UBS Sees Copper As "Highest-Conviction" Theme, Names Four Miners To Ride Supply Squeeze
Copper futures in London closed near record highs to end the week, as desks at JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank have recently warned that dwindling global supplies of the industrial metal could produce another leg higher.
Théa Ziegler, a member of UBS' US equity advisory sales team, wrote in a note on Friday afternoon that "copper remains one of the highest-conviction commodity themes."
Ziegler said demand from electrification and data-center construction is expected to outpace supply growth and support high prices, as hopes for lower prices fade in a theme best described as scarcity.
"Copper remains one of the highest-conviction commodity themes, with electrification, data-center buildouts and persistent supply constraints continuing to support a constructive long-term outlook. The key takeaway for investors is that supply growth is expected to lag demand growth for several years, underpinning elevated copper prices despite near-term uncertainty around tariffs and trade policy," Ziegler said.
Natalia Corfield, JPMorgan's head of Latin America corporate credit research, noted new developments this week from South America and warned that a strike at Centinela, a major source of Antofagasta's copper production in Chile, has begun and could soon impact production.
Separately, Bloomberg cited the two unions behind the labor action, which warned that Centinela could begin reducing copper production within about two weeks if the walkout continues.
Add major producer Chile's copper woes to the scarcity theme. Deutsche Bank's head of metals research, Daniel Ghali, warned last month that global copper inventories have fallen to "unprecedented lows," blaming some of that on US and Chinese stockpiling, which is squeezing supplies elsewhere.
Ghali has a new 2Q27 price target for copper in London of $22,050 a ton.
Here's the chart that shows the copper supply gap that will persist into the early 2030s.
UBS's Ziegler concluded: "Against that backdrop, the team continues to favor copper-linked miners with meaningful leverage to the theme. Preferred exposures include Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Hudbay and Teck Resources, all of which are viewed as well positioned to benefit from what is expected to be a multi-year copper upcycle driven by structural demand and a constrained supply response."
Spot Is Four Times The Hurdle: What $50 Billion-A-Gigawatt Neocloud Rents Say About The AI Revenue Gap
In the AI trade, everyone wants to know what a gigawatt is worth.
Thanks to a chart buried on page 7 of Goldman's latest SpaceX note, we now have an answer, or rather three of them: $40-50 billion a year if you rent it out short-term, $20-30 billion if you rent it out long-term, and roughly $12 billion if you're a hyperscaler who simply needs to earn a decent return on it. The gap between those numbers is where the entire debate over AI revenues, and the $1+ trillion a year of capex now chasing them, really lives.
Here is the chart in question, from Goldman internet analyst Eric Sheridan's Q3 preview of SpaceX (SPCX) published on Monday (available to pro subs):
The navy bars are short-term capacity deals, the light blue ones are long-term hosting contracts. And the message is unambiguous: right now, compute is so scarce that whoever owns a powered, GPU-filled data hall can name their price... as long as the buyer only has to commit for a few months.
Regular readers know we have been warning since last October that the AI buildout runs on debt, and more recently that it runs on revenue numbers nobody can quite pin down. Below we walk through what the neocloud rate card tells us about the economics of AI compute, why it can't be extrapolated to the rest of the buildout, and where the tension between neocloud revenue, hyperscaler revenue and actual end-user revenue lies.
The Rate Card: Spot $50, Term $20
Start with what Goldman actually found. SpaceX, which now houses xAI's Colossus compute, announced two more hosting deals in the past quarter (one on its Q2 call, one at Goldman's own Communacopia conference in September), and told investors they are "monetized at the high end of the ~$30-50bn/GW range" it has historically discussed. And SpaceX is not alone:
Nebius (NBIS...) disclosed in August that short-term capacity deals in Q3 are being priced at ~$40-50bn/GW while CoreWeave (CRWV...) disclosed similar ~$40bn/GW pricing for its recent short-term capacity deals... Longer-term capacity deals across the industry continue to vary by company but pointing to ~$20bn/GW as a sustainable pricing floor at current rates. IREN (IREN...) disclosed in August that recent 3-year contracts are being priced at >$20bn/GW with active discussions at ~$25bn/GW, while NBIS disclosed longer-term deals being priced at similar ~$20-25bn/GW rates.
Deutsche Bank's Edison Yu goes even further. In his "Got compute?" note (also available to pro subs), Yu backs out the GPU-hour pricing of each SpaceX deal and gets $50-51 million per MW for Google and Reflection AI, and $60-61 million per MW for the two undisclosed customers, i.e., as much as $61 billion per gigawatt, renting out GB300s at nearly $14 an hour:
Put differently, the term structure of AI compute is steeply inverted: buyers pay roughly double for the privilege of not committing. That is what a market looks like when demand is real but nobody (including the buyers) is willing to bet on it lasting. Physical commodity traders will recognize the shape: it's backwardation, and it usually means the shortage is priced as temporary.
It also explains why the neocloud model is so attractive to its owners. Goldman's hyperscaler work puts all-in capex at roughly $42 billion per GW (more on that below). At $40-50 billion a year of revenue, a neocloud recoups the entire build in about one year of rent; at the $20 billion long-term floor, it takes two. Which is why the next detail matters so much:
One caveat to highlight is the duration risk of these hosting deals - with most of these deals being 90-day cancellable on both sides, there is some risk that our assumption for revenues to be recognized at current rates through contract expiry (2029 in most cases) is overly-bullish.
Translation: the $50 billion-a-gigawatt revenue stream that SpaceX is trying to borrow $40 billion against is, contractually, a quarterly lease. We made the same point when SpaceX went looking for a record $40 billion in chip-collateralized SPV debt last week; Goldman has now put a number on it. In its model, hosting/IaaS revenue goes from $1 billion in 2Q26 to more than $10 billion a quarter by 4Q26, and $45.5 billion in 2027 on just ~1GW of capacity, at an implied $35-57 billion per GW:
Here Is The Problem: Spot Is Four Times The Hurdle
Now compare that rate card to what the rest of the AI economy needs to earn.
Last month Goldman's tech analysts tried to size the AI economy needed to justify hyperscaler capex, and concluded that the six big US hyperscalers (Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle and SpaceX) need roughly $1.42 trillion of cumulative AI revenue in 2028-30, or about $11.6 billion per GW per year, to earn a 15% ROIC on their 2026-27 AI compute spend. Here is the sensitivity grid (from "Sizing the AI Economy Needed to Justify ROIC on Hyperscaler AI Capex", available to pro subs):
Even at a 30% ROIC and the most expensive capex assumption, the number never gets above $18.6 billion per GW. Short-term neocloud rents are 2-4x that. Our chart below puts every estimate we could find on one axis:
Two things jump out.
First, hyperscalers are paying neoclouds 4x what their own compute has to earn. Goldman models Google's SpaceX deal at $45 billion per GW (Deutsche says $50 billion). That same Google, per Goldman's ROIC framework, needs just ~$12 billion a GW from its own data centers. Nobody rationally pays a 4x premium for a commodity unless they can't get it any other way, so this is not a sign of healthy demand so much as a sign of power and shell scarcity: Google is renting because it can't build fast enough. Remember that the next time a hyperscaler raises its capex guide (undoubtedly much higher). The moment self-built capacity catches up, the premium on rented capacity goes away, and so does a big chunk of neocloud revenue, which incidentally is a point we made two weeks ago.
The more data centers are lit, the faster this bubble pops
Second, even the bulls' token economics can't pay spot rents. JPMorgan's Gokul Hariharan, in a framework for the next leg of AI infrastructure after what the bank's International Market Intelligence desk called a "biblical de-rating" (available to pro subs), was about as constructive as it gets:
Frontier-model vendors generate 60–80% inference gross margins and could earn $20–40bn of annual revenue per GW from AI tokens (vs $10bn in 2025).
Do the napkin math. If compute is 20-40% of a lab's token revenue (i.e., a 60-80% gross margin), then a lab paying $45 billion a year to rent a gigawatt would need to sell roughly $110-225 billion of tokens off it, or three to eleven times JPM's own optimistic range. In other words, nobody is renting spot capacity at $45 billion a gigawatt to serve paying customers at a profit. They're renting it to train the next model, funded by the next round of equity or debt.... well, mostly debt.
Which is exactly the point Rothschild Redburn's Alexander Haissl made when he slapped Sell ratings on CoreWeave and Nebius last month: compute pricing is rising, but who pays matters, and the top-paying customers are mostly VC-funded startups and big tech companies using compute for training rather than inference. In his words, "training demand can persist as long as external capital remains available." Which, yes, is another point we made two weeks ago.
How many of those customers are funded by VCs who are also investors in Anthropic
Goldman's TMT desk is now flagging Oracle and Broadcom credit spreads as the key indicator of concern over debt-funded AI capex, with Oracle 5Y CDS closing at a record 261bp on Thursday.
Only Compute You Rent Out Earns Neocloud Rates
The cleanest illustration of the gap is inside Goldman's own SpaceX model. The ~1GW rented to third parties earns $40.5 billion per GW. Everything SpaceX keeps for itself ("Other AI revenues": Grok, X, enterprise, the Cursor acquisition) is modeled at $12-13 billion per GW, almost exactly the hyperscaler hurdle. And the Street is even lower: back out the hosting deals from Visible Alpha consensus and SpaceX's own compute is implicitly monetized at ~$8 billion per GW in 2027 and ~$13 billion in 2028:
Goldman's bull case is that this is "significantly lower than current industry rates" and that if SpaceX can monetize 75% of its non-hosting compute at the $20 billion long-term floor (leaving 25% for training at zero revenue), AI revenue would come in ~31% above Street for 2027 and ~9% above for 2028:
What if the 90-day leases do get cancelled? Then, Goldman says, SpaceX would need to earn ~$18 billion per GW on reallocated compute in 2028 to hit consensus, "a reasonable, if not conservative, level of monetization compared to current industry rates":
Maybe. But note what "current industry rates" means here: the price of renting compute to someone else at a moment of acute shortage. The bull case quietly assumes that compute used in-house (or rented to whoever replaces today's tenants) will earn what scarce compute earns today. The Street, which models $8-13 billion, is pricing the opposite: that once the shortage ends, a gigawatt earns roughly what a hyperscaler needs it to earn, and not a penny more.
Oh, and there will be a lot more gigawatts. Goldman sees SpaceX alone going from 1.4GW in 2Q26 to ~7GW by end-2027 and ~10.6GW by end-2028:
Neocloud Revenue Is Somebody Else's Cost
Which brings us to the real tension between neocloud revenue, hyperscaler revenue and AI "industry" revenue: they are largely the same dollar, counted several times.
Follow a single dollar of end-user spend.
An enterprise pays Anthropic, which books it gross (cloud partner cut included).
The cloud partner (AWS, Google) books its share as cloud revenue.
If that partner is short of capacity, it rents a gigawatt from SpaceX or CoreWeave, which books it as hosting revenue.
Then SpaceX and CoreWeave pay Nvidia, which books it as data center revenue.
Add up "AI revenue" across the stack and you get a number several times larger than what end users actually paid, and every layer above the end user is someone else's cost.
Anthropic reports closer to gross revenue (full customer spend through cloud partners, partner cut booked as a cost). OpenAI has reported closer to net (mainly its own share). When some investors tried to put the two on a like-for-like basis by grossing up OpenAI's figures, they produced the higher ~$40bn (August) and then ~$70bn numbers... The episode highlights how sensitive the complex has become to the precise trajectory of two private companies that use different reporting conventions.
The same desk also reminded clients of Brad Gerstner's mid-September framework: the top three labs (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX/xAI) were at a combined ~$100 billion run-rate in July and needed to reach $180-200 billion by year-end "to keep the AI trade intact." And as Johnstone notes, even that framework mixed Anthropic on gross, OpenAI on net and SpaceX on a "closer to gross" basis "for its compute hosting contracts." In other words, part of the "lab revenue" that is supposed to pay for compute is itself compute revenue. Diversification at its finest.
The buyer base is also absurdly narrow. As we tweeted two weeks ago:
The top 10% of AI customers account for 99.5% of model-serving spend and 99% of neocloud spend, leaving the bottom 90% of firms with 0.5% and 1%: Apollo https://t.co/npmKbOV75r
Put that next to Goldman's 90-day cancellation clauses and the picture is clear: neocloud revenue rests on a handful of customers, most of them cash-burning labs and capacity-starved hyperscalers, renting on paper they can walk away from in a quarter.
Spot Prices Don't Scale
Finally, the math that ties it together. Back out Goldman's $1.42 trillion revenue requirement at $11.6 billion per GW per year and you get roughly 41GW of AI compute that the six US hyperscalers are building with their 2026-27 capex (our approximation). Now price those 41GW at each point on the rate card:
At Goldman's 15% ROIC hurdle: ~$470 billion a year of AI revenue
At the long-term hosting floor of $20 billion: ~$810 billion
At today's short-term neocloud rate of ~$45 billion: ~$1.8 trillion
Compare that with the ~$100 billion the top three labs were running at in July, the $180-200 billion Gerstner says they need by year-end, and the ~$300 billion of annual AI revenue Goldman's Portfolio Strategy team says the market "now needs evidence of" to support the current scale of investment:
Put differently, today's neocloud rates are a marginal price for scarce capacity, not an average price the whole buildout can earn. Even the hurdle rate requires end-demand to grow roughly 2.5x from Gerstner's year-end target, and that is before anyone pays a neocloud a dime of scarcity premium (or takes into account that an entire country named China exists with an entirely separate, and much, much cheaper AI ecosystem). Which is also why Goldman's TMT desk, summing up the bank's capex research, concluded with admirable understatement that "future returns should increasingly come from selective winners... rather than owning anything linked to AI capex."
Bottom Line
Goldman's Sheridan remains a buyer of SpaceX with a $230 price target, and argues that the "supply constraints and lack of available capacity putting upward pressure on spot rates" give him confidence SpaceX can monetize compute "at high ROICs even if these deals are canceled."
He may be right about SpaceX, which has the power, the shells and the Nvidia relationship. But for the AI complex as a whole, the rate card says something less flattering. Short-term rents of $40-50 billion per GW are a scarcity premium paid mostly for training, mostly by capital-funded buyers, on 90-day paper. The long-term market already prices compute at half that, the hyperscalers need a quarter of it, and the Street is pricing in-house compute at the hurdle. With capacity set to multiply (SpaceX alone more than 4x from year-end levels by 2028), the scarcity premium is the thing least likely to survive, and as it compresses, the neocloud revenue that props up hosting deals, chip-backed SPVs and lab "run-rates" compresses with it.
In compute (as in shipping, and everything else), nothing cures record rates like record rates. The term curve is already telling you where AI compute is headed; the only question is whether end-user revenue gets there first... or (more likely) the credit market, where chip-collateralized obligations are priced as if spot were forever, figures it out on its own.
President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to withhold billions in federal funding from New York City unless the city updates a map of immigrant communities to include Little Italy.
In 2023, the city created a map, "New York City Immigrant Enclaves," that maps ethnic communities across the city, such as Chinatown in Lower Manhattan, Little India and Little Manila in Queens, and Little Palestine in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. However, the map omits Little Italy as well as ethnic neighborhoods of Irish and Jewish communities.
Speaking at a Columbus Day celebration at the White House, Trump threatened to cut billions in city funding. "So you have Yemen covered, Haiti covered, Guyana covered, Senegal covered. I think it's a disgrace. We are going to work on that immediately," said the president.
The city budget relies on federal funding, with as much as $8 billion in the city's 2025 fiscal year budget coming from federal sources - most of that going toward education and social services. Federal grants also support counter-terrorism funding for NYPD bomb squads and emergency preparedness teams.
In October, 26,500 New Yorkers lost federal SNAP benefits for food assistance under expanded work requirements set up by the Trump administration. Starting in January 2027, possibly 900,000 New York City residents relying on Medicaid may lose health coverage when new federal work requirements take effect. This federal aid goes to individuals, not the city, but the city and state are scrambling to compensate lower-income New Yorkers for these lost benefits.
The 2023 immigrant enclave map resurfaced on social media back in July, and the City Council's Italian Caucus released a statement on X that it was deeply disappointed with the city for omitting the contribution of Italian-Americans.
"Italians are not a footnote in New York City history - we helped build it," City Council's Italian Caucus said in a statement on X on July 10. All four members of the Italian Caucus are Republicans.
When asked about leaving out Little Italy, Mayor Zohran Mamdani said the map predates his administration, but that it would be updated in the future to include Little Italy and others.
"It's clearly not an exhaustive list of the more than 200 ethnic enclaves," Mamdani said July 11.
Trump Commemorates Columbus
In his speech, Trump said Columbus "undertook one of the boldest voyages in the history of our planet" when he set sail in 1492 westward with the goal of reaching Asia but instead landed in the New World.
Trump said that critics of Columbus want to abolish Columbus Day.
"They want to tear down the history and heritage that makes us who we are," the president said.
Before his comments at the Columbus Day celebration at the White House, Trump pledged on Truth Social in April 2025: "I'm bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes.
"The Democrats did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus, his reputation, and all of the Italians that love him so much."
During President Joe Biden's term, the federal holiday was known as both Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples' Day. Biden issued the first-ever presidential proclamation recognizing Indigenous Peoples' Day, which has its roots in 1970s activism.
Activists wanted to shift the focus from commemorating Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Americas to the negative impact of colonization on the indigenous people on the continent.
At the celebration, Trump also gave a shoutout to notable Italian Americans including Yankees icon Joe DiMaggio, legendary singer Frank Sinatra, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former New York City Mayors Fiorello La Guardia and Rudy Giuliani, and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
CNN Sees Metric That Looks 'Darn Good' For Republicans Before The Midterms
CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten reported Wednesday that voter registration data in four swing states favors Republicans heading into the November midterms. This measure runs counter to polling showing Democrats ahead.
Enten told anchor John Berman that Republicans have improved their party registration margin relative to Democrats by 4 to 8 points in Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania since the midpoint of President Donald Trump's first term. The comparison covers the eight years between the 2018 midterms and the current cycle and draws on state registration records, which count voters who have signed up with each party. Polls, by contrast, estimate how a sample of respondents say they plan to vote, and pollsters weight those results using their own assumptions about who will turn out.
"When you take a look at how people are actually registering — this is not polling data — compared to where we were eight years ago, Republicans are doing considerably better [than the Dems] in what are the swing states," Enten said on CNN.
Berman then asked whether the picture changes over a shorter window. He noted that the baseline for the comparison was 2018 and that polling over the past two years has moved toward Democrats.
Enten said the registration numbers do not show a matching shift in either Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, or Arizona. "There may be some tiny late gains that are going on right now, right, that I think over the last month maybe Democrats are gaining. But when you take the longer term view versus the 2024 election in which Republicans won all of these states, Democrats are, in fact, not actually gaining ground."
Berman said viewers have seen some upward movement for Democrats in the past couple of months. Enten agreed that the recent movement exists, but the problem for the Democratic Party is that it does not approach the size of the Republican gains.
"There's been some ticks up, but they, in no way, blows away the Republican gains," he said.
Asked to place the numbers in historical context, Enten said the four states share a common result. According to his analysis, the GOP holds its best party registration position relative to Democrats in a midterm year in at least 20 years in each of those swing states.
"The bottom line is this, Republicans, right now, are in a much stronger position than they have been, not just compared to eight years ago, but over the long term as well, the relative health of the Republican Party, at least in terms of party registration, is pretty gosh darn good relative to the Democrats," Enten said.
Florida makes a great case study for this trend. Up until the Trump era, Florida was considered a key swing state, but thanks to Republican registration gains in recent years, it is roughly as Republican as Texas. Trump won both states by double digits in 2024.
"I remember when Florida was a swing state," Enten said. "The bottom line is that Florida has had major gains for Republicans in party registration, and it's reflected in the races in which people are running."
Should note the GOP is in its best position on party registration (i.e. not polls) going into a midterm in 20+ years. In total, the Dems have not gained ground since 2024 in key swing states (AZ, NV, NC, or PA). The GOP has gained big ground since Trump's 1st midterm in all 4. https://t.co/KXK7zc5dFY
All four states in Enten's comparison went to Trump in 2024, and each has competitive races on the ballot this year. Enten did not say how much of the Republican registration advantage he expects to carry over into turnout. Still, if even a fraction of those new Republican voters show up on Election Day, pollsters may find themselves explaining another miss.
"Everybody's restless and they got no place to go / Someone's always trying to tell them something they already know / So their anger and resentment flow."
- Warren Zevon, Mohammed's Radio
In the stark October light, events and personalities skulk in the shadows like scavengers in an orchard of poison fruit. The dread builds as the dooryards get populated with the motorized effigies of blood-beasts, werewolves, phantoms, and ghouls. Halloween and Election Day have become the conflated celebration of a national death trip. How has it come down to our country, in a crucial election, seriously entertaining the antics of jihadis and Jacobin riffraff?
Some somebodies are orchestrating this frightful show from the sinister shadowland behind our politics. My guess would be Barack Obama and John Brennan, with a whole lot of help from a supporting cast of entrenched Deep State racketeers enlisted in their service, with their status and livelihoods at stake. Mr. Obama acts as if he is untouchable, probably due to being the personification of Liberalism's "Best Camper" trophy it gave itself to validate the Civil Rights struggle session of the century gone by. We are good people, we really are, and President Obama is proof positive of our goodness!
The truth is, we know next to nothing about his real origins and his journey to power. His family on his mother's side was pure CIA-connected, and his actual father is rumored to be Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987), a Black American poet, journalist, and labor activist who was a member of the Communist Party USA - not the Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. He went from nonentity to myth with no intervening storyline that makes any sense, just a set of rapid promotions with missing events between them: Occidental College in LA to Columbia U to Harvard Law to Chicago politics to Illinois State Senate, straight to the US Senate, and then, bang, into the White House only four years into his first Senate term.
At every stage along the way he was somebody's chore boy. But whose? My guess would be US Central Intelligence. . . that he was groomed to be the untouchable front man looking out for the agency's interests in dicey times. His quick political rise coincided with the rise of John Brennan through the ranks of the CIA. Early on, Brennan was drawn to Arabic culture, sojourned in Egypt as a student, and later served as the CIA's station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He speaks Arabic fluently and is rumored to have converted to Islam (from Catholicism), though it has never been proven. At a 2010 New York University forum, he praised "the goodness and beauty of Islam."
The CIA, I would suppose, is composed of two great clans: one is made of the employees actually carrying out real intel-gathering and analysis. The other is of employees (current and former) looking out for the CIA's own black op activities and the immense fortunes connected with it - with plenty of overlap between the two clans. I'd guess that John Brennan, who was CIA Director between 2013 and 2017 (under President Obama), still runs a large rogue contingent of the CIA clan that does the black ops, sits on a large fortune, and acts like a sovereign organism outside the control of the elected US government.
That would explain why no one has been held accountable for the ten-year-long coup against Donald Trump. Brennan, and the forces he represents, appear to be outside the control of the regular government, including the DOJ and FBI, and to some extent able to control people throughout government by subterfuge, intimidation, and blackmail. All that nearly came apart during Donald Trump's first term with the bungled RussiaGate caper followed by the bungled Impeachment No. 1 operation. But Brennan's dark CIA clan triumphed with the 2020 election "victory" of non compos mentis "Joe Biden," followed by the successful Jan 6, 2021, fake "insurrection" at the US Capitol.
They stumbled badly again with the patently ridiculous court cases against former President Trump in 2023 and 2024. And now here we are in the middle of Mr. Trump's second term, with a titanic struggle going on, largely out of public view, for the soul of the nation. John Brennan is still at large, but a month ago he was served with a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. It looks like he will finally have to do some 'splainin' about events he's been involved with. You can be sure that President Trump means to see that it happens - whatever was signified by the departure of Joe diGenova last month.
It's also my guess that former President Obama has become John Brennan's hostage. He was probably assigned to run "Joe Biden's" fake presidency using Susan Rice and other party functionaries to carry out orders. Brennan surely has a dossier on Barack Obama that fills in the blanks in his sketchy biography, including Mr. Obama's secret sexual activities on the Chicago scene back in the day. Meanwhile, the former president has his electioneering duties to attend to, to try to flip the House and Senate so as to have one last go at defenestrating the man in the White House who threatens to put Brennan, Obama & Company out of business.
So, there's a war on backstage. The war itself has been mythologized by those actually paying attention to it, sometimes as the contest between "Globalists" and "Sovereigntists" or "Black Hats" versus "White Hats" or the Legions of Satan versus the God-loving followers of Jesus. . . Jihad v. Western Civ. However you characterize it, everyone feels the tension as though the current phase of this Fourth Turning is an unbearable space between the life and death of the nation. Hence, all the ghouls in the dooryards, reminding us to stay. . . very. . . scared.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.
