknowledge Saraya Ansar al-Sunna suggests that Damascus still considers it a phantom—a position reinforced when ministry spokesman Noureddine al-Baba publicly dismissed it as “imaginary” during a press conference after the church bombing.

At the same time, some Alawites believe that Interior Minister Khattab is using Saraya Ansar al-Sunna to carry out attacks against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities, while maintaining plausible deniability. 

Coordinated chaos and forced displacement 

In Latakia’s coastal hinterlands, fear was already running high. Many villages had yet to recover from the violence of March, when security raids and sectarian killings devastated entire communities, leaving behind charred homes and mass graves that remain under-reported by official channels. 

Only months ago, bloody confrontations claimed 2,000 lives across the region. Locals, mainly from the Alawite community, saw these events as the culmination of a systematic purge under the new regime. A wave of targeted killings, kidnappings, and violence had left communities deeply scarred.

Just days before the fires erupted, the murder of two brothers working as grape leaf pickers, along with the kidnapping of a girl, sparked widespread protests in the Al-Burjan and Beit Yashout areas in the Jableh countryside. 

These demonstrations, amplified by diaspora voices, coincided almost to the hour with the first outbreaks of fire, feeding widespread suspicion that the flames were a diversion or smokescreen. On the same day this call was issued, the spread of fires in the Latakia countryside forests began to attract media attention.

The Qastal Ma'af fire—the most intense and destructive—was explicitly claimed by Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. Although the group declared it aimed to displace Alawites, some affected villages housed significant Sunni Turkmen populations. Later, the group issued a cryptic clarification: “The burning of Sunni villages is attributed to Nusayri groups, and this is in the context of the ongoing, raging conflict.”

Local sources tell The Cradle that the fire consumed large swaths of forest and farmland, displacing entire communities. Despite the government’s dismissals, few believe this was a coincidence.

Denial and deception by Damascus

Rather than confront the threat, the Interior Ministry downplayed the human hand in the fires. Observers suggest this was a deliberate choice to avoid validating Saraya Ansar al-Sunna’s claim—and to prevent inflaming sectarian tensions.

But some in the Alawite community accuse Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government of weaponizing fire as a tool of demographic engineering. They point to circulating videos of security forces, Sunni Bedouin groups, and even Turkish-plate vehicles setting fires to Alawite lands.

One Alawite source explains to The Cradle:

“The Alawites rely on their land and employment, while Sharaa seeks to bring about a demographic shift in the coastal region. His aim is to strangle the Alawites and kill them, forcing them either to flee the country or remain amid ongoing cases of murder, abduction, and arson. The objective is clear: displacement and the destruction of every source of livelihood.”

The source adds that on July 9, in the town of Al-Haffa in Latakia, a small fire broke out. Thirty young men rushed to extinguish it—all around 21 years old—including nine Alawites. After the fire was put out, the nine Alawite young men were arrested and mysteriously disappeared.

Firefighting aircraft drop water over burning forests in Syria’s Latakia province as wildfires continue to spread for the 10th consecutive day near the Turkish border.#fires #syria #latakia #wildfires #firefighting

By @lynesammouri pic.twitter.com/q0YQru7nOH

— This is Beirut (@ThisIsBeirut_) July 13, 2025

When their families asked the local authorities regarding their whereabouts, the only response they received was: “We transferred them to Latakia.”

Demographic warfare under the cover of fire

Many Alawites believe Turkey seeks to effectively annex parts of the Syrian coast to seize maritime gas reserves, and that attacks by Turkmen and Uighur militants loyal to Damascus are designed to provoke pleas for Turkish protection.

Historically, arson has not been random in Syria. In 2020, the former government arrested 39 individuals for setting coordinated fires across Latakia, Tartous, Homs, and Hama—allegedly financed by a “foreign party.”

Last year, vast fires scorched Wadi al-Nasara in Homs and later spread to Kasab near the Turkish border. Then-Governor Khaled Abaza admitted, "The multiplicity of fire outbreaks strongly suggests that they were intentional, as between 30 and 40 fires broke out in a single day in various areas of the governorate, especially those rugged areas that are inaccessible to vehicles." He continued, “A search was launched for two vehicles believed to belong to the arsonists.”

The pattern of politically timed arson is now impossible to ignore. Every major fire in the past five years has coincided with key political milestones such as regime transitions and outbreaks of sectarian unrest, pointing to a deliberate strategy masked as environmental catastrophe.

While poverty and illegal logging are the usual explanations for Syria’s seasonal fires, deeper motives have taken shape. Intelligence services are reportedly scouring Latakia’s forests for buried weapons stockpiles. 

Foreign militaries are surveying the terrain for future base sites. Coastal land developers are eyeing scorched villages for luxury tourism projects. And behind it all, Israel remains a constant agitator, stoking sectarian flames for its own expansionist agenda and to further undermine the Resistance Axis. 

If anything, the ministry’s insistence on ruling out human involvement in this year’s fires has further eroded public trust. In a country exposed to endless covert operations, the official version of events cannot withstand scrutiny. 

In Latakia, what’s burning isn’t just land—it’s the last hope that post-Assad Syria might survive this transition intact.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 12:50

Sectarian Purge Masked As 'Wildfire' Under Syria's New Government

Via The Cradle

Less than four months into its rule, Syria’s interim government is under mounting pressure, as each crisis—natural or security-related—casts doubt on its ability to govern and maintain control.

The recent wildfires that tore through northern Latakia were no seasonal accident. They broke out as sectarian killings escalated and suspicions of state complicity grew.

The blaze behind the purge

Never before in Syria had an armed group claimed responsibility for a natural disaster. That changed when Saraya Ansar al-Sunna announced it was behind fires that spread through the Qastal Ma'af region, explicitly stating that the arson attack “led to the fires spreading to other areas, forcing the Nusayris [Alawites] to flee their homes, and causing a number of them to suffocate.”

The statement came just three days into the blazes and only weeks after the same group had claimed responsibility for the June 22 bombing of Mar Elias Church in Damascus’ Douweila neighborhood.

That attack had sparked a rare public dispute between the Interior Ministry and Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. While the ministry blamed ISIS and paraded an arrested cell, the group named a different perpetrator, Muhammad Zain al-Abidin Abu Uthman. Despite vowing to release confessions to back its version, the ministry has remained silent.

Anas Khattab—former Al-Qaeda commander and Nusra Front co-founder, now serving as interior minister—only deepened the contradictions during his visit to the fire zone. He insisted there was "no evidence" of arson, even as his own ministry investigated suspects. 

Khattab’s refusal to acknowledge Saraya Ansar al-Sunna suggests that Damascus still considers it a phantom—a position reinforced when ministry spokesman Noureddine al-Baba publicly dismissed it as “imaginary” during a press conference after the church bombing.

At the same time, some Alawites believe that Interior Minister Khattab is using Saraya Ansar al-Sunna to carry out attacks against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities, while maintaining plausible deniability. 

Coordinated chaos and forced displacement 

In Latakia’s coastal hinterlands, fear was already running high. Many villages had yet to recover from the violence of March, when security raids and sectarian killings devastated entire communities, leaving behind charred homes and mass graves that remain under-reported by official channels. 

Only months ago, bloody confrontations claimed 2,000 lives across the region. Locals, mainly from the Alawite community, saw these events as the culmination of a systematic purge under the new regime. A wave of targeted killings, kidnappings, and violence had left communities deeply scarred.

Just days before the fires erupted, the murder of two brothers working as grape leaf pickers, along with the kidnapping of a girl, sparked widespread protests in the Al-Burjan and Beit Yashout areas in the Jableh countryside. 

These demonstrations, amplified by diaspora voices, coincided almost to the hour with the first outbreaks of fire, feeding widespread suspicion that the flames were a diversion or smokescreen. On the same day this call was issued, the spread of fires in the Latakia countryside forests began to attract media attention.

The Qastal Ma'af fire—the most intense and destructive—was explicitly claimed by Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. Although the group declared it aimed to displace Alawites, some affected villages housed significant Sunni Turkmen populations. Later, the group issued a cryptic clarification: “The burning of Sunni villages is attributed to Nusayri groups, and this is in the context of the ongoing, raging conflict.”

Local sources tell The Cradle that the fire consumed large swaths of forest and farmland, displacing entire communities. Despite the government’s dismissals, few believe this was a coincidence.

Denial and deception by Damascus

Rather than confront the threat, the Interior Ministry downplayed the human hand in the fires. Observers suggest this was a deliberate choice to avoid validating Saraya Ansar al-Sunna’s claim—and to prevent inflaming sectarian tensions.

But some in the Alawite community accuse Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government of weaponizing fire as a tool of demographic engineering. They point to circulating videos of security forces, Sunni Bedouin groups, and even Turkish-plate vehicles setting fires to Alawite lands.

One Alawite source explains to The Cradle:

“The Alawites rely on their land and employment, while Sharaa seeks to bring about a demographic shift in the coastal region. His aim is to strangle the Alawites and kill them, forcing them either to flee the country or remain amid ongoing cases of murder, abduction, and arson. The objective is clear: displacement and the destruction of every source of livelihood.”

The source adds that on July 9, in the town of Al-Haffa in Latakia, a small fire broke out. Thirty young men rushed to extinguish it—all around 21 years old—including nine Alawites. After the fire was put out, the nine Alawite young men were arrested and mysteriously disappeared.

Firefighting aircraft drop water over burning forests in Syria’s Latakia province as wildfires continue to spread for the 10th consecutive day near the Turkish border.#fires #syria #latakia #wildfires #firefighting

By @lynesammouri pic.twitter.com/q0YQru7nOH

— This is Beirut (@ThisIsBeirut_) July 13, 2025

When their families asked the local authorities regarding their whereabouts, the only response they received was: “We transferred them to Latakia.”

Demographic warfare under the cover of fire

Many Alawites believe Turkey seeks to effectively annex parts of the Syrian coast to seize maritime gas reserves, and that attacks by Turkmen and Uighur militants loyal to Damascus are designed to provoke pleas for Turkish protection.

Historically, arson has not been random in Syria. In 2020, the former government arrested 39 individuals for setting coordinated fires across Latakia, Tartous, Homs, and Hama—allegedly financed by a “foreign party.”

Last year, vast fires scorched Wadi al-Nasara in Homs and later spread to Kasab near the Turkish border. Then-Governor Khaled Abaza admitted, "The multiplicity of fire outbreaks strongly suggests that they were intentional, as between 30 and 40 fires broke out in a single day in various areas of the governorate, especially those rugged areas that are inaccessible to vehicles." He continued, “A search was launched for two vehicles believed to belong to the arsonists.”

The pattern of politically timed arson is now impossible to ignore. Every major fire in the past five years has coincided with key political milestones such as regime transitions and outbreaks of sectarian unrest, pointing to a deliberate strategy masked as environmental catastrophe.

While poverty and illegal logging are the usual explanations for Syria’s seasonal fires, deeper motives have taken shape. Intelligence services are reportedly scouring Latakia’s forests for buried weapons stockpiles. 

Foreign militaries are surveying the terrain for future base sites. Coastal land developers are eyeing scorched villages for luxury tourism projects. And behind it all, Israel remains a constant agitator, stoking sectarian flames for its own expansionist agenda and to further undermine the Resistance Axis. 

If anything, the ministry’s insistence on ruling out human involvement in this year’s fires has further eroded public trust. In a country exposed to endless covert operations, the official version of events cannot withstand scrutiny. 

In Latakia, what’s burning isn’t just land—it’s the last hope that post-Assad Syria might survive this transition intact.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 12:50

What The World Is Asking ChatGPT In 2025

What are people really asking ChatGPT?

With adoption growing, ChatGPT prompts are shifting as consumer behavior evolves. While software development prompts continue to dominate, their share has fallen meaningfully over the past year, reflecting how developers were among the earliest users of ChatGPT for code and other applications.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the most popular ChatGPT prompt categories, based on data from Sensor Tower.

Top Categories for ChatGPT Prompts in 2025

Below, we show the leading prompt categories on ChatGPT between March and April 2025:

Covering 29% of all prompts, software development is the top category for ChatGPT users.

Along with simplifying coding tasks across multiple programming languages, ChatGPT can help debug and automate tasks. A separate study found that early coders (those with under a year of coding experience) were most likely to be AI optimists among coders.

History and society prompts were the second-most common type of prompt, at 15% of the total share. Meanwhile, AI and machine learning prompts followed closely behind.

Interestingly, the fastest-growing category was economics, finance and tax—with its share jumping more than threefold in a year as users increasingly look for insights on stocks, financial markets, and macroeconomic trends.

To learn more about this topic from a user perspective, check out this graphic on the most popular AI tools in 2025.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 12:15

What The World Is Asking ChatGPT In 2025

What are people really asking ChatGPT?

With adoption growing, ChatGPT prompts are shifting as consumer behavior evolves. While software development prompts continue to dominate, their share has fallen meaningfully over the past year, reflecting how developers were among the earliest users of ChatGPT for code and other applications.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the most popular ChatGPT prompt categories, based on data from Sensor Tower.

Top Categories for ChatGPT Prompts in 2025

Below, we show the leading prompt categories on ChatGPT between March and April 2025:

Covering 29% of all prompts, software development is the top category for ChatGPT users.

Along with simplifying coding tasks across multiple programming languages, ChatGPT can help debug and automate tasks. A separate study found that early coders (those with under a year of coding experience) were most likely to be AI optimists among coders.

History and society prompts were the second-most common type of prompt, at 15% of the total share. Meanwhile, AI and machine learning prompts followed closely behind.

Interestingly, the fastest-growing category was economics, finance and tax—with its share jumping more than threefold in a year as users increasingly look for insights on stocks, financial markets, and macroeconomic trends.

To learn more about this topic from a user perspective, check out this graphic on the most popular AI tools in 2025.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 12:15

'Crypto Week' Looms: Will These Three Pro-Crypto Bills Pass?

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

Lawmakers in Washington are gearing up to pass three bills for the blockchain industry in an event they have dubbed “crypto week.”

The US Congress has been working on legislation that the crypto industry lobby says will help bring clarity to the industry and help it grow, primarily through two laws governing stablecoins and creating a crypto market structure. Congress is also considering a law preventing the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Crypto has found support on both sides of the aisle, with Democratic and Republican lawmakers each making a number of amendments to the bills under consideration. Major crypto exchanges operating in the United States, like Coinbase, have stepped up their campaigning for the legislation as well.

With Congress set to take action on three critical bills during Crypto Week, here’s a look at what they’re considering and what it means for the crypto industry.

The three bills expected during Crypto Week. Source: House Financial Services Committee

Crypto week aims to pass three bills into law

The US House Financial Services Committee announced Crypto Week would start on July 14. It will consider three bills, namely:

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act)

Republican Representative French Hill introduced the CLARITY Act only at the end of June. The bill aims to provide a framework for the digital assets industry, including defining the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 

The crypto industry has long thought that the Howey test, as outlined in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is out of date and that the SEC should not apply it nor exercise jurisdiction over digital assets. 

The CLARITY Act would “provide an exemption from the Securities Act of 1933’s registration requirement for offers of investment contracts involving digital commodities on mature blockchains that meet certain conditions.”

It also defines “mature” blockchains as networks that have a digital commodity “substantially derived from the use and functioning of the blockchain.” It can’t have user restrictions and must limit certain holders to less than 20% of ownership.

Under the bill, the CFTC would gain “exclusive regulatory jurisdiction” over crypto transactions. Crypto exchanges and brokers would be required to register with the commission and would be subject to record keeping, reporting, antitrust considerations and other regulatory considerations.

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)

Perhaps the most well-known of the three bills being considered during crypto week is the GENIUS Act, the long-awaited regulatory framework for stablecoins. 

The bill was introduced in February, just over a week after President Donald Trump took his oath of office, by a bipartisan group of legislators. It is now in the House after passing the Senate in a bipartisan vote on June 17.

The bill defines what type of entities may issue stablecoins and states that “issuers must maintain reserves backing the stablecoin on a one-to-one basis using U.S. currency or other similarly liquid assets, as specified.”

It also subjects issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act and sets provisions for the event of a stablecoin issuer going insolvent. 

Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act

Republican Representative Tom Emmer introduced the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act on March 6, which seeks to prevent the Federal Reserve, the US’s central bank, from issuing a CBDC.

Under the pretense of concern over citizens’ privacy, the act would forbid the Fed from issuing a CBDC either by itself or through a third party, prevent the Fed from using a CBDC to influence monetary policy and give Congress the sole authority to issue a digital dollar. 

According to an announcement from the House Committee on Financial Services, supporting organizations include the Blockchain Association, the Digital Chamber of Commerce and a number of banking lobbies. 

Can the crypto bills actually pass?

Given the glacial pace of lawmaking in Washington, one week is a short time to pass three laws, especially considering the size and economic implications of these three bills.

Major crypto companies like Coinbase have been lobbying hard. On July 7, Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto lobbying organization started by Coinbase, sent a letter to lawmakers signed by 65 executives from various crypto firms, urging Congress to pass the CLARITY Act. 

On July 9, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wrote a message supporting the same, saying that “America is ready for crypto.” 

Polymarket doesn’t reflect this readiness. Participants in the “Clarity Act signed into law in 2025?” market give the bill a 52% chance at publishing time. 

The CLARITY Act’s success has divided punters. Source: Polymarket

The CLARITY Act has been panned by lawmakers and consumer protection organizations alike as being a “crypto crash grab” and a means for companies to avoid SEC regulation.

Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) called the bill “a massive deregulatory bill backed by a gusher of campaign cash and lobbying muscle from ultra-wealthy venture capital firms and crypto billionaires. The bill will enrich them at the expense of consumers, communities, and financial stability.”

The AFR also raised concerns about Trump’s personal crypto dealings and noted that the bill contains no provisions regarding corruption and ethical concerns. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a noted crypto critic, has also opposed the bill, stating that it allows major firms to skirt SEC regulation. 

“Under the House bill, a publicly traded company like Meta or Tesla could simply decide to put its stock on the blockchain and — poof! — it would escape all SEC regulation,” said Warren. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren at a July 9 Senate hearing. Source: Senate Banking Committee

The GENIUS Act, by comparison, has experienced more debate and revision in both halls of Congress. According to Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s sponsors, the Senate has done significant work to include provisions addressing Democratic concerns over terrorism financing and money laundering. 

When the bill passed the Senate in mid-June, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said it “targets illicit finance, places limitations on Big Tech, puts in place ethical guardrails, and strengthens national security.”

Concerns remain, like the potential effect the act could have on dollar dominance and treasury markets. Even so, betting markets are optimistic. Participants on Polymarket give the bill a 92% chance of passing this year. 

The anti-CBDC bill is still under deliberation. On July 9, the House Committee on Ways and Means and Oversight Subcommittee announced a July 16 hearing on “affirmative steps needed to place a tax policy framework on digital assets.”

The hearing is reportedly set to address aspects related to Emmer’s anti-CBDC bill. 

Whether pro-crypto lawmakers can pass three laws in a week seems a high bar to clear, but even if they don’t, their focus in the near future is definitely crypto. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 11:40

'Crypto Week' Looms: Will These Three Pro-Crypto Bills Pass?

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

Lawmakers in Washington are gearing up to pass three bills for the blockchain industry in an event they have dubbed “crypto week.”

The US Congress has been working on legislation that the crypto industry lobby says will help bring clarity to the industry and help it grow, primarily through two laws governing stablecoins and creating a crypto market structure. Congress is also considering a law preventing the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Crypto has found support on both sides of the aisle, with Democratic and Republican lawmakers each making a number of amendments to the bills under consideration. Major crypto exchanges operating in the United States, like Coinbase, have stepped up their campaigning for the legislation as well.

With Congress set to take action on three critical bills during Crypto Week, here’s a look at what they’re considering and what it means for the crypto industry.

The three bills expected during Crypto Week. Source: House Financial Services Committee

Crypto week aims to pass three bills into law

The US House Financial Services Committee announced Crypto Week would start on July 14. It will consider three bills, namely:

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act)

Republican Representative French Hill introduced the CLARITY Act only at the end of June. The bill aims to provide a framework for the digital assets industry, including defining the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 

The crypto industry has long thought that the Howey test, as outlined in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is out of date and that the SEC should not apply it nor exercise jurisdiction over digital assets. 

The CLARITY Act would “provide an exemption from the Securities Act of 1933’s registration requirement for offers of investment contracts involving digital commodities on mature blockchains that meet certain conditions.”

It also defines “mature” blockchains as networks that have a digital commodity “substantially derived from the use and functioning of the blockchain.” It can’t have user restrictions and must limit certain holders to less than 20% of ownership.

Under the bill, the CFTC would gain “exclusive regulatory jurisdiction” over crypto transactions. Crypto exchanges and brokers would be required to register with the commission and would be subject to record keeping, reporting, antitrust considerations and other regulatory considerations.

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)

Perhaps the most well-known of the three bills being considered during crypto week is the GENIUS Act, the long-awaited regulatory framework for stablecoins. 

The bill was introduced in February, just over a week after President Donald Trump took his oath of office, by a bipartisan group of legislators. It is now in the House after passing the Senate in a bipartisan vote on June 17.

The bill defines what type of entities may issue stablecoins and states that “issuers must maintain reserves backing the stablecoin on a one-to-one basis using U.S. currency or other similarly liquid assets, as specified.”

It also subjects issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act and sets provisions for the event of a stablecoin issuer going insolvent. 

Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act

Republican Representative Tom Emmer introduced the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act on March 6, which seeks to prevent the Federal Reserve, the US’s central bank, from issuing a CBDC.

Under the pretense of concern over citizens’ privacy, the act would forbid the Fed from issuing a CBDC either by itself or through a third party, prevent the Fed from using a CBDC to influence monetary policy and give Congress the sole authority to issue a digital dollar. 

According to an announcement from the House Committee on Financial Services, supporting organizations include the Blockchain Association, the Digital Chamber of Commerce and a number of banking lobbies. 

Can the crypto bills actually pass?

Given the glacial pace of lawmaking in Washington, one week is a short time to pass three laws, especially considering the size and economic implications of these three bills.

Major crypto companies like Coinbase have been lobbying hard. On July 7, Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto lobbying organization started by Coinbase, sent a letter to lawmakers signed by 65 executives from various crypto firms, urging Congress to pass the CLARITY Act. 

On July 9, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wrote a message supporting the same, saying that “America is ready for crypto.” 

Polymarket doesn’t reflect this readiness. Participants in the “Clarity Act signed into law in 2025?” market give the bill a 52% chance at publishing time. 

The CLARITY Act’s success has divided punters. Source: Polymarket

The CLARITY Act has been panned by lawmakers and consumer protection organizations alike as being a “crypto crash grab” and a means for companies to avoid SEC regulation.

Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) called the bill “a massive deregulatory bill backed by a gusher of campaign cash and lobbying muscle from ultra-wealthy venture capital firms and crypto billionaires. The bill will enrich them at the expense of consumers, communities, and financial stability.”

The AFR also raised concerns about Trump’s personal crypto dealings and noted that the bill contains no provisions regarding corruption and ethical concerns. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a noted crypto critic, has also opposed the bill, stating that it allows major firms to skirt SEC regulation. 

“Under the House bill, a publicly traded company like Meta or Tesla could simply decide to put its stock on the blockchain and — poof! — it would escape all SEC regulation,” said Warren. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren at a July 9 Senate hearing. Source: Senate Banking Committee

The GENIUS Act, by comparison, has experienced more debate and revision in both halls of Congress. According to Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s sponsors, the Senate has done significant work to include provisions addressing Democratic concerns over terrorism financing and money laundering. 

When the bill passed the Senate in mid-June, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said it “targets illicit finance, places limitations on Big Tech, puts in place ethical guardrails, and strengthens national security.”

Concerns remain, like the potential effect the act could have on dollar dominance and treasury markets. Even so, betting markets are optimistic. Participants on Polymarket give the bill a 92% chance of passing this year. 

The anti-CBDC bill is still under deliberation. On July 9, the House Committee on Ways and Means and Oversight Subcommittee announced a July 16 hearing on “affirmative steps needed to place a tax policy framework on digital assets.”

The hearing is reportedly set to address aspects related to Emmer’s anti-CBDC bill. 

Whether pro-crypto lawmakers can pass three laws in a week seems a high bar to clear, but even if they don’t, their focus in the near future is definitely crypto. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 11:40

Study Reveals How Many Cups Of Coffee Needed To Shield Against Liver Disease

Waking up for the London Stock Exchange isn't complete without the daily ritual: fire up the espresso machine, grind those dark roasted Robusta beans, and 30 seconds later—boom—a jolt of caffeine strong enough to skim a dozen Goldman, UBS, and Bank of America notes. But here's the kicker: the morning rocket fuel might be doing a lot more than energizing you for the trading session. 

According to a massive UK Biobank study, coffee—yes, even the decaf, instant, and ground stuff—appears to protect against chronic liver disease (CLD).

"Coffee consumption has been linked with lower rates of CLD, but little is known about the effects of different coffee types, which vary in chemical composition," researchers from the University of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research wrote in the report. 

Here are the key takeaways from the study, which found that compared to non-coffee drinkers, regular coffee drinkers had a: 

• 21% lower risk of incident CLD
• 20% lower risk of CLD or steatosis
• 49% lower risk of death from CLD

Dose-Response: "The maximal protective effect was seen at around 3–4 cups each day. The findings were robust to excluding events in the first 5 years. Drinkers of decaffeinated, instant, and ground coffee (including espresso) also had lower risks of incident CLD, incident CLD or steatosis, death from CLD, and, to a lesser extent, HCC, with ground coffee (including espresso) having the largest effect," the researchers found. 

Researchers noted, "This study agrees with previous cohort studies that generally report inverse associations between coffee consumption and CLD outcomes, including deranged liver enzymes, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma."

Biologically, coffee's protective effect is plausible. Caffeine inhibits the A2aA receptor, which otherwise promotes liver fibrosis. Yet decaffeinated coffee was also protective, pointing to other active compounds like chlorogenic acid, kahweol, and cafestol—especially concentrated in ground coffee. These compounds have shown anti-fibrotic effects in animal studies, suggesting a multifactorial mechanism behind coffee's liver-protective properties.

What better way to armor your liver and support your favorite forward-looking financial news site than by grabbing a bag of our ZeroHedge-approved coffee beans?

Top pick? The dark roast. Bold, unapologetic—just like our headlines.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 11:05

Study Reveals How Many Cups Of Coffee Needed To Shield Against Liver Disease

Waking up for the London Stock Exchange isn't complete without the daily ritual: fire up the espresso machine, grind those dark roasted Robusta beans, and 30 seconds later—boom—a jolt of caffeine strong enough to skim a dozen Goldman, UBS, and Bank of America notes. But here's the kicker: the morning rocket fuel might be doing a lot more than energizing you for the trading session. 

According to a massive UK Biobank study, coffee—yes, even the decaf, instant, and ground stuff—appears to protect against chronic liver disease (CLD).

"Coffee consumption has been linked with lower rates of CLD, but little is known about the effects of different coffee types, which vary in chemical composition," researchers from the University of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research wrote in the report. 

Here are the key takeaways from the study, which found that compared to non-coffee drinkers, regular coffee drinkers had a: 

• 21% lower risk of incident CLD
• 20% lower risk of CLD or steatosis
• 49% lower risk of death from CLD

Dose-Response: "The maximal protective effect was seen at around 3–4 cups each day. The findings were robust to excluding events in the first 5 years. Drinkers of decaffeinated, instant, and ground coffee (including espresso) also had lower risks of incident CLD, incident CLD or steatosis, death from CLD, and, to a lesser extent, HCC, with ground coffee (including espresso) having the largest effect," the researchers found. 

Researchers noted, "This study agrees with previous cohort studies that generally report inverse associations between coffee consumption and CLD outcomes, including deranged liver enzymes, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma."

Biologically, coffee's protective effect is plausible. Caffeine inhibits the A2aA receptor, which otherwise promotes liver fibrosis. Yet decaffeinated coffee was also protective, pointing to other active compounds like chlorogenic acid, kahweol, and cafestol—especially concentrated in ground coffee. These compounds have shown anti-fibrotic effects in animal studies, suggesting a multifactorial mechanism behind coffee's liver-protective properties.

What better way to armor your liver and support your favorite forward-looking financial news site than by grabbing a bag of our ZeroHedge-approved coffee beans?

Top pick? The dark roast. Bold, unapologetic—just like our headlines.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 11:05

Waymo Takes To Philadelphia

Waymo is expanding its testing to Philadelphia, deploying a small fleet of vehicles with human safety drivers behind the wheel, according to CNBC.

The Alphabet-owned company confirmed to CNBC that testing will run through the fall, with cars initially driven manually through complex areas like downtown and local freeways.

“This city is a National Treasure,” Waymo posted on X. “It’s a city of love, where eagles fly with a gritty spirit and cheese that spreads and cheese that steaks. Our road trip continues to Philly next.”

Waymo said locals can expect to see its vehicles at all hours across neighborhoods such as North Central, Eastwick, University City, and near the Delaware River.

These so-called “road trips” help the company gather mapping data and assess the performance of its autonomous system, Waymo Driver, in unfamiliar environments. They’re often a precursor to deciding whether to launch a commercial ride-hailing service in a new city.

CNBC reports that the Philadelphia pilot follows similar manual testing efforts in New York, where Waymo recently applied for a permit to operate with trained specialists in Manhattan—though New York law currently prohibits full driverless operation.

Waymo One already provides over 250,000 paid rides weekly. The push into new cities comes as Alphabet faces pressure to monetize AI ventures. Its “Other Bets” segment, which includes Waymo, earned $1.65 billion in 2024 (up from $1.53 billion in 2023) but posted a $4.44 billion loss, wider than the $4.09 billion loss the previous year.

Waymo already operates in Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix and added Atlanta to its robotaxi portfolio this summer.

Tesla's robotaxi reveal and Waymo's rapid expansion across U.S. cities have dominated the conversation around autonomous vehicles (AVs) in North America. A note from Goldman Sachs out earlier this summer (read here) provided a framework showing that AVs have officially entered the commercialization phase in ridesharing and trucking, and their proliferation into the real economy is poised for hyperscale well into the 2030s.

"There are already over 1,500 Waymo robotaxis on roads in the U.S. Tesla hopes to begin commercial robotaxi operations in June in Austin," a team of Goldman analysts led by Mark Delaney wrote in a note to clients earlier this summer. 

The U.S. rideshare market, currently valued at $58 billion, is expected to swell to over $336 billion by 2030. Delaney estimates robotaxis will capture about $7 billion of that market, representing 8% of total rideshare bookings. While this figure may seem modest, it represents a significant leap from the $300 million projected for 2025, with a nearly 90% compound annual growth rate.

Waymo leads the autonomous vehicle space with 1,500 vehicles operating across various metro areas nationwide, logging over 250,000 paid rides per week. Those cities include Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin, with plans to expand into seven U.S. cities by the end of 2026. 

Delaney forecasted, "With this rollout from Waymo, coupled with planned launches from others including Tesla and Zoox, we expect over 1.8K commercial autonomous vehicles in the US by the end of 2025 and 35K in 2030." 

Here's the latest on the robotaxi industry:

• Elon Musk Confirms June Launch For Robotaxis In Austin

• 500,000 Robotaxis To Hit China's Streets By 2030

• Where Are Waymo's Robotaxis Today?

• First Driverless Heavy Duty Trucking Service Launched On US Public Roads

.  .  . 

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:55

Waymo Takes To Philadelphia

Waymo is expanding its testing to Philadelphia, deploying a small fleet of vehicles with human safety drivers behind the wheel, according to CNBC.

The Alphabet-owned company confirmed to CNBC that testing will run through the fall, with cars initially driven manually through complex areas like downtown and local freeways.

“This city is a National Treasure,” Waymo posted on X. “It’s a city of love, where eagles fly with a gritty spirit and cheese that spreads and cheese that steaks. Our road trip continues to Philly next.”

Waymo said locals can expect to see its vehicles at all hours across neighborhoods such as North Central, Eastwick, University City, and near the Delaware River.

These so-called “road trips” help the company gather mapping data and assess the performance of its autonomous system, Waymo Driver, in unfamiliar environments. They’re often a precursor to deciding whether to launch a commercial ride-hailing service in a new city.

CNBC reports that the Philadelphia pilot follows similar manual testing efforts in New York, where Waymo recently applied for a permit to operate with trained specialists in Manhattan—though New York law currently prohibits full driverless operation.

Waymo One already provides over 250,000 paid rides weekly. The push into new cities comes as Alphabet faces pressure to monetize AI ventures. Its “Other Bets” segment, which includes Waymo, earned $1.65 billion in 2024 (up from $1.53 billion in 2023) but posted a $4.44 billion loss, wider than the $4.09 billion loss the previous year.

Waymo already operates in Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix and added Atlanta to its robotaxi portfolio this summer.

Tesla's robotaxi reveal and Waymo's rapid expansion across U.S. cities have dominated the conversation around autonomous vehicles (AVs) in North America. A note from Goldman Sachs out earlier this summer (read here) provided a framework showing that AVs have officially entered the commercialization phase in ridesharing and trucking, and their proliferation into the real economy is poised for hyperscale well into the 2030s.

"There are already over 1,500 Waymo robotaxis on roads in the U.S. Tesla hopes to begin commercial robotaxi operations in June in Austin," a team of Goldman analysts led by Mark Delaney wrote in a note to clients earlier this summer. 

The U.S. rideshare market, currently valued at $58 billion, is expected to swell to over $336 billion by 2030. Delaney estimates robotaxis will capture about $7 billion of that market, representing 8% of total rideshare bookings. While this figure may seem modest, it represents a significant leap from the $300 million projected for 2025, with a nearly 90% compound annual growth rate.

Waymo leads the autonomous vehicle space with 1,500 vehicles operating across various metro areas nationwide, logging over 250,000 paid rides per week. Those cities include Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin, with plans to expand into seven U.S. cities by the end of 2026. 

Delaney forecasted, "With this rollout from Waymo, coupled with planned launches from others including Tesla and Zoox, we expect over 1.8K commercial autonomous vehicles in the US by the end of 2025 and 35K in 2030." 

Here's the latest on the robotaxi industry:

• Elon Musk Confirms June Launch For Robotaxis In Austin

• 500,000 Robotaxis To Hit China's Streets By 2030

• Where Are Waymo's Robotaxis Today?

• First Driverless Heavy Duty Trucking Service Launched On US Public Roads

.  .  . 

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:55

Iran's Mass Expulsion Of Afghans Poses A Dilemma For Many Of Its Supporters

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Most of them are opposed to the expulsion of any illegal immigrants, yet self-censoring their criticism of Iran’s policy discredits their criticisms of Trump’s similar one, while acknowledging the “Weapons of Mass Migration” pretext upon which Iran’s policy is premised justifies Trump’s.

Approximately 800,000 Afghans have reportedly been expelled from Iran ahead of Sunday’s deadline for undocumented members of this estimated 4 million-strong community to leave. Publicly financed Press TV said that the policy is aimed at mitigating the security threat that they pose after some of them were caught spying for Israel and carrying out terrorist attacks at its behest during the latest conflict. In any case, this poses a dilemma for many of Iran’s supporters, most of whom oppose Trump’s similar policy.

After all, Trump’s justification for expelling illegal immigrants from the US is also partially premised on security-related reasons, yet his opponents still condemn it as “racist”, “fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Some of these same opponents at home and abroad also strongly support Iran, especially in the context of the latest conflict, and criticizing it for any reason is thus deemed to be “politically incorrect” according to their dogma. Self-censoring criticisms of Iran’s expulsions, however, discredits their criticisms of Trump’s.

Opponents of mass expulsions also tend to be leftist-aligned regardless of how they politically self-identify (e.g. “moderate”, socialist, communist, etc.), so they’re already ideologically in favor of “open borders” or at the very least consider the expulsion of any illegal immigrants to be unacceptable. The abovementioned problem though is that criticizing Iran for its mass expulsion of Afghans, despite being driven by “anti-Zionist” security-related reasons, could lead to them being “canceled”.

That’s because their online activist community regularly carries out inquisitions against anyone who doesn’t perfectly conform with their talking points at any given time. Even constructive critiques of various countries, leaders, and policies, no matter how mild, can lead to one being viciously smeared as a “Zionist” or “CIA agent” and accused of “infiltrating” their cause in order to “subvert it from within”. Criticizing Iran on this point right after the latest conflict could therefore destroy someone’s reputation.

The crux of their dilemma is whether the concept of “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), which Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill introduced in 2010, exists. In this context, it refers to the weaponization of some migrant communities by foreign powers, exactly as Israel is suspected of doing with some Afghans vis-à-vis Iran. WMMs objectively exist, but most leftist-aligned activists have hitherto gaslit that they don’t, afraid to lend this concept credence that could then justify Trump’s policies.

It remains to be seen how this community as a whole reacts to Iran’s mass expulsion policy, if at all since most might prefer to remain silent to avoid being “canceled” by their peers, and whether they’ll still criticize Trump’s similar policy if they acknowledge that WMMs do indeed exist. The overarching issue is the interplay between ideology, groupthink, dogma, “cancel culture”, and resultant dilemmas, which isn’t exclusive to Iran’s supporters or leftist-aligned individuals but afflicts all causes.

For reasons of consistency, they’d do well to acknowledge that WMMs exist but with the caveat that they could be exploited as the pretext for massively expelling entire groups for ulterior reasons, which could even include those such as naturalized citizens who should be legally protected. The aforesaid proposal would require modifying the dogma to which many of Iran’s supporters adhere, however, which could ironically provoke a mass inquisition (“expulsion”) of suspected “subversives” from their ranks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:20

Iran's Mass Expulsion Of Afghans Poses A Dilemma For Many Of Its Supporters

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Most of them are opposed to the expulsion of any illegal immigrants, yet self-censoring their criticism of Iran’s policy discredits their criticisms of Trump’s similar one, while acknowledging the “Weapons of Mass Migration” pretext upon which Iran’s policy is premised justifies Trump’s.

Approximately 800,000 Afghans have reportedly been expelled from Iran ahead of Sunday’s deadline for undocumented members of this estimated 4 million-strong community to leave. Publicly financed Press TV said that the policy is aimed at mitigating the security threat that they pose after some of them were caught spying for Israel and carrying out terrorist attacks at its behest during the latest conflict. In any case, this poses a dilemma for many of Iran’s supporters, most of whom oppose Trump’s similar policy.

After all, Trump’s justification for expelling illegal immigrants from the US is also partially premised on security-related reasons, yet his opponents still condemn it as “racist”, “fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Some of these same opponents at home and abroad also strongly support Iran, especially in the context of the latest conflict, and criticizing it for any reason is thus deemed to be “politically incorrect” according to their dogma. Self-censoring criticisms of Iran’s expulsions, however, discredits their criticisms of Trump’s.

Opponents of mass expulsions also tend to be leftist-aligned regardless of how they politically self-identify (e.g. “moderate”, socialist, communist, etc.), so they’re already ideologically in favor of “open borders” or at the very least consider the expulsion of any illegal immigrants to be unacceptable. The abovementioned problem though is that criticizing Iran for its mass expulsion of Afghans, despite being driven by “anti-Zionist” security-related reasons, could lead to them being “canceled”.

That’s because their online activist community regularly carries out inquisitions against anyone who doesn’t perfectly conform with their talking points at any given time. Even constructive critiques of various countries, leaders, and policies, no matter how mild, can lead to one being viciously smeared as a “Zionist” or “CIA agent” and accused of “infiltrating” their cause in order to “subvert it from within”. Criticizing Iran on this point right after the latest conflict could therefore destroy someone’s reputation.

The crux of their dilemma is whether the concept of “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), which Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill introduced in 2010, exists. In this context, it refers to the weaponization of some migrant communities by foreign powers, exactly as Israel is suspected of doing with some Afghans vis-à-vis Iran. WMMs objectively exist, but most leftist-aligned activists have hitherto gaslit that they don’t, afraid to lend this concept credence that could then justify Trump’s policies.

It remains to be seen how this community as a whole reacts to Iran’s mass expulsion policy, if at all since most might prefer to remain silent to avoid being “canceled” by their peers, and whether they’ll still criticize Trump’s similar policy if they acknowledge that WMMs do indeed exist. The overarching issue is the interplay between ideology, groupthink, dogma, “cancel culture”, and resultant dilemmas, which isn’t exclusive to Iran’s supporters or leftist-aligned individuals but afflicts all causes.

For reasons of consistency, they’d do well to acknowledge that WMMs exist but with the caveat that they could be exploited as the pretext for massively expelling entire groups for ulterior reasons, which could even include those such as naturalized citizens who should be legally protected. The aforesaid proposal would require modifying the dogma to which many of Iran’s supporters adhere, however, which could ironically provoke a mass inquisition (“expulsion”) of suspected “subversives” from their ranks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:20

Putin Shifts Iran Stance? Now Reportedly Supports Zero Enrichment Plan Backed By US

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told President Trump that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, according to US officials who spoke to Axios.

However, amid reports saying that the same message has been conveyed to Tehran, Iran's semi-official news agency Tasnim denied it, quoting an "informed source" as saying Putin had not sent any such messages.

Russia has long advocated that Iran should have the right to enrich, so Putin signing off on this 'zero enrichment' US plan marks what could be a significant shift, and much tougher position. Presumably a scheme like this would involve an external power like Russia shipping in the enriched product needed for nuclear energy plants.

Iranian state media, Politico

In the wake of the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which ended with the US bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump has declared as his red line that the Islamic Republic no longer enrich uranium.

Moscow, which has long acted as a diplomatic go-between involving Iran and the US, appears to now side with this US position as a way forward:

Citing three European officials and one senior Israeli official familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Moscow has encouraged Tehran to accept the “zero-enrichment" condition.

“We know that this is what Putin told the Iranians," a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

But again, the Iranians appear to be denying this, based on current state media reports.

The basic framework of 'deals' Washington has offered the Iranians is said to be that Tehran must abandon any all efforts for highly enriched uranium in return for sanctions relief.

“Putin supports the no-enrichment option. He encouraged the Iranians to move in this direction to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. But Tehran refused even to consider this possibility.”

–European official

But the Iranians have also been demanding answers to the question of when and how these layers of sanctions will be removed by Washington.

Iranian leaders also don't trust the US, given a history of flip-flopping on key agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of in 2018, during his first term.

Tehran is expected to reject taking enrichment down to zero, considering it sees as a matter of national sovereignty, but may agree to impose limits on enrichment and a monitoring regimen - though it just reportedly kicked UN IAEA inspectors out of the country.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:45

Putin Shifts Iran Stance? Now Reportedly Supports Zero Enrichment Plan Backed By US

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told President Trump that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, according to US officials who spoke to Axios.

However, amid reports saying that the same message has been conveyed to Tehran, Iran's semi-official news agency Tasnim denied it, quoting an "informed source" as saying Putin had not sent any such messages.

Russia has long advocated that Iran should have the right to enrich, so Putin signing off on this 'zero enrichment' US plan marks what could be a significant shift, and much tougher position. Presumably a scheme like this would involve an external power like Russia shipping in the enriched product needed for nuclear energy plants.

Iranian state media, Politico

In the wake of the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which ended with the US bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump has declared as his red line that the Islamic Republic no longer enrich uranium.

Moscow, which has long acted as a diplomatic go-between involving Iran and the US, appears to now side with this US position as a way forward:

Citing three European officials and one senior Israeli official familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Moscow has encouraged Tehran to accept the “zero-enrichment" condition.

“We know that this is what Putin told the Iranians," a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

But again, the Iranians appear to be denying this, based on current state media reports.

The basic framework of 'deals' Washington has offered the Iranians is said to be that Tehran must abandon any all efforts for highly enriched uranium in return for sanctions relief.

“Putin supports the no-enrichment option. He encouraged the Iranians to move in this direction to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. But Tehran refused even to consider this possibility.”

–European official

But the Iranians have also been demanding answers to the question of when and how these layers of sanctions will be removed by Washington.

Iranian leaders also don't trust the US, given a history of flip-flopping on key agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of in 2018, during his first term.

Tehran is expected to reject taking enrichment down to zero, considering it sees as a matter of national sovereignty, but may agree to impose limits on enrichment and a monitoring regimen - though it just reportedly kicked UN IAEA inspectors out of the country.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:45

Explained: The UK's Potentially Terrifying Criminal Justice "Reforms"

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.

Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.

Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.

This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.

Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:

“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”

Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.

Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.

Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.

In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.

Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.

Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.

I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.

In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.

Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.

However, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Goodbye, right to appeal

Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.

It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:

I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.

incentivizing guilty pleas

The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:

Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)

Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.

A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.

But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.

Long-term Propaganda

The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.

Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.

We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.

The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.

This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.

It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.

More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.

Hate speech convictions

It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.

Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.

Prison reform

Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.

In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.

Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.

In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.

Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?

Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.

“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)

What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?

Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.

Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.

The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)

It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.

In summary

So, what can we conclude?

Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:

• Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)

• No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.

• Incentivised guilty pleas.

• No automatic right of appeal.

• Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.

In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.

But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.

And the start of a criminal justice system.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:10

Explained: The UK's Potentially Terrifying Criminal Justice "Reforms"

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.

Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.

Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.

This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.

Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:

“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”

Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.

Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.

Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.

In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.

Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.

Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.

I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.

In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.

Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.

However, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Goodbye, right to appeal

Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.

It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:

I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.

incentivizing guilty pleas

The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:

Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)

Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.

A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.

But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.

Long-term Propaganda

The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.

Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.

We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.

The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.

This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.

It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.

More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.

Hate speech convictions

It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.

Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.

Prison reform

Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.

In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.

Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.

In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.

Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?

Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.

“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)

What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?

Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.

Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.

The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)

It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.

In summary

So, what can we conclude?

Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:

• Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)

• No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.

• Incentivised guilty pleas.

• No automatic right of appeal.

• Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.

In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.

But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.

And the start of a criminal justice system.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:10

Russia Might Scrap Its Lone Aircraft Carrier After Persistent, Costly Problems

Russia's lone large aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov is designed to engage major surface targets, but it has been undergoing major repairs for over five years, and it's last mission of note was in the Mediterranean where it conducted airstrikes in Syria in support of the Assad government 

A fire in 2019 resulted in two fatalities and 14 injuries, and it has had to undergo a large-scale reconstruction process at at estimated cost of almost $260 million. It was supposed to be deployable again in 2022 - but this has been postponed time and again as the vessel keeps suffering problems, including sinking drydocks, and severe repair delays, and even reports of corruption related to its expanding budget.

Fresh reports out of Russia say the Kremlin considering decommissioning the Admiral Kuznetsov, according to the pro-government newspaper Izvestia, which further says repair and modernization work on the carrier has been halted.

Officials from the Navy High Command and the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which was charged with overseeing the repairs, are said to be assessing whether it’s feasible to return the vessel to service.

"The Kuznetsov belongs to a bygone era," Sergei Avakyants, former commander of Russia’s Pacific Fleet, described. "It’s an extremely costly and inefficient military asset. The future lies in unmanned systems and robotic technologies."

Other analysts have pointed out that the grinding Ukraine war has become the highest priority, and thus all the state's defense costs have been sunk into achieving objectives there

The Kuznetsov reaches back to the Soviet era, as it was launched in 1985 and commissioned in 1991, which has led many officials to conclude that it is now outdated.

In 2024, one US publication questioned, will it ever sail again? It's conclusion was likely not:

Aircraft carriers, in a way, are like a metric measuring a nation’s general fortune. Why? Because aircraft carriers are complex; aircraft carriers are extremely expensive – both to produce and to maintain. Accordingly, only affluent nations, with resources to spare, can burden the cost of developing and fielding an aircraft carrier.

The US, the world’s most powerful nation, has eleven “supercarriers.” China, an ambitious and revisionist “up and comer” is working to expand their aircraft carriers fleet – and is on the verge of fielding a third carrier. India has two. Italy has two. The United Kingdom has two – but has decommissioned 41 – suggesting the island nation’s decline in global relevance. And Russia, a hollowed out paper tiger, has just the Admiral Kuznetsov, which many assume will never sail again.

One military and maritime analyst, Robert Beckhusen, has written that Kuznetsov "is barely capable of doing what carriers are supposed to do: launch fighters. When she does, she uses a bow ramp instead of steam catapults, which forces reductions in planes’ takeoff weight and patrol time."

Russia’s only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" may be scrapped for metal

The cruiser has been under repair since 2017 and has faced a series of mishaps: in 2018, Russia’s largest floating dock sank, and in 2019, a major fire broke out on board. Modernization work has been… pic.twitter.com/1LXDzefdVk

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 11, 2025

At the same time, the Ukraine war has made clear that Russia is shifting battlefield tactics to heavy reliance on drone warfare. Also, it routinely launches cruise missiles from destroyers in the Black Sea.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 07:35

France Opens Criminal Investigation Into X For Alleged Algorithmic Manipulation

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

The French Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an investigation into X over the alleged use of its algorithm for foreign interference.

According to a statement from Magistrate Laure Beccuau on Friday, prosecutors have launched a probe into whether X violated French law by manipulating its algorithms to extract user data fraudulently.

The investigation was launched after two reports were submitted to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office’s cybercrime division on Jan. 12 — one by MP Éric Bothorel, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble Pour La Republique party, and another by a senior government official whose identity was not disclosed.

In Bothorel’s statement posted Friday on X, he wrote that he filed his initial inquiry because he was “convinced that an informational bias, extreme on the X platform, was being used to serve Elon Musk’s political opinions and that this could only happen through algorithmic manipulation.”

He added that he was pleased that the “French justice system is taking meaningful steps to combat foreign interference.”

The case was referred to the General Directorate of the National Gendarmerie on Wednesday, officially launching an investigation into X. 

The investigation focuses on two elements: tampering with the operation of an automated data processing system as part of an organized group, and the fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system as part of an organized group.

France’s J3 cybercrime unit will lead the investigation. J3 conducted an investigation that led to the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in August 2024.

X faces growing scrutiny across Europe

Since Elon Musk purchased X in 2022, it has had several run-ins with regulators, especially in Europe. In February, two German NGOs won a ruling from the Berlin Regional Court that required X to provide access to publicly available engagement data to assist researchers in analyzing potential election interference.

The European Union is investigating X for a possible violation of the Digital Service Act. This new landmark regulation requires online platforms to take down illegal content and increase transparency around algorithms.

As Musk pushes to turn X into a financial hub with crypto at its core, mounting pressure from European regulators could undermine the trust he needs to secure approval for offering financial services in the EU.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 07:00