By Andrew Korybko of the Korybko substack

The five objectives that are enumerated in this piece encapsulate what Russia nowadays aims to achieve after over two years of intense proxy warfare with NATO.

Zelensky claimed on Friday that Russia’s long-awaited offensive had finally begun following its fresh push into Kharkov Region from which it tactically pulled back in September 2022. This precedes him likely clinging to power on legally dubious pretexts once his term expires on 21 May and aligns with the Ukrainian Intelligence Committee’s prediction of political-military troubles heading into his summer.

Here are the five objectives that Russia arguably aims to achieve in view of the conflict’s larger context:

1. Create The Conditions For Russia To Control The Entirety Of Its New Regions

Russia’s increasingly frequent gains in Donbass over the past month speak to how serious Ukraine’s conscription and logistical crises have become, thus enabling Moscow to push them to the breaking point by opening up a new front at this precise moment in time. This is meant to facilitate a military breakthrough for expelling Ukrainian forces from the entirety of Russia’s new regions, with any collapse of the front lines consequently paving the way for achieving additional military-political goals.

2. Coerce Ukraine Into Demilitarizing All Of Its Rump Regions East Of The Dnieper

Russia is unlikely to make territorial claims to Ukraine’s rump regions east of the Dnieper due to the high cost of sustainably securing, rebuilding, and integrating them, which is why it’ll probably instead demand their demilitarization as a buffer zone in exchange for letting Kiev retain political control. Any areas that it captures throughout the course of this reportedly launched campaign could be handed back upon that happening in a variation of the alleged compromises contained in spring 2022’s draft treaty.  

3. Deter NATO From Crossing The Dnieper If Member States’ Forces Conventionally Intervene

Russia doesn’t want NATO conventionally intervening in this conflict, but if member states like France and/or Poland unilaterally do so in the event that the front lines collapse, then Moscow hopes that its newly announced tactical nuclear weapons exercises will deter them from crossing the Dnieper. In connection with that, India and/or the Vatican could convey Russia’s red line to NATO, while Russia could restrain itself from chasing fleeing troops to and over the river so as to not worsen the security dilemma.

4. Influence Ukraine’s Possibly Impending US-Backed Regime Change Process

The Kremlin won’t negotiate with Zelensky, Poroshenko, or any of the other Ukrainian figures that were just placed on its Interior Ministry’s wanted list since it regards them as illegitimate so the US couldn’t freeze the conflict without someone else in power. Russia’s foreign intelligence service recently reported that the US is already exploring possible replacements to Zelensky, and Moscow naturally wants to influence this process in order to filter out figures who it knows wouldn’t abide by any peace agreement.

5. End The Conflict In A Way That Ensures Russia’s Core Security Interests In The New Reality

Russia’s maximalist goals of demilitarizing Ukraine, denazifying it, and restoring that country’s constitutional neutrality are unlikely to be achieved in full given the new reality of NATO preparing for a conventional intervention up to the Dnieper in order to avoid a strategic defeat in this proxy war. Considering that, Russia must resort to creative military-diplomatic means for ensuring its core security interests, though that requires an information campaign for tempering its supporters’ expectations.  

———-

As argued above, Russia’s fresh push into Kharkov Region is intended to end this conflict by year’s end in the best-case scenario, though that of course can’t be taken for granted given the fog of war and innumerable variables that the public isn’t privy to. Nevertheless, the five objectives that were enumerated in this piece encapsulate what it nowadays aims to achieve after over two years of intense proxy warfare with NATO, which might lead to some observers recalibrating their analyses.

Authored by Aaron Kheriaty via the Brownstone Institute,

“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” –Simone Weil

The terms “fascist” and “fascism” are continuously bandied about today. But those who use these words most seem to understand them least, such that many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists paradoxically take on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree.

We can see contemporary fascist tendencies manifesting on both ends of the political spectrum — not only among white supremacists but also in the character types described by Eugene Rivers as “trust fund Becky with the good hair revolutionary communist” or “white boy Carl the anarchist from the Upper East Side who is a junior at Sarah Lawrence.”

Fascism is obviously worth opposing, but to be truly anti-fascist requires an understanding of how this ideology manifests in history and what the word actually designates. Already by the end of World War II, George Orwell noted that the term “fascist” was used so indiscriminately that it had become degraded to the level of a swearword synonymous with “bully.”

Contrary to popular belief, fascism does not represent counterrevolutionary or reactionary opposition to progressive ideas in the name of tradition. Many thinkers advanced this mistaken interpretation during the postwar period, including, among others, Umberto Eco’s list of “Ur-Fascist” features published in the New York Review of Books in 1995, Theodore Adorno’s concept of the “authoritarian personality” described in his influential 1950 book of that title, Wilhelm Reich (1946) and Eric Fromm’s (1973) psychoanalytic interpretations of repressive systems, and Antonio Gramsci’s (1929) widely accepted myth that fascism was a counterrevolutionary movement of the “petit bourgeois.”

The common mistake of all these interpretations involves generalizing the idea of fascism to include any movement that is either authoritarian or inclined to defend the past. This interpretation stems from an axiological faith (that is precisely the right word) in the value of modernity in the wake of the French Revolution.

Modernity is taken to be an inevitable and irreversible process of secularization and human progress, in which the question of transcendence — whether broadly Platonic or Christian — has entirely vanished, and in which novelty is synonymous with positivity. Progress rests upon the ongoing expansion of technology and individual autonomy. Everything, including knowledge, becomes a tool to pursue affluence, comfort, and well-being.

According to this faith in modernity, to be good is to embrace the progressive direction of history; to be evil is to resist it. Since fascism is clearly evil, it cannot be a development of modernity itself but must be “reactionary.” On this view fascism includes all those who fear worldly progress, have a psychological need for a strong social order to protect them, venerate and idealize a past historical moment, and so endow a leader with immense power to instantiate this.

“According to this interpretation,” Augusto Del Noce wrote, “Fascism is a sin against the progressive movement of history;” indeed, “every sin boils down to a sin against the direction of history.”

This characterization of fascism is almost entirely mistaken and misses its central features. Giovanni Gentile, the Italian “philosopher of fascism” and Benito Mussolini’s ghostwriter, penned an early book on the philosophy of Karl Marx. Gentile attempted to extract from Marxism the dialectic core of revolutionary socialism while rejecting Marxist materialism. As the authentic interpreter of Marxist thought, Lenin naturally rejected this heretical move, reaffirming the unbreakable unity between radical materialism and revolutionary action.

Like Gentile, Mussolini himself spoke of “what is alive and what is dead in Marx” in his speech on May 1, 1911. He affirmed Marx’s core revolutionary doctrine — the liberation of man through the replacement of religion by politics — even while he rejected Marxist utopianism, which was the aspect of Marxism that made it a kind of secular religion. In fascism, the revolutionary spirit separated from materialism becomes a mystique of action for its own sake.

Scholars of fascism have noted both a “mysterious proximity and distance between Mussolini and Lenin.” In the 1920s Mussolini was constantly glancing in the rearview mirror at Lenin as a rival revolutionary in a kind of mimetic dance. In his will to dominate, Mussolini spontaneously identified himself with the Fatherland and with his own people; however, there was no trace in this of any tradition that he affirmed and defended.

In its origins and aims fascism is thus not so much a reactionary-traditionalist phenomenon, but a secondary and degenerative development of Marxist revolutionary thought. It represents a stage in the modern process of political secularization that started with Lenin. This claim may occasion controversy, but a philosophical and historical examination of fascism reveals it to be accurate.

We easily miss these features if we focus exclusively on the obvious political opposition between fascism and communism during the Spanish Civil War and World War II. The fact that their philosophies share common genealogical roots and revolutionary ideals means neither that Lenin was a fascist (he was not) nor that fascism and communism are the same thing (they are not and fought to the death to prove it). Keep in mind, however, that an enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Fascism understands itself to be a revolutionary and progressive manifestation of power. As in communism, fascism replaces traditional religious principles with a secular religion in which the future — rather than an idealized past or meta-historical ideals — becomes an idol. Politics replaces religion in the quest to liberate humankind. Contrary to popular characterizations, fascism makes no attempt to preserve a heritage of traditional values against the advance of progress (one only has to look at fascist architecture for confirmation of this). Instead, it proceeds as the unfolding in history of a wholly novel and unprecedented power.

Nazism was not so much an extreme form of fascism but the mirror image inversion of communism (the revolution in reverse). It added to fascism’s features its own origin myth, which necessarily had to reach back to pre-history. Its odious blood-and-soil socialist nationalism inverted Marxist universalism, but likewise resulted in the most extreme expression of colonialism. As with fascism and communism, Nazism was always ahistorical and entirely uninterested in preserving anything meaningful from the past.

Rather than looking back to history or to trans-historical values, fascism strains forward and advances by means of a “creative destruction” that feels entitled to overturn everything standing in its way. Action for its own sake takes on a particular aura and mystique. The fascist unflinchingly appropriates and commandeers various sources of energy — whether human, cultural, religious, or technical — to remake and transform reality. As this ideology presses its advance, it makes no attempt to conform to any higher truth or moral order. Reality is simply that which must be overcome.

Like the postwar interpreters of fascism mentioned above, many today mistakenly believe that fascism is grounded in strong metaphysical truth claims — that fascist authoritarian personalities somehow believe they possess a monopoly on the truth. On the contrary, as Mussolini himself explained with absolute clarity, fascism is entirely grounded in relativism:

If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and for those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.

The horrors of World War II were misdiagnosed by the postwar intellectuals’ mistaken interpretation of fascism and Nazism: these ideologies, and the bloodbath they unleashed, represented not the failure of the European tradition but the crisis of modernity — the outcome of the age of secularization.

What are the ethical consequences of fascism? Once value is attributed to pure action, other people cease to be ends in themselves and become mere instruments, or obstacles, to the fascist political program. The logic of the fascist’s “creative” activism leads him to deny other people’s personhood and individuality, to reduce persons to mere objects. Once individuals are instrumentalized, it no longer makes sense to speak of moral duties towards them. Others are either useful and deployed or they are useless and discarded.

This accounts for the extraordinary narcissism and solipsism characteristic of fascist leaders and functionaries: anyone who embraces this ideology acts as though he is the only person who really exists. The fascist lacks any sense of the purpose of law, or any reverence for a binding moral order. He embraces instead his own raw will to power: laws and other social institutions are mere tools deployed in the service of this power. Because the fascist’s action requires no ultimate end, and conforms to no transcendent ethical norm or spiritual authority, various tactics can be embraced or discarded at whim — propaganda, violence, coercion, desecration, erasure, etc.

Although fascists fancy themselves creative, their actions can only destroy. Taboos are torn down indiscriminately and at will. Symbols rich with meaning — moral, historical, religious, cultural — are ripped from their context and weaponized. The past is nothing but an ideological tool or cipher: one can rummage around in history for useful images or slogans to deploy in service of expansive power; but wherever it is not useful for this purpose, history is discarded, defaced, toppled, or simply ignored as though it never existed.

What are fascism’s stated ideals — what is it supposedly for? By design, this is never made entirely clear, except to say that novelty for its own sake assumes a positive value. If anything is held sacred it is violence. As in Marxism, the word “revolution” takes on an almost magical, mystical significance. But as I explained in Part II of this series, the ideology of total revolution only ends up strengthening the present order and the stronghold of the elites, by burning away those residual elements of tradition that make possible a moral critique of this order.

The result is nihilism. Fascism celebrates an optimistic (but empty) cult of victory through force. In a reactionary backlash, neo-fascist “anti-fascists” mirror this spirit by a pessimistic passion for the defeated. In both cases, the same spirit of negation prevails.

With this description in mind, we can understand why the word “fascism” logically boomerangs back on many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists. The practical upshot for our culture wars is not merely that the cure might be worse than the disease, but that the most radical “cure” in this case just is the disease. The danger is that a thinly veiled fascism — marching mendaciously under an anti-fascist banner — will overtake and absorb legitimate attempts to cure our ills, including ethically valid attempts to cure the cancer of racism or address other societal injustices.

The same faith in modernity that led to mistaken interpretations of fascism after World War II also forces contemporary history and politics into unhelpful categories. If we question this axiological faith in the idea of modernity, we can establish a clearer view of 20th-century ideologies and their current manifestations. This entails neither automatically identifying the modernist or progressive view as anti-fascist, nor equating all forms of traditionalism (at least potentially) with fascism.

In fact, the distinction between traditionalists (if I must use this unsatisfying term) and progressives is apparent in the different ways they oppose fascism. By tradition I don’t mean reverence for a static repository of fixed forms or a desire to return to an idealized period of the past; rather, I refer to the etymological meaning of that which we “hand on” (tradere) and thereby make new. A culture that has nothing of value to bequeath is a culture that has already perished. This understanding of tradition leads to a critique of modernity’s premise of inevitable progress — a groundless myth we should discard precisely to avoid repeating the horrors of the 20th century.

This critique of modernity, and the rejection of ethics as “the direction of history,” leads to other insights regarding our present crisis. Rather than the standard left-right, liberal-conservative, progressive-reactionary categories of interpretation, we can see instead that the real political divide today is between perfectists and anti-perfectists. The former believe in the possibility of complete liberation of humanity through politics, whereas the latter regard this as a perennial error grounded in a denial of inherent human limitations. The acceptance of such limitations is elegantly expressed in Solzhenitsyn’s insight that the line between good and evil passes first neither through classes, nor nations, nor political parties, but right through the center of every human heart.

We are all aware of the horrifying consequences that follow when fascism slides, as it readily does, into totalitarianism. But consider that the defining feature of all totalitarianisms is not concentration camps or secret police or constant surveillance — though these are all bad enough. The common feature, as Del Noce pointed out, is the denial of the universality of reason. With this denial, all truth claims are interpreted as historically or materially determined, and thus, as ideology. This leads to the assertion that there is no rationality as such — only bourgeois reason and proletariat reason, or Jewish reason and Aryan reason, or black reason and white reason, or progressive reason and reactionary reason, and so forth.

One’s rational arguments are then taken to be mere mystifications or justifications and are summarily dismissed: “You think such-and-such only because you are [fill in the blank with various markers of identity, class, nationality, race, political persuasion, etc.].” This marks the death of dialogue and reasoned debate. It also accounts for the literally “loopy” closed-loop epistemology of contemporary social justice advocates of the critical theory school: anyone who denies being a [fill-in-the-blank epithet] only further confirms that the label applies, so one’s only option is to accept the label. Heads-I-win; tails-you-lose.

In such a society there can be no shared deliberation rooted in our participation in a higher Logos (word, reason, plan, order) that transcends each individual. As happened historically with all forms of fascism, culture — the realm of ideas and shared ideals — is absorbed into politics, and politics becomes total war. From within this framework, one can no longer admit any conception of legitimate authority, in the enriching etymological sense of “to make grow,” where we also derive the word “author.” All authority is instead conflated with power, and power is nothing but brute force.

Since persuasion through shared reasoning and deliberation is pointless, lying becomes the norm. Language is not capable of revealing truth, which compels assent without negating our freedom. Instead, words are mere symbols to be manipulated. A fascist does not attempt to persuade his interlocutor, he merely overpowers him — using words when these serve to silence the enemy or deploying other means when words will not do the trick.

This is always how things begin, and as the internal logic unfolds, the rest of the totalitarian apparatus inevitably follows. Once we grasp fascism’s deep roots and central features, one essential consequence becomes clear. Anti-fascist efforts can succeed only by starting from the premise of a universal shared rationality. Authentic anti-fascism will therefore always seek to employ nonviolent means of persuasion, appealing to evidence and to the conscience of one’s interlocutor. The problem is not just that other methods of opposing fascism will be pragmatically ineffective, but that they will unwittingly but inevitably come to resemble the enemy they claim to oppose.

We can look to Simone Weil as an authentic and exemplary anti-fascist figure. Weil always wanted to be on the side of the oppressed. She lived this conviction with exceptional single-mindedness and purity. As she relentlessly pursued the idea of justice inscribed in the human heart, she passed through a revolutionary phase, followed by a gnostic phase, before she finally rediscovered the Platonic tradition — the perennial philosophy of our shared participation in the Logos — with its universal criterion of truth and the primacy of the good. She arrived here precisely through her anti-fascist commitments, which entailed a rebellion against every delusional deification of man. Weil emerged from the modern world and its contradictions the way a prisoner emerges from Plato’s cave.

After volunteering to fight with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, Weil broke with the illusory anti-fascism of Marxist revolutionary thought. Recognizing that, in the end, “evil produces only evil and good produces only good,” and “the future is made of the same stuff as the present,” she discovered a more enduring anti-fascist position. This led her to call the destruction of the past “perhaps the greatest of all crimes.”

In her last book, written a few months before she died in 1943, Weil elaborated on the limits of both fascist vitalism and Marxist materialism: “Either we must perceive at work in the universe, alongside force, a principle of a different kind, or else we must recognize force as being the unique and sovereign ruler over human relations also.”

Weil was thoroughly secular prior to her philosophical conversion and her subsequent mystical experiences: her rediscovery of classical philosophy occurred not through any sort of traditionalism, but by living the ethical question of justice with full intellectual honesty and total personal commitment. In pursuing this question to the end, she came to see that human self-redemption — fascism’s ideal — is actually an idol. Those who want to be truly anti-fascist would do well to explore Weil’s writings. I will give her the last word, which contains the seeds of the way out of our crisis. In one of her last essays, she offers us not a counsel of facile optimism, but a beautiful thought about our unconquerable receptivity to grace:

At the bottom of the heart of every human being, from earliest infancy until the tomb, there is something that goes on indomitably expecting, in the teeth of all experience of crimes committed, suffered, and witnessed, that good and not evil will be done to him. It is this above all that is sacred in every human being.

Republished from The Simone Weil Center

Aaron Kheriaty, Senior Brownstone Institute Counselor, is a Scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, DC. He is a former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, where he was the director of Medical Ethics.

By Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner of Wirepoints

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson recently traveled to Springfield with a big wish list of stuff he wants from state lawmakers. Among them, $1 billion in extra funding for Chicago Public Schools.

We have a host of reasons why his demand should be categorically rejected. Among them, CPS already spends $29,000 per student, Chicago teachers are already among the nation’s highest paid in big cities and the Chicago Teachers Union refuses to close the many empty, failing schools across the district. Not to mention that both CPS and CTU refuse to hold themselves accountable to students. Just 20% of minority CPS children can read at grade level and in math it’s even worse.

Now add to that the growing rate of teachers simply not showing up to school. The U.S. Department of Education’s definition of chronic teacher absenteeism is 10 or more absences in a school year.

In CPS, the share of teachers who are chronically absent has jumped to 43% from 28% just seven years ago. The jump can’t be blamed on the pandemic, as the rate of absenteeism was rising (from 28% to 36%) even before covid hit.

Teacher attendance has a heavy impact on student outcomes. From the Illinois State Board of Education’s Report Card:

“Teacher attendance is a “leading indicator” of student achievement, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Teachers with regular attendance provide continuity of instruction and attention to individual students. The National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that when teachers are absent for 10 days or more, student outcomes decrease significantly.”

Instead of asking for more money, Mayor Johnson should make sure his CTU brethren are actually in the classroom. He should then set dramatically higher reading and math proficiency targets that both he and teachers are held accountable for. 

And then the mayor should make those targets public.

When people gripe about paying taxes and the government being a poor the absolute worst possible capital allocation, this is what they are talking about: $7.5 billion in investments for electric vehicles has – in two years – produced just 7 charging stations across four states. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed by Biden in November 2021, allocated $7.5 billion for EV charging, the Washington Post writes. Of this amount, $5 billion went to states as “formula funding” for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program to establish a network of fast chargers along major highways.

Today, there’s seven chargers with a total of just 38 parking spots. And, come on: when the Post is calling it out, you know the results have been horrible. 

The Post added that with the Biden administration’s new emissions rules requiring more electric and hybrid vehicles, the slow pace of charging infrastructure development could hinder the transition to electric cars. Twelve additional states have awarded contracts for charging station construction, while 17 states have yet to issue proposals.

Alexander Laska, deputy director for transportation and innovation at the center-left think tank Third Way, told The Post: “I think a lot of people who are watching this are getting concerned about the timeline.”

The slow rollout of new EV chargers is partly due to higher standards compared to previous fast chargers. The U.S. has nearly 10,000 fast charging stations, including over 2,000 reliable Tesla Superchargers, but non-Tesla chargers often suffer from poor performance.

New Biden administration rules require chargers to be 97% operational, offer 150kW power, and be within one mile of highways. These standards are crucial but slow down progress due to complex rules, permitting challenges, and power demands. The NEVI program aims to boost fast charging capacity by 50% to reduce “range anxiety,” but states must first build the chargers.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) wrote to the Biden Administration last month: “We have significant concerns that under your efforts American taxpayer dollars are being woefully mismanaged.”

“State transportation agencies are the recipients of the money. Nearly all of them had no experience deploying electric vehicle charging stations before this law was enacted,” Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy added.

The Federal Highway Administration responded: “We are building a national EV charging network from scratch, and we want to get it right. After developing program guidance and partnering with states to guide implementation plans, we are hitting our stride as states move quickly to bring NEVI stations online.”

“More Americans are buying EVs every day — with EV sales rising faster than traditional gas-powered cars — as the President’s Investing in America agenda makes EVs more affordable, helps Americans save money when driving, and makes EV charging accessible and convenient,” a White House spokesperson added.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via the Brownstone Institute,

It’s not been a good week for the Censorship Industrial Complex. 

The machine has been built and put into action over nearly a decade but largely in secret. Its way of doing business has been via surreptitious contacts with media and tech companies, intelligence carve-outs in “fact-checking” organizations, payoffs, and various other clever strategies, all directed toward boosting some sources of information and suppressing others. The goal has always been to advance regime narratives and curate the public mind. 

And yet, based on its operations and insofar as we can tell, it had every intention of remaining secret. This is for a reason. A systematic effort by government to bully private sector companies into a particular narrative while suppressing dissent contradicts American law and tradition. It also violates human rights as understood since the Enlightenment. It was a consensus, until very recently, that free speech was essential to the functioning of the good society. 

Four years ago, many of us suspected censorship was going on, that the throttling and banning was not merely a mistake or the result of zealous employees stepping out of line. Three years ago, the proof started to arrive. Two years ago, it became a flood. With the Twitter files from a year ago, we had all the proof we needed that the censorship was systematic, directed, and highly effective. But even then, we only knew a fraction of it. 

Thanks to discovery from court cases, FOIA requests, whistleblowers, Congressional inquiries thanks to the very narrow Republican control, and some industrial upheavals such as what happened at Twitter, we are overwhelmed with tens of thousands of pages all pointing to the same reality. 

The censors developed a belief at the highest levels of control in government that it was their job to govern what information the American people would and would not see, regardless of the truth. The actions became truly tribal: our side favors banning gatherings, closing schools, says the Hunter Biden laptop is a fake, favors masking, mass vaccination, and mail-in voting, and denies the import of voter fraud and vaccine injury, whereas their side takes the opposite approach. 

It was a war over information, undertaken in total disregard for the First Amendment, as if it doesn’t even exist. Moreover, the operation was not only political. It clearly involved intelligence agencies that were already hip deep in the “all-of-society” pandemic response. 

“All of Society” means all, including the information you receive and are allowed to distribute. 

A vast swath of unelected bureaucrats took it upon themselves to manage all knowledge flows in the age of the Internet, with the ambition to turn the main source of news and sharing into a giant American version of Pravda. All of this occurred right under our noses – and is still going on today. 

Indeed, censorship is a full-on industry now, with hundreds and thousands of cut-outs, universities, media companies, government agencies, and even young people in school studying to be disinformation specialists, and bragging about it on social media. We are just one step away from a New York Times article – as follow-ups to their recent praise of the Deep State and also government surveillance – with a headline like “The Good Society Needs Censors.”

Incredibly, the censorship is so pervasive now that it is not even reported. All these revelations should have been front page news. But so captured is the news media today that there are very few outlets that even bother to report the fullness of the problem. 

Not receiving nearly enough attention is the new report from the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government of the US House of Representatives. 

Running nearly 1,000 pages including documentation (however many pages are purposely blank), we have here an overwhelming amount of evidence of a systematic, aggressive, and deeply entrenched effort on the part of the federal government, including the Biden White House and many agencies including the World Health Organization, to tear out the guts of the Internet and social media culture and replace them with propaganda. 

Among the well-documented facts are that the White House directly intervened in Amazon’s own marketing methods to deprecate books that raised doubts about the Covid vaccine and all vaccines. Amazon responded reluctantly but did what it could to satisfy the censors. All these companies – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon – became acquiescent to Biden administration priorities, even to the point of running algorithmic changes by the White House before implementation. 

When YouTube announced that it would take down any content that contradicted the World Health Organization, it was because the White House instructed them to do so. 

As for Amazon, which is like every publisher in wanting full freedom to distribute, they faced intense pressure from government.

These are just a few of thousands of pieces of evidence of routine interference from government against social media companies, either directly or through various government-funded cut-outs, all designed to enforce a certain way of thinking on the American public. 

What’s amazing is that this industry was allowed to metastasize to such an extent over 4-8 years or so, with no legal oversight and very little knowledge on the part of the public. It’s as if there is no such thing as the First Amendment. It’s a dead letter. Even now, the Supreme Court seems confused, based on our reading of the oral arguments over this whole case (Murthy v. Missouri). 

One gets the sense when reading through all this correspondence that the companies were more than a bit rattled by the pressure. They must have wondered a few things: 1) is this normal? 2) do we really have to go along? 3) what happens to us if we just say no?

Probably every corner grocery store in any neighborhood run by a crime syndicate in history has asked these questions. The best answer is to do what you can in order to make them go away. This is precisely what they did time after time. After a while, the protocol probably begins to feel normal and no one asks anymore the basic questions: is this right? Is this freedom? Is this legal? Is this just the way things go in the US?

No matter how many high officials were involved, how many in the C-suites of big companies participated, however many editors and technicians of the best credentials played along, there can be no question that what took place was an absolute violation of speech rights that very likely exceeds anything we’ve seen in US history. 

Keep in mind that we only know what we know, and that is severely truncated by the force of the machinery. We can safely assume that the truth actually is far worse than we know. And further consider that this censorship is keeping us from knowing the full story about the suppression of dissidents, whether medical, scientific, political, or otherwise. 

There might be millions in many professions who are suffering right now, in silence. Or think of the vaccine-injured or those who have lost loved ones who were forced to get the shot. There are no headlines. There are no investigations. There is almost no public attention at all. Most of the venues that we once thought would police such outrages have been compromised. 

To top it off, the censors are still not backing down. If you sense a lessening of the grip for now, there is every reason to believe it is temporary. This industry wants the entire Internet as we once conceived of it completely shut down. That’s the goal.

At this point, the best means of defeating this plan is widespread public outrage. That is made more difficult because the censorship itself is being censored. 

This is why this report from the US House of Representatives needs to be widely shared so long as doing so is possible. It could be that such reports in the future will themselves be censored. It could also be the last such report you will ever see before the curtain falls on freedom completely. 

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

One of Chevy’s longest running vehicle models has now fallen at the hands of the company’s transition to EVs. The Chevy Malibu will be no longer, according to a new report from Car and Driver. 

The Chevy Malibu, one of the longest-running and most successful vehicles in history, is being discontinued again. Chevrolet informed Car and Driver that production will end in November 2024 as the automaker invests $390 million in its Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas.

Car and Driver reports that GM will also pause production of the Cadillac XT4 in January to retool for the Ultium-based Bolt EV. Production will resume in late 2025, with the XT4 and Bolt EV sharing an assembly line.

Despite Chevy’s shift towards crossovers and SUVs, the Malibu remained a steady presence, with over 10 million units sold across nine generations. However, its discontinuation comes as a surprise given GM’s recent EV challenges, including missing the goal of selling 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 and reintroducing plug-in hybrids to North America.

“We’ve been somewhat lukewarm toward the Malibu in recent years, but we’ll certainly lament the passing of such a longstanding nameplate. Who knows? Maybe GM will revive it as an EV in another 15 years,” Car and Driver wrote. 

Meanwhile just days ago we published an article highlighting how Ford’s $120,000 loss per vehicle makes it fairly clear that California (and the nation’s) EVs goals are unreachable. 

On April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”

The Epoch Times notes that the losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.

Californians bought 1.78 million new vehicles in 2023, reported the California New Car Dealers Association. Multiply that number by $132,000 and you get $235 billion. That would bankrupt every car manufacturer, meaning they just would pull out of selling anything in the state.

The California government would have to set up socialist, government-owned companies to make the cars, like the infamous Yugo. Dubbed “the worst car in history,” it was sold in America in the 1980s and was made by the communist Yugoslav government just before the country itself broke up in 1991.

And compared to that…the not-especially-wonderful-looking Malibu wouldn’t look that bad…

By Tuomas Malinen of The MT Malinen substack

On Tuesday, we shortly commented the flash crash and the (assisted) recovery of the Japanese Yen between Friday and Monday, 26-29 April, on the GnS Economic’s Deprcon Outlook. In this entry, I will detail the reasons behind the crash, which go way back in history starting from the post-WWII growth model of the Japanese economy, leading to the the financial crash of early 1990s. They imply that the currency crisis of Japan is far from over.

Boom and bust

The Japanese economy was devastated in the Second World War, which created a need for a major reconstruction effort. Japanese also switched their model of governance to democracy, which laid the foundation for a stable society supportive of investments. The economic boom after WWII was fueled by financial regulation that kept the nominal interest rate below inflation and successful economic reforms that supported, e.g., neutral recruiting of labor and education. The mandarins at the Ministry of Finance issued ceiling on interest rates of both lending and deposit rates, which led to a notable investment boom. Export sector grew fast with the composition of the exports changing from toys and textiles to bicycles and motorcycles and further to steel, automobiles and electronics over the decades.

Japanese government began to deregulate the financial sector in the early 1980’s, following a global trend. Also, in the mid-1980’s, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) tried to aggressively limit the appreciation of yen (because it decreased country’s trade surplus), by cutting interest rates. These led to a rapid growth in the supplies of money and credit. A financial boom ensued.

The credit expansion led to notable gains in the real estate and stock markets, where bubbles grew to massive sizes. By the late 1980’s, the price index for residential real estate in the six largest Japanese cities had 58-folded from 1955. During the 1980’s alone, the price of real estate increased by a factor of six. At the peak, the value of Japanese real estate was double of that in the US. According to the chatter at the time, the market value of land under the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was greater than the market value of all real estate in California. The Nikkei stock market index rose 40000 percent from early 1949 till late 1989, with massive increase during the 1980’s. In the late 1980’s, the market value of Japanese equities was twice the market value of US equities.

The real estate and stock market booms were highly connected. A substantial portion of firms listed in the Tokyo Stock Exchange were real estate companies, which held considerable positions in property of major cities. Construction activity surged due to the combination of booming real estate prices and financial deregulation. Banks held large volumes of real estate and stocks, whose increasing value led to appreciation of banking stocks. Borrowers were usually required to pledge real estate as collateral, which meant that increase in the value of the real estate increased the value of the collateral enabling banks to increase their loan portfolio and grow in size. Also industrial firms bought real estate as the profit it produced was many times higher than that of, e.g., producing steel and automobiles. There was a ‘perpetual motion machine’ of ever-increasing prices and financial wealth, until suddenly there was not.

In the mid-1989, the BoJ started to rise interest rates, with the obvious effort to prick the asset bubbles. It succeeded. The stock market peaked at the last trading day in 1989, and fell over 38 percent in 1990. It bottomed out in Spring 2003 after falling close to 80 percent from the peak (Nikkei actually broke its previous record, set on December 29, 1989, on February 22 this year). The fall in real estate prices was slower, but extensive. For example, commercial real estate fell close to one-tenth of its peak value. Because the collateral of the banking sector was tightly connected to real estate, its value collapsed. Many industrial firms suffered crippling losses from their investments in the real estate.

The collapse of stock markets and real estate wiped out a large chunk of capital of banks, which in collaboration with the declining value of bank collateral, hurdled the banking sector into insolvency. Credit creation collapsed and the economy tumbled. A financial crisis set in.

The bailout

After the crash of the real estate sector, majority of the large Japanese banks remained bankrupt for most of the 1990’s. It was a tradition in Japan to socialize the losses of the banking sector, and regulatory authorities were reluctant to close banks considered bankrupt.

While the BoJ was somewhat slow to respond to the crisis, it started to lower its target interest rate in 1991, which eventually reached zero in early 1999. When the crisis intensified, the BoJ started to act as lender of last resort, the main task of a central bank in a crisis, but it also bailed out several financial institutions. This was mostly done by providing funds to different bodies, including the Housing Loan Administration assuming bad loans from the off-balance sheet, or jusen, companies banks had created to provide mortgages and the New Financial Stablization Fund, which provided capital both to banks and private financial institutions. This was very exceptional as central banks do usually provide only liquidity, not capital, to banks not to mention to private financial companies.

Facing a public anger over bank bailouts in the early stages of the crisis, the government allowed, and in some cases even encouraged, banks to extend loans to ailing businesses. Government, e.g., allowed for accounting gimmicks which, with the lacking transparency, enabled banks to downplay their loan losses and overstate their capital.

These measures saved the financial sector, but at a heavy cost. Because the banking sector was not restructured, bank lending collapsed and was diverted towards ailing unprofitable companies. The reason for this was simple: banks tried to avoid further losses from bankruptcies.

After the implosion of the asset bubbles, the domestic non-traded goods sector held the largest share of unprofitable companies. While bank lending to exporting (trading goods) sector diminished in the 1990’s, bank lending to the non-traded good sector actually increased. Thus, Japanese banks kept extending lines of credit to unprofitable firms to avoid losses that would have occurred if the firms would have gone bust. This zombified the Japanese economy.

So, while government policies were effective in restoring some trust to financial sector, they let the “zombie” banks to linger. They were kept standing without recapitalization or clearing their books. Subsidies from the government and ‘zombie-lending’ from banks kept unprofitable firms operating, but also blocked creation of new firms, because when banks use their diminished lending capacity to support ailing companies, the funding for risky new enterprises dries up. The old unprofitable firms also tie private capital, which could otherwise be used to support the creation of new businesses. This leads to a vicious loop of depressed innovation, falling production and diminishing profits. As a result, the Japanese economy stagnated. Moreover, these policies led to misallocation of credit on a massive scale, fall in the investment rate, and a prolonged slump in productivity.

(Note that you should not use inflation corrected, or “real”, gross domestic product nor GDP per capita to measure the economic development of a county with decades-long deflation and declining population.)

The drag

When the private sector becomes infested with so called zombie companies, which are able to stand only with the help of easy credit, it becomes a serious drag to the economy. This is clearly visible in the growth of the Total Factor Productivity of Japan.

The figure above presents the three-year moving average of the growth of the TFP. We can see a rather clear collapse in the growth rate of the TFP of Japan from around 1992 lasting till 2012. In 2018, the TFP growth fell negative again, and spiked in 2023. The U.S. series provides a reference point.

You can think of the TFP as a your productivity at work. If your productivity increases, you (usually) earn more income, which makes you able increase your livings standards and, e.g. to pay back your loans. However, if your productivity stagnates, or even starts to fall, you earn less income, which starts to eat into your living standards, unless you support it (artificially) through borrowing. Moreover, if a considerable share of this borrowing does not go into productive investments, which would increase your productivity and thus income stream in the future, you just go deeper into debt with your ability pay it back hindered. This is exactly what happened to Japan. Because her productivity fell for a very long time, the only way to keep the living standards and the economy afloat was through massive government borrowing and monetary stimulus (low interest rates). Due to this, the ability of the Japanese government to pay back its debt has diminished as the economy has now grown, while the debt pile has grown to a monstrous size.

The problem Japan currently faces can thus be depicted as follows:

After the crisis of early 1990’s, the leaders of Japan decided not to let the economy to crash, because of e.g. cultural issues. In Japan, bankruptcies are considered highly shameful often leading to suicides. While the bailout of the Japanese economy was understandable culturally, the fact is that the restructuring of the Japanese economy after the financial crisis was an utter failure. Another country which experienced a financial crash at the same time, but recovered quite remarkably, is Finland.

Currency crisis

Currency and debt crises tend to be deeply intertwined. This is because the foreign exchange value of a currency reflects the trust of international investors and businesses on the keeper of the currency, i.e. the government of a country.

Essentially, a currency crisis or a crash is an “attack” on the exchange value of the currency in the markets. If the foreign exchange (FX) rate is fixed or pegged, this attack will test central banks (the monetary authority) commitment to the peg. The current view is that the timing of the attacks is not predictable (forecastable). If the FX-rate is fixed or pegged, market participants expect the policy of monetary authorities will be inconsistent with the peg and they will try to force authorities to abandon the peg, thus validating their expectations.

What matters for speculators are the internal economic conditions with respect to external conditions set for the currency (like stable FX-rate) . If these are incompatible in some meaningful way, like when the government has an unsustainable debt burden, monetary authorities face a trade-off between external and domestic goals for the exchange rate. In these circumstances, random shocks in the foreign exchange markets, called sunspots, can trigger an attack on the external value of the currency. This means that, when internal economic conditions are deteriorating, due to e.g. an unsustainable sovereign debt load, random events or shocks, can break the trust of investors leading them to sell the currency in the exchange markets causing the (external) value of the currency to drop suddenly or even to crash.

If a country holds a large external debt pile, a crashing currency will naturally increase its (foreign-currency) value threatening to create a wave of defaults. This applies to private entities, as well as to local and central governments. A currency crash is often expected to lead to interest rate rises by the monetary authority to defend the FX-rate of the currency. However, if the government holds a large amount of debt, higher interest rates can easily succumb the government under interest payments, which will eventually lead to a sovereign default. Rising interest rates would thus lead to further deterioration of trust by investors in the currency of a highly indebted government. This is why the Bank of Japan is trapped. If it would start to raise rates, the debt service burden of the Japanese government would rapidly become unsurmountable.

Conclusions

The bailout of the Japanese economy in early 1990s, which caused the slump in productivity leading to the very high indebtedness of the Japanese government, is the main culprit behind the ‘flash crash’ of the Japanese Yen. On April 26, it seems, a ‘sunspot’ triggered the selling. The response of the monetary authority, i.e., the BoJ, was to start to defend the yen at USDJPY pair of 160. Its intervention (buying of yen) pushed the pair to under 153 on May 3, where it has started to creep back up.

As the underlying problems of the Japanese economy have not gone anywhere, the attack on the yen in the markets is likely to continue and escalate, again, at some point. The question is, what is the breaking point in the USDJPY pair after which investors start to flee? Moreover, we should remember that monetary authorities have their limits, while markets don’t. Thus, it is very likely that the currency crisis of Japan has but just started. See my other post for analysis on its implications.

Starting Friday night into Saturday a series of surreal images and videos have circulated widely showing that whole swathes of northern Israel are literally on fire.

The fires were largely in open field areas, but were very extensive given they were the result of about 35 rockets being fired from Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, targeting the northern city of Kiryat Shmona, which suffered damage.

⚡️Hezb-Allah missiles burning the occupied town of Kiryat Shmona pic.twitter.com/fgDMrDPL0A

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) May 10, 2024

Brushfires erupted, but there were some direct hits on homes and buildings as well. “The city reported significant damage to property and infrastructure, with dozens of homes and vehicles affected,” Ynet news reports.

At least ten fire crews from the area of Galilee and Golan responded, and worked to extinguish at least two expansive fires which were in open fields.

Since conflict erupted along the Israel-Lebanese border in the wake of the Hamas Oct.7 terror attack, rocket salvos from Hezbollah have been almost daily, but these appear to be the most extensive wildfires which have resulted to date.

Israeli authorities have confirmed and filmed the fires which were at their height in the Friday overnight and Saturday early morning hours.

⚡️Hezbollah has brought hell to Kiryat Shmona… Massive fires erupted from Katyusha rockets…. are still ongoing. pic.twitter.com/ijnyFWFaOS

— Warfare Analysis (@warfareanalysis) May 10, 2024

Hezbollah, which is a close ally of Iran, issued a statement confirming its fighters launched “a salvo of Katyusha rockets” at Israel’s north “in response to the Israeli enemy’s attacks on… civilians, most recently in Tayr Harfa.”

Footage shows large fire burning in Kiryat Shmona, following Hezbollah’s rocket barrage. pic.twitter.com/dXVykITlaX

— Arya – آریا 🇮🇷 (@AryJeay) May 10, 2024

Tens of thousands of Israeli residents have fled their homes after months of constant rocket barrages.

Israel has also on a weekly and daily basis responded with large strikes on areas of southern Lebanon, including on villages and towns.

“Kiryat Shmona” settlement once again on fire from Hezb-Allah 35+ rocket barrage pic.twitter.com/C1axkCmrom

— julia m.k. (@bintmachgara) May 10, 2024

Israel’s Fire and Rescue Services North District issued a statement saying, “The firefighters are working tirelessly to contain the flames along the residential line, while fire alarms continuously sound in the area.”

“The combination of weather conditions and heavy barrages has led to multiple fire sites—a scenario we were prepared for and responded to with reinforced efforts,” Commander Assistant Deputy Fire Commissioner Yair Elkayam,” it continued.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

(MSNBC/via YouTube)

The firm of former Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias has lost another election case in a spectacular fashion. The Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin, James Peterson (an Obama appointee), did not just reject but ridiculed the Elias Law Group challenge to a witness requirement for absentee voting. Elias have been previously sanctioned in court and accused of lying in the Steele dossier scandal by journalists and others.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson ruled against the lawsuit brought by the Elias Law Group, arguing that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The state statute under § 6.87(2) describes what the witness must certify. The statute first sets forth in two sentences what the voter must certify on the ballot envelope. The first requirement concerns the voter certifying that he or she meets the requirements for voting generally and for voting absentee in Wisconsin.

The second requirement is certification that the voter followed the process for preparing the absentee ballot. These are the called the “first voter certification” and the “witness certification.”

The witness certification refers to a witness certifying “all of the above,” which is obviously referring to the language on preparing the absentee ballot.

Elias argued that it requires certification of everything that preceded it on the details of the voter’s record etc.

In the court’s opinion, Judge Peterson expresses disbelief at the lunacy of the Elias argument, writing:

“Normally, the court would begin by searching for other textual clues in the statute. But in this case, the most obvious problem with plaintiffs’ interpretation is that it simply does not make any sense.”

The court then notes that:

“Under plaintiffs’ interpretation, every witness would have to determine the voter’s age, residence, citizenship, criminal history, whether the voter is unable or unwilling to vote in person, whether the voter has voted at another location or is planning to do so, whether the voter is capable of understanding the objective of the voting process, whether the voter is under a guardianship, and, if so, whether a court has determined that the voter is competent. See Wis. Stat. §§ 6.02 and 6.03. Many witnesses would be unable to independently verify much of the required information. The statute allows any adult U.S. citizen to serve as a witness, suggesting that a wide variety of people should be able to do the job…It makes no sense to interpret § 6.87 in a way that would make compliance virtually impossible.

If plaintiffs’ interpretation were correct, it would mean that countless absentee ballots over decades were invalid because the witness certified that the voter was qualified to vote and met the other requirements in the first voter certification, even though the witness had no basis for such a certification.”

However, it gets even wackier. They argued that a simple witness requirement constituted a type of illegal vouching under the Voting Rights Act. This is a reference to the Jim Crow era when a registered voter had to vouch for a new voter, a system meant to prevent African Americans from voting.

The case adds to a long litany of losses and controversies for Elias. That record includes allegations of lying to reporters and subverting voters.

Elias featured prominently in the filings of Special Counsel John Durham. It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign.

During the campaign, reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. Weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were ultimately sanctioned by the FEC over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm.

The Democratic National Committee reportedly later cut ties with Elias.

Elias has been sanctioned in past litigation. Yet, other democrats have continued to hire Elias despite his checkered past. Elias unsuccessfully led efforts to challenge Democratic losses.  Elias also was the subject of intense criticism after a tweet that some have called inherently racist.

Elias was back in the news in another major defeat in Maryland. He filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found violated not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”

Elias has been accused of making millions from gerrymandering and challenging election victories by Republicans (while condemning such actions by Republicans as “anti-Democratic”). His work for New York redistricting that was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters to end such gerrymandering while effectively negating the votes of Republican voters.

Recently, Elias’ name popped up again in the scandal involving David Hogg and accounting irregularities. Hogg is accused of raising millions to support liberal candidates but allegedly spending only $263,000 on such candidates while paying $83,000 to the Elias law firm.

Previously, when allegations of self-dealing and accounting improprieties were raised with regard to Black Lives Matter, the group’s attorney, Elias, immediately stood out for many. Elias resigned from his “key role” with BLM as the scandal exploded.

It is not known if the Elias Law Group will appeal this stinging rebuke or cut its losses.

A man who was caught on camera in a horrific rape in the Bronx has been arrested.

Kassan Parks, 39, was arrested Saturday and charged with walking up behind a 45-year-old victim at 3 a.m. May 1, lassoing her with a bent from behind, dragging her unconscious body between two cars, and raping her, the NY Post reports.

According to the NYPD, Parks pulled the victim to the ground, “causing her to lose consciousness.”

“The male then dragged the victim between two cars and sexually assaulted her,” before fleeing the scene.

Parks has been charged with first-degree rape, assault, strangulation, sex abuse, public lewdness and harassment.

🚨BREAKING UPDATE: Police identified Kashaan Parks, 39 for choking a woman with a belt and ráping her between two cars in the Bronx.

Parks has five prior arrests.

A video emerged from the Bronx showing residents capturing Parks.

What should be his punishment? https://t.co/zBmurcWmNz pic.twitter.com/Ii1zqXUedt

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 10, 2024

On Thursday, the Post reported that the victim had stopped cooperating with the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit. She was brought to a NYC hospital and is in stable condition.

A total of 511 rapes have been reported throughout New York City as of May 5, which is in-line with 2023 figures YTD.

Sadly, one has to wonder if he’ll even be prosecuted given where the crime occurred.

What’s the point of searching for him since the NY “no crime” DA will release him the next day https://t.co/92Zid6nN86

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 11, 2024