iftttwall

The Kremlin on Thursday revealed that the day prior Ukraine’s military launched six US-made long-range ATACMs missiles and four British-made Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory.

The projectiles targeted the southern Rostov region, with Russia’s military saying its anti-air defense systems were able to intercept all four ATACMS missiles and three of the four Storm Shadows.

The statement further vowed a harsh response to the attacks, given this is at least third of fourth major wave of long-range attacks. Western missiles have been used perhaps half a dozen times or more against Russian territory at this point, only a month after Washington initially gave Kiev permission.

The ATACMS and Storm Shadow assault on Wednesday was accompanied by other conventional weapons as well. In the overall attack some targets, including an oil refinery, were struck:

Ukraine struck Russian territory with at least 13 missiles and 84 drones, triggering a fire at an oil refinery in the southern Rostov region that burned for hours, Russian officials said on Thursday.

As Russia advances at the fastest pace since the start of the war in 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly tried to strike Russia’s oil infrastructure – which funds a significant chunk of the Russian war economy.

“The actions of the Kyiv regime, supported by its Western curators, will not go unanswered,” the Russian defense ministry said in follow-up.

This retaliation could involve more hypersonic ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine, a threat which has been sounded more frequently of late, specifically more debilitating attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid headed into the cold winter months.

On Thursday, during President Putin’s year-end Q&A session with journalists, Putin warned that more Oreshnik missiles could be used, emphasizing that there is no defense against them.

‘We should have a duel — Oreshnik v NATO missile defense over Kiev’

SUPERCUT: Putin’s biggest statements during annual 4+ hour Q&A pic.twitter.com/M7FYwk4g7y

— RT (@RT_com) December 19, 2024

“There is no chance of shooting down these Oreshnik missiles. Well, if those Western experts you mentioned think they can be shot down, we propose they – and those in the West and the United States who pay them for their analysis – conduct some kind of technological experiment, a high-tech duel of the 21st century,” Putin explained to the press.

“Let them name some object, let’s say, in Kyiv, concentrate all their air defence and missile defence forces there, and we will hit it with Oreshnik and see what happens. We are ready for such an experiment. Is the other side ready?” he posed.

Authored by Connor O’Keefe via The Mises Institute,

In the years leading up to the 2024 presidential election, the Democrats and establishment Republicans who wanted to see Joe Biden, and later Kamala Harris, remain in office went all in on one overarching narrative above all: that Donald Trump represented an existential threat to American democracy.

Biden’s team and their allies in politics and media repeated this claim day after day, essentially trying to convince millions of Americans that elections would literally stop happening in this country if Trump won.

Taking a step back, Trump was framed as the domestic enemy in a broader international fight that saw “autocratic” leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and others facing down a coalition of “democratic” governments.

Democracy versus autocracy was meant to be the defining dynamic of the day. Meaning everything from the war in Ukraine to the fight over climate change was framed as one big battle where the “good guys” were defined purely by their commitment to the democratic process.

And, in that global fight, no effort was more important—we were told—than keeping Trump out of the White House.

But then he won.

Despite the establishment’s efforts, a majority of American voters were not swayed by the “democracy-versus-autocracy” narrative. Or, at least, they demonstrated that they preferred the candidate who promised to close the border, wind down the war in Ukraine, cut down the extremely bloated federal bureaucracy, investigate the weaponization of the DOJ in recent years, and roll back federal climate policies while celebrating and vowing to continue the appointment of conservative judges and justices—among other campaign promises.

Now, President Biden – and, really, all the people around him who are actually running things – are in their so-called lame-duck period. And what are they doing as they wait to hand power over to the next administration? They’re doing whatever they can to make it harder for Trump’s team to implement the very policies voters just sent them to the White House to carry out.

Last week, we learned that the Biden administration is moving unassembled border wall material away from the southern border and selling it at an auction. Groups allied with the president are also calling on him to close immigration and customs enforcement detention facilities before leaving office to hamper Trump’s plans to deport illegal immigrants.

After losing the election last month, the Biden administration escalated the war in Ukraine by helping Ukrainian forces shoot long-range American missiles further into Russia. Now, the president’s team is rushing to send another $725 million to Ukraine before Trump is sworn in on January 20.

Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a ruling that makes it much harder for Trump’s team to overhaul the federal workforce. While Trump could still carry out this campaign promise, he now cannot do so through executive order. He is required to propose a new rule, which will likely bring years of legal battles.

Biden pardoned his son Hunter after he was facing prison sentences for federal felony gun and tax convictions. Now, the president is reportedly considering “preemptive pardons” for numerous allies that his team expects to be investigated by Trump’s DOJ.

Members of the president’s cabinet are rushing to spend as much money as possible in the various departments they oversee, EPA officials are hurrying to implement as many new environmental and climate policies as they can, and the president and Senate Democrats are racing to fill as many federal judicial positions as they’re able to before losing the White House and Senate.

Depending on where you stand on Trump’s agenda, you could see these efforts as heroic or disgraceful. But because the president and political establishment are ramming through policies that a majority of Americans just voted against, it’s impossible to seriously label these actions as anything other than explicitly undemocratic.

As someone who does not believe democracy is an ethical system or the best way to organize society, this alone does not bother me. But the hypocrisy is still important to call out.

Because, with their actions, the political class has again revealed that they do not actually care about democracy. They only use the fact that much of the public does care about democracy to try and serve their own ends.

The same goes for human rights abuses and crackdowns on dissent carried out by foreign governments that Washington wants to overthrow. When true, these are totally legitimate criticisms to level at these state leaders. But our government officials have demonstrated a complete willingness to ignore, support, and even partake in the same abuses when it’s useful to them. So, again, they are only using the fact that decent people care about these issues to serve their own agenda.

It is important to have principles. But it’s also important to recognize when people who do not share your principles are using your commitment to those principles to manipulate you. The political establishment in recent weeks has shown, yet again, that they do this. It’s time we stop falling for it.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing a mounting political crisis within his own Liberal Party, with an increasing number of party members voicing their desire for his resignation ahead of the scheduled 2025 election. This internal discontent has gained momentum after the shock resignation of Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s finance minister and a key ally.

Jenica Atwin, a Liberal parliamentary secretary from New Brunswick, openly stated that Trudeau should step down, and says she won’t run for reelection if Trudeau remains in leadership. Atwin’s call was echoed by Chad Collins, a Liberal MP from Ontario, who revealed that around 50 Liberal MPs are part of a faction pushing for Trudeau’s resignation. This represents about one-third of the Liberal representatives in the House of Commons.

“I don’t know who’s giving him advice. I can guess. It’s not good advice,” Collins said. “But the buck stops with him with the decisions he makes, and we’re now seeing the fallout that’s come with what many would consider a very poor decision.”

Monday’s resignation of Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s powerful finance minister and his longtime deputy, was a massive shock that has irreparably damaged the prime minister, Collins said in an interview.

Freeland said she quit after being told she would be moved to a different role in the cabinet. Trudeau delivered that news on Friday, she said — just three days before she was due for a major speech that would update the country on its fiscal and economic situation. -Bloomberg

“In terms of who the successor is, I don’t know at this point whether or not we could do much worse,” Collins continued.

Meanwhile, Trudeau has canceled his customary year-end media appearances, only making limited public comments at Liberal Party events. And at a recent press conference, Justice Minister Arif Virani avoided direct questions about Trudeau’s leadership, instead focusing on his role and expressing confidence in the prime minister.

“Decisions will be taken by the parties that are involved,” said Virani, trying to bring the discussion back to an announcement about wrongful convictions. “I have absolute confidence in the prime minister in terms of what he has asked me to do. That is serve as a minister of justice who defends people’s rights.”

According to polling data, Canada’s Conservative Party, under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, is likely to secure a majority in the next general election. Wayne Long, another Liberal MP from New Brunswick, stressed the urgency of the situation in an open letter, suggesting that the party must act to prevent a historic electoral defeat.

Collins warned that continued support for Trudeau might lead to a significant exodus of experienced politicians from the party, potentially leaving it with a “skeleton crew” of seasoned representatives.

Authored by Daniel Oliver via American Greatness,

Democrats are stumbling all over each other to blame Biden for staying in the presidential race too long. Ha!

Axios reported that “Vice President Harris’ loss raised a feeling among Democrats that Biden’s refusal to leave the race until July cost the party dearly—even as they got caught up in a global anti-incumbency wave.”

Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) blamed Biden: “I think there’s a widespread sense that he took too long to get out and that it made it very difficult for Vice President Harris to run the most impactful campaign.”

Sen. “Hindsight” Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, “Well . . . in hindsight, knowing that he ultimately made the decision to stand down, yes, of course, it would have been better for President Biden to have made that decision earlier. I think there’s no question about it.”

Yup. No question at all. 

Now.

But what about then?

On the first day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) who said: “I want him to run . . . I see no reason for him not to run . . . . We all age differently. They said the same thing about . . . Ronald Reagan. How many people said Ronald Reagan was too old? Do you remember in his debate with Walter Mondale, the classic line?”

On the second day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who said: “Everything I read is they’re trying to get him to cut back his hours because he’s got too much energy.”

On the third day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Kamala Harris who said that in the days following the October 7 attack by Hamas she had spent countless hours with Biden and other officials and that he was “on top of it all.”

On the fourth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) who said that “[Biden is] sharper than anyone I’ve spoken to.”

On the fifth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D-IL) who said: “I’ve been with the president of the United States many times. He is on the ball. The man knows more than most of us have forgotten.”

On the sixth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas who said: “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented, and focused.”

On the seventh day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who said: “So Joe Biden has vision, he has knowledge, he has strategic thinking. This is a very sharp president in terms of his public presentation. If he makes a slip of the tongue here or there, what’s the deal?” And then, “Anyone who would think that they’re at some advantage because of his age thinks that at their peril, because he’s very sharp.”

On the eighth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Mitch Landrieu (Biden campaign co-chair) who said: “When you go in to brief the president, you better have your big boy pants on. And this kind of sense that he’s not ready for this job, it’s just a bucket of BS that’s so deep, your boots will get stuck.”

On the ninth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Chuck Todd (NBC Host) who said: “There’s an easy way to basically make this report [of Biden’s memory issues] pointless. The easiest way to get rid of this storyline is to get him out there.”

On the tenth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) who said: “I’ve spent time with both of those guys privately. Spent time with Biden and Trump privately. I’ve spent time with every House Speaker over the past thirty years. And Joe Biden, I’m not just—it’s just not close. If you want to talk about international affairs, if you want to talk about how to get bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden is light-years ahead of all of them.”

On the eleventh day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) who said: “[Biden is] incredibly strong, forceful and decisive.”

On the twelfth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Kamala Harris who, when asked by Axios whether she could “fully assure” voters that there is nothing to be concerned about Biden’s “hour-by-hour performance,” quickly responded, “Of course.”

Things are so bad for the Democrats now they may not even celebrate Kwanza this year.

For the rest of us, however, we can give thanks to an Almighty and Provident God, and say, remembering Ronald Reagan, that America’s best days are yet to come.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in fresh Thursday remarks has emphasized that he is ready for a direct conversation with US President-elect Donald Trump at any time and agrees to meet with him when the US side is ready.

“I am ready for this [conversation], of course, at any time. And I will also be ready for a meeting, if he wants it,” Putin said at Russia’s annual year-end Q&A press conference with the president. He gave this response to an American journalist when asked about a potential future meeting with Trump.

“First of all, I don’t know when we will meet with him. Because he doesn’t say anything about it. I haven’t talked to him at all for more than four years,” Putin followed with, acknowledging the unpredictability of the US side’s intentions.

The Kremlin has still taken a pessimistic view on the possibility of achieving peace in Ukraine anytime soon, given especially that Western long-range missiles are being used against Russian territory.

According to more of the latest context via TASS:

Earlier, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow is ready for contacts with Washington to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, but has not yet received any serious proposals from Trump’s team. According to the diplomat, the Russian Foreign Ministry has recently regularly received many questions about whether Russia is ready to contact Trump and his team.

Trump’s pick for national security advisor, Mike Waltz, explained to CBS News at the start of this week, “What does success look like in line with our interests? How do we end the war? Who’s at the table? How do we drive, you know, all sides to the table, and what’s the framework for an agreement? Those are things that we’re thinking through with his fantastic team that he’s (Trump) assembling.”

He also said that the current Biden administration policy of escalation with no end in sight is a recipe for disaster which could turn the conflict into another “forever war”. He said that a “blank check… just isn’t a strategy.”

And yet it could be President Zelensky himself who stands in the way:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the prospect of freezing the conflict started by Moscow to facilitate negotiations to end hostilities, telling French daily Le Parisien that Donald Trump “knows about my desire not to rush things at the expense of Ukraine.”

Below is the key section of this latest Zelensky interview: 

Zelensky told Le Parisien resolving the war was “not easy” and that Trump wanted a peace deal “quickly” but the Ukrainian leader said the Trump team did not yet have access to all the information from diplomatic and intelligence channels.

Zelensky said regardless of what world leaders want, “we are not just going to give in and give up our independence.”

“The danger would be to say—we freeze the war and we will come to an agreement with the Russians,” he added, noting that Putin “has killed many Ukrainians.”

I’m open for a meeting with Trump – Putin pic.twitter.com/UxV4NZB8e6

— RT (@RT_com) December 19, 2024

Freezing the front lines is a central component of what has thus far been reported as ‘Trump’s peace plan’. Moscow hasn’t appeared too keen on it either, and it has less incentive to agree to this, given by all metrics it is winning on the ground in the Donbas.

Still, Trump has pushed forward with his promise to find a swift close to the war which has been raging for about three years. He’s vowing to push the warring sides to the negotiating table from his very first day in office.

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

As the embers of 2024 spit out their dying sparks and tendrils of smoke corkscrew into 2025, I want to ask: what were the important news stories of this year?

Most people will say something international.

The war in Ukraine, the atrocities in Gaza, the fall of Assad.

Maybe some will cite elections, it was a big year for voting after all.

A global shift-change in the corridors of power saw a dozen governments swapped out for new faces, with 2 weeks of the year left it’s still possible Trudeau, Macron or Scholz may join the procession.

The tech minded might talk about advancements in Artificial Intelligence.

Those are the big stories of 2024.

The banner headlines.

Sound and fury and all that signifies. But were they the most important?

No, the important story of 2024 was The Great Reset.

Remember that? It was this pan-global supranational plan to tear down and then rebuild society in a “sustainable”, “inclusive”, “fair” and “secure” way that would – totally accidentally – eradicate civil liberties and individual freedom for every single person on the planet.

It was all the rage a few years ago, you might remember. But when it didn’t go over too well with a lot of people, the powers that be dropped the subject and there’s been very little talk about it since 2022.

Does that mean it’s gone away?

We need to have “object permanence” in politics as in all things. Something doesn’t cease to exist just because you can’t see it anymore. The world doesn’t vanish when you close your eyes.

The Great Reset is still the plan.

It’s still happening. It’s just distributed now.

A compartmentalized strategy uploaded to the cloud, everywhere and nowhere. A million nanobots working a million angles to change a million tiny rules and build a million tiny cells.

Like the end of The Usual Suspects, stand the right distance back and you can see the pattern.

Just last week, the UK’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty published his annual health report. What does he recommend? Sin taxes on “unhealthy” foods and 15 minute cities. Labour have already increased “sin taxes” on sugar, salt, alcohol and tobacco. Next comes red meat, dairy and just “carbon” in general.

Earlier this year the UK introduced licensing for keeping chickens. They banned smoking too.

By 2035 it will be impossible to buy a new petrol car in the UK. Or the EU. Or Canada. Or New Zealand. Or Australia. Or Mexico. Or South Africa. Or California, and 11 other US states.

From that point you and your car  will be anchored to charging points.  Even better  your new car will probably have automatic drive features, speed limiters  – oh and remote kill switches.

This week, all of sudden, the news tells us that wood burning stoves cause cancer. A ban is already being discussed. Since coal is already a no-no for domestic users (since 2023), there effectively  goes your last chance of energy and heat independence. If they ban stoves there will be no heating available to you that can’t be hooked up to a smart meter, surveilled, controlled.

Unless you count burning a candle inside a plant pot. And they’re coming for those too.

The much-publicised murder of Sara Sharif has already been parlayed into a new bill taking away parents “automatic right to homeschool their children” – if the state deems them “vulnerable”.

Digital IDs are coming for everyone from everywhere. Here’s just a selection of reasons –

To secure the border and ensure electoral integrity in the US.

To protect children on social media in Australia.

To promote efficiency in the EU.

To combat illegal immigration in the UK.

To track migrant workers in Russia.

Because they said so in China.

The EU wants to establish an “asset register” and biometric tracking across borders. Online anonymity is being eroded with each “hate crime” attributed to “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

There is persistent and consistent talk of rationing – food and water and travel.

Ban it. Ration it. Monitor it. Control everyone’s everything.

Can’t you see the walls closing in?

These are not disparate issues, they are heads on a hydra.  They form the universal silent agenda that is everywhere. They are bipartisan and cross-bench. They are the things unquestioned, sanctioned and approved by both “sides” of every fake “divide”.

The people at the apex of the pyramid literally spent two years talking about this. Telling you it was the plan and how great it was going to be.

Then, when it didn’t take, they spent two more years pretending they never said it and distracting you with other things like UFOs. Taylor Swift. ChatGPT. Race-baiting.

They are building a prison around every single person on this planet while we argue about Hunter Biden and QAnon and Transgender bathrooms.

The drones over New Jersey – supposing there’s anything really there at all – may as well be a giant jangling key chain in the sky.

That’s what all of it is. The elections. The terrorism. The scandals. The leaked reports.

It’s a laser pointer. It stops the cat from playing with the things he shouldn’t play with.

Today is my birthday. I’m hurtling – faster than I expected or desired – towards 40. My birthday wish is a world worth living in when I get there.

The silver lining of 2025 being as bad I suspect it’s going to be is that it might force people to re-realise everything they’ve forgotten since 2022. And the first step to fixing something is admitting there’s a problem.

About a month after Bloomberg reported that Lattice Semiconductor had offered to purchase Intel’s Altera, the financial media outlet revealed that several private equity firms had also entered the bidding game for the company, which specializes in designing low-power programmable chips.

Sources told Bloomberg that Francisco Partners and Silver Lake Management have joined Lattice in a second bidding round for Altera. Additionally, Apollo Global Management and Bain Capital are considered potential suitors.

The people said Lattice and the PE firms have until the end of January to formalize their offers, adding other PE firms could enter the mix, or the process could end with no sale. 

More from Bloomberg: 

After calling for initial bids prior to the US Thanksgiving holiday in November, Intel has been presented with deal- structure options that range from acquiring a 20% to 30% stake to taking full control of Altera, the people said. Some parties have outlined multiple paths in their proposals, which value the unit at as little as $9 billion to more than $12 billion, according to the people. Intel paid roughly $17 billion to acquire Altera in 2015.

Intel reiterated in October that a stake in Altera was for sale before pursuing an initial public offering of the unit. This is part of a much broader turnaround plan for the struggling chip giant. 

Intel CEO David Zinsner, named interim co-CEO alongside Michelle Johnston Holthaus earlier this month, told investors at an industry conference that the chipmaker “kicked off” the process to engage with outside investors. 

“Our thinking is we’ll get another partner in similar to what we did with the IMS business,” Zinsner said at the Barclays Global Technology Conference last week. 

Separately, Goldman analysts Toshiya Hari and Anmol Makkar recently told clients Intel was a “Sell” and “we have yet to pick up evidence that would indicate Intel has turned the corner.” 

Hari’s 12-month price target was unchanged at $20 a share:

“This is based on 14x our normalized EPS estimate of $1.45. Upside risks to our estimates and our cautious investment thesis include: 1) stronger-than-expected PC/server demand; 2) better execution on process node transitions and, as a result, higher market share than we assume in our base case; 3) business portfolio optimization, 4) early/significant success in foundry, 5) timing/magnitude of government incentives related to the on-shoring of semiconductor manufacturing and 6) better than expected traction in AI acceleration.”

Shares are down 62% on the year, trading around 2013 levels. 

Intel is positioned to continue the turnaround plan’s “next phase of transformation” in 2025. 

Authored by Ron Paul via The Mises Institute,

My first reaction to news earlier this month that the Syrian government had been overthrown was, how much did we have to do with it; how involved was the CIA; and how much is it going to cost.

As with Saddam and Gaddafi before him, we know that Assad was no libertarian hero. But unleashing an army dedicated to establishing an Islamic state in once-secular Syria hardly seems like a good idea to me.

As with President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment after Saddam’s overthrow, getting rid of Assad will prove to be the easy part. Rebuilding Syrian society after the destruction of the country will cost billions and will likely be about as successful as our “liberation” of Libya, which is still a failed, terrorist-dominated state more than a decade later.

In 2017 the Los Angeles Times published an article that, sadly, speaks volumes about the insanity of our interventionist foreign policy. “In Syria, militants armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA,” read the headline. How does it make any sense that the Pentagon is fighting a proxy war with the CIA on Syrian soil? What’s worse is that the American people are forced to pay for this Pentagon versus CIA war and then forced to pay again to rebuild the country after all the destruction.

The Syrian people will feel the cost in more than just dollars.

How involved is the US government in the overthrow of the Syrian government?

For the past ten years the US has controlled the areas of Syria oil and wheat production, stealing resources that we have no legal claim on. The combination of resource theft and extreme sanctions hollowed out Syrian society over the past ten years, so when the terrorists sprang forth from Idlib a few weeks ago there was little resistance.

Now instead of the relatively benign yet authoritarian rule of Assad, we have rule by the direct inheritors of the people who attacked us on 9/11. I am shocked that the mainstream media and many if not most politicians are cheering this. Ironically, some of the biggest cheerleaders for the al-Qaeda takeover of Syria are the same Members of Congress who finished their daily speeches on the House Floor with “we will never forget 9/11.” I guess they finally forgot?

The implosion of Syria, like the US-engineered implosion of Libya and Iraq, has not led to democracy, peace, and the protection of civil liberties. In each case it has produced the exact opposite. Millions dead, millions more living in misery with many seeking revenge against those who destroyed their families, their lifestyle, and their countries.

Are we safer having created millions of new enemies?

President-elect Donald Trump made a statement last week about Syria, saying that this is not our fight and we should have nothing to do with it. His sentiment is the correct one, though we have unfortunately to this point had far too much to do with it. Let us hope that as president, Donald Trump will follow through with this sentiment and extract the US – the overt and covert presence – from not only Syria but the entire Middle East. This is not our fight and every single thing we have done there for the past 75 or so years has only made things worse. Time for an America first foreign policy!

Billionaire entrepreneur and investor Joe Lonsdale expressed strong optimism for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative during his appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show. The Palantir co-founder highlighted the “very bold” reforms being planned by co-heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, revealing that the DOGE team is already hard at work on strategic priorities. With over 100 people on board, the team is preparing to enact immediate changes, including staff removals and regulatory rollbacks.

SHAWN RYAN: We’re both pretty fired up about the [Trump administration]. Who are you most excited about? Do you have anybody in particular?

JOE LONSDALE: I’m most excited about Elon, Vivek and the DOGE effort because this is something I’ve wanted to see for forever. I’m probably like one of the only guys in tech that’s done a lot in policy on the right, on the small government side for the last 10-20 years, and it’s like the world just shifted this way—like the vibe shift is exactly in line with stuff I’ve been thinking and talking about for a decade. I’m so excited about this.

SHAWN RYAN: How fast do you think they’re going to start cleaning this stuff up?

JOE LONSDALE: They’re already doing it, man. They can’t really officially do it yet, but they’re already making all the plans. There’s people working hard there. There’s guys picking me, ‘Joe, we need another engineer for this,’ ‘We’re trying to map this out,’ ‘We need more lawyers for this. They’re going right now as hard as they can and getting ready. It’s going to be really bold.

I think the way Elon works in general is just like, “What can we do right now, and then what can we do next? Let’s just focus on what we can do right now.” So they have what’s called their ‘Day One priorities,’ and they’re just focusing and sprinting on everything they could do day one. I think they’re going to have a lot of stuff ready for day one.

They’re bringing in at least well over 100 people for the DOGE effort, and they’re going to put a few of them directly into each agency. A lot of the transition team itself is hiring people to put into these jobs. There’s these policy placements that are all working with DOGE and being liaisons with DOGE. They’re going to come out of the gate with a bunch of general things—removing certain people, removing certain regulations. I can’t go into the details exactly of what they’re going to be doing, but it’s going to be really aggressive right from the start.”

Meanwhile, Lonsdale stressed the need to rebuild America’s manufacturing base.

“I’m concerned in general that we don’t have an advanced manufacturing base that’s nearly as big as it needs to be. I think from a geopolitical perspective it’s extremely dangerous and if we want to be ready—so in World War II it wasn’t that we had like a bunch of big defense contractors that we had a bunch of big industrial manufacturers and powers that were able to be shifted to do things for the war.”

.@JTLonsdale to @ShawnRyan762: U.S. Must Rebuild Manufacturing Base to Counter China Threat

“I’m concerned in general that we don’t have an advanced manufacturing base that’s nearly as big as it needs to be. I think from a geopolitical perspective it’s extremely dangerous and if… pic.twitter.com/hd4q3wRrIP

— CAPITAL (@capitalnewshq) December 19, 2024

“If we’ve basically gotten rid of a lot of that base and we need it back if we want to defend ourselves. So I think Trump is very good on this; he shifted it back. I think even his first term actually kind of turned the whole conversation in our country where a lot of people on both sides now agree we need to fix this. But this is where the tariffs against China, if they’re done correctly, are not totally insane at all. It makes a lot of sense to me,” he continued.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

The San Francisco Department of Public Health has hired a self-described “unapologetically fat” body positivity activist to consult on “weight stigma and weight neutrality.”

No, this isn’t a Babylon Bee story.

“I’m unbelievably proud to serve the city I’ve called home for almost 20 years in this way!” Virgie Tovar posted on Instagram.

“This consultancy is an absolute dream come true, and it’s my biggest hope and belief that weight neutrality will be the future of public health.”

‘Weight neutrality’ is the absurd notion that a person’s overall health is more important than their weight, despite the fact that being overweight is directly connected to a myriad of health problems.

Tovar, who is very clearly obese, describes herself on social media as an “unapologetically fat fat-positive feminist who fights against the weight-loss industry” and recently wrote an article for Forbes about “how to host a size-inclusive Thanksgiving.”

Tovar also runs DEI corporate training days based around combating ‘weight-based discrimination in the workplace’ and has previously advocated “radical body positivity for girls of colour.”

Another ‘weight bias training course’ she held for government workers was designed to decrease “stigma around food and bodies” in the workplace and instructed employees not to talk about exercise while at work.

She also previously criticized health professionals for pressuring her to lose weight.

The Telegraph approached the San Francisco Department of Public Health for comment on whether Tovar’s position is salaried or funded by taxpayer money, but so far has received no response.

“San Francisco is thought to be among the first city health departments in America to hire a weight stigma tsar,” reports the newspaper.

As we highlight in the video below, numerous prominent ‘body positivity’ activists who were severely overweight or obese died from, you guessed it, illnesses related to being overweight.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.