Is Genocide Good for the Dow? Our Columnists Weigh In.

Moderator: Karen Langley-Wu, Senior Markets Editor

Karen: Welcome back to our weekly Capital & Consequences roundtable. Today’s topic: Is genocide good for the Dow? It’s a question on many investors’ minds as defense stocks surge and news outlets cycle through sanitized euphemisms faster than the bodies can be buried. We’re joined by three of our top thinkers: New York Times opinion-haver Tom Friedman, Wall Street Journal moral compass Bret Stephens, and “Professor” Margaret Jenkins, visiting fellow at Yale’s Center for Strategic Harmonies and a former [ REDACTED ]

Let’s dive in. Tom?

Tom Friedman: Look, Karen, what you have to understand is that the world is flat—except when it isn’t. Conflict, historically, has been one of the great engines of creative destruction. Sure, cities are leveled, families torn apart, but have you seen what Lockheed Martin’s doing with drone optimization? It’s incredible. Some of the best minds in Silicon Valley are working on missile guidance systems now. You can’t get that kind of synergy in peacetime. I say let the market breathe.

Bret Stephens: I completely agree. There’s a moral clarity to war that the markets appreciate. Ambiguity spooks investors. Genocide, for all its moral complications, provides certainty. Borders are redrawn. Populations are “resolved.” Capital flows predictably toward power. And let’s not forget: when authoritarian regimes commit atrocities, it gives America a new chance to assert leadership—through targeted airstrikes, arms sales, and op-eds. It’s good for freedom, and freedom is good for business.

Professor Jenkins: Thank you, Bret. I’d just like to add—having orchestrated multiple covert destabilizations across three continents—that the noise around “human rights” tends to cloud the signal. Markets like order. Genocide, tragically, creates that order. It silences dissent, consolidates land, eliminates messy democratic variables. And while yes, the optics are unfortunate, the long-term returns for U.S. interests—especially in energy, tech, and private security—are hard to ignore.

Also, let’s remember: ceasefires create bureaucratic bottlenecks. We tried that in ’94. Terrible for the NASDAQ.

Not to mention, [ REDACTED ]

Karen: So what you’re saying is… there’s a bullish case for bloodshed?

Friedman: Very bullish. You want a “stable supply chain” - try nobody ever winning, indefinitely. Rock solid. You can build on that.

Stephens: I’d go further. There’s a moral imperative not to interfere with market-correcting conflicts. You don’t interrupt a self-cleaning oven.

Jenkins: And remember: every genocide ends with a reconstruction contract!

Karen: Powerful insights. As always, thank you all for turning atrocity into actionable intelligence. Next week, we’ll be asking: Do displaced populations offer untapped labor markets? Spoiler alert: McKinsey says yes.