Zero Hedge

Markets May Be Wrong About The Risks Of Venezuela & Greenland

Markets May Be Wrong About The Risks Of Venezuela & Greenland

Authored by Daniel Lacalle, 

Most of the recent reports about the potential opportunity in Greenland and Venezuela focus on the large capital expenditure required, technical challenges, and legal security risks. However, markets may exaggerate the risks and underestimate the potential.

It is interesting to read that the United States should not invest in Venezuela and Greenland because they are high-risk, low-potential areas, but the same analysts find no problem in China and Russia developing those resources.

The oil market will likely lose most of its geopolitical risk premium with Venezuela’s transition to a transparent democracy and a possible regime change in Iran. Adding the development of Greenland may have the same effect that the shale revolution had. The potential of lower gas prices and tech disinflation, higher investment, and more transparent price formation is significant.

The world does not have resource scarcity. It has legal and regulatory excess. In fact, most of the limitations in Greenland and Venezuela are legal and regulatory, more than technical, even if the technical aspect may include some challenges. Deregulation and a transparent legal framework are key to unlocking the enormous potential.

Greenland is undeniably a high-return mining opportunity. The Malmbjerg Molybdenum project offers an estimated 33.8% IRR with $1.17 billion Net Present Value on $820 million capital expenditure. All the feasibility studies have been completed, the permitting is done, and it is just a question of taking the decision to act. The Tanbreez rare earth project offers an exceptional 180% estimated IRR with around $3 billion NPV on just $290 million capex. Similar economics can be found in its graphite & gold resources. Manageable capital expenditure and a return on invested capital that comfortably exceeds the weighted average cost of capital with rapid payback periods.

In oil and gas, the Greenland opportunity finds more legal and regulatory resistance, but the returns may be significantly higher. Greenland holds very large but still unproven oil and gas resources, with technically attractive volumes but slightly more challenging economics due to government policy.

A USGS Circum‑Arctic assessment estimates mean undiscovered conventional resources in the East Greenland Rift Basins at about 31.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent (oil, gas, and natural gas liquids). The Greenland government mentions a separate West Greenland/Baffin Bay assessment with a mean resource of more than 18 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Independent basin studies for onshore Jameson Land suggest around 4 billion barrels of unrisked recoverable oil, with about 1.2 billion barrels targeted by the first two planned wells. Onshore blocks are less expensive and logistically safer than deep‑offshore Arctic projects. Analysts highlight that even a significant discovery would likely carry high break-even prices due to Arctic logistics, absence of infrastructure, export‑terminal requirements and harsh operating conditions. Different independent analyses show breakeven oil prices at $75/bbl and IRRs of 13%. However, the inflated cost estimates come mostly from the estimates of small independent exploration companies, not from more efficient and cost-effective majors.

The problem in Greenland is not navigating the technical challenges and reducing costs but government interventionism. In 2021, the government stopped issuing new oil and gas exploration licenses, citing climate-related reasons. This limits the potential, as there is little option of improving costs via economies of scale and major player involvement. Many other areas with technical challenges have proven to be economically viable at $60 a barrel with a better combination of cost structures and engineering economies of scale.

​Greenland suffers a policy paradox. Legal licenses exist, but an overtly anti‑oil stance and strong so-called environmental scrutiny have made investor confidence The challenges posed by Arctic logistics and infrastructure limitations primarily stem from the difficulty of installing large-scale operations, which discourages oil companies from making productive investments. cost-efficient systems. Litigation, regulatory animosity, political opposition, and permitting delays are the main problems. Greenland’s undeniable oil and gas opportunity can be unlocked with a solid program of environmentally respectful and technically efficient investments where major players can leverage economies of scale and find the technical solutions to reduce costs.

Analysts’ estimates of high costs in Greenland are made with a static view of the industry, which has proven to be able to slash expenses and boost productivity numerous times in equally challenging areas.

The case in Venezuela is also very attractive and only limited by legal and political insecurity.

Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from 3.5 million barrels per day to less than a million due to the dictatorship’s plundering of PDVSA, the national oil company, and abandoning productive investment. The Maduro regime weaponized PDVSA to make it a cash machine for its political spending, financing of dictatorships, and making the leaders of the regime rich.

A speedy recovery of 500 thousand barrels per day is relatively easy and would require Chevron’s four joint ventures to currently produce around 200 kb/d, which accounts for about 22–25% of total Venezuelan output, and this figure could increase by 50% in less than a year and a half by simply leveraging existing resources. Productive capacity of existing fields would require the intervention of the main service providers to solve the leaks and revamp the technically outdated infrastructure.

Adding one million barrels per day to the country’s output would require a maximum of $70 billion of capital expenditure. However, restoring to 2018 levels only needs $20 billion. In fact, once legal, regulatory, and safety hurdles are lifted, companies may find that the cost is substantially lower.

Many existing projects in Venezuela could raise production and improve project‑level IRRs once political risk, legal limitations, and contracts normalize. Petropiar, in the Orinoco Belt, is currently at 50% of capacity because the upgrader did not have major maintenance in six years as the government corruption and interventionism soared. With full maintenance and recovery, production can double from current levels. The Petroboscán project in Lake Maracaibo can easily increase production by 40% through workovers and incremental recovery technology.

In Venezuela’s main projects, infrastructure and wells already exist. Therefore, adding incremental production from infill drilling, artificial lift, and maintenance is relatively fast with low additional costs, which could double IRRs rapidly.

Chevron’s four joint ventures currently produce around 200 kb/d, about 22–25% of total Venezuelan output, and this figure could increase by 50% in less than a year and a half “just leveraging what’s on the ground,” which means high‑return, short‑cycle investments in maintenance and debottlenecking, according to the company.

The Junín and Carabobo projects are older development plans (Junín 2, 4, 5, 6 and Carabobo 1–3) that can produce between 200 and 450 kb/d for each block, but progress has stalled due to corruption, insecurity, and the country’s financial problems.

A 2025 Energy Analytics Institute (EAI) report estimates that six major heavy-oil projects would need about $47.4 billion in investment and could increase production capacity by around 2.1 million b/d, showing the large amount of production that could be restarted if conditions become safe, clear, and appealing. Venezuela currently has four upgrading units, but only one (at Petropiar) is operational. Therefore, the implementation of new or restored upgraders is crucial for rapidly increasing Orinoco crude production.

The most attractive return and the best way to recover the economy of Venezuela come from rehabilitating existing joint ventures and partially built Orinoco projects, where sunk infrastructure plus large in‑place reserves combine to provide small incremental capex and large production increases, according to the EAI report.

The recovery of Venezuela’s oil industry can generate significant benefits for the nation and its citizens once a transparent system of ownership, royalties, and legal framework is implemented. Venezuela will, therefore, need to implement a system like what Milei has created for Argentina, the RIGI framework, designed to provide legal and investor security for large-scale international investments. The Venezuela investment opportunity must be syndicated and implemented through consortiums to accelerate the capital deployment and maximize the output improvement.

The Venezuela opportunity for the world is enormous. It has the world’s largest crude reserves, and a new government that guarantees international arbitration, transparent and solid contracts and a hydrocarbon law reform can also create tens of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, strengthening the domestic supply chains, bringing back the more than 18 thousand technical experts the Maduro regime dismissed, and restoring PDVSA’s management and workforce to incorporate credible professionals instead of political figures.

The Venezuela opportunity offers an average 20% IRR at current oil prices once the initial restoration phase is completed. Decades of underinvestment and political dysfunction can be solved rapidly with decisive actions and technical skill. In five years, Venezuela can double current production levels and lead to an economic recovery that requires restoring private property security and eliminates the dictatorship’s parallel administrations and opaque agreements.

A more stable post‑Maduro setting can give results quickly and start a multi-year process of unlocking investment and recovering production. A Breakwave Advisors special report shows that a recognized government and market reintegration can allow production to trend back toward historic peaks (around 3.5 mbpd). Wood Mackenzie highlights that with regulatory clarity and access to capital, Venezuelan supply could become a significant medium‑term growth source for refiners configured to heavy crude. An Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRINC) technical report says that, with “proper investment,” Venezuela could sustain roughly 2.5 mbpd over 20–30 years, highlighting scope for production growth using horizontal wells, artificial lift, and other secondary recovery technologies.

In Venezuela, less than $10B dedicated to productivity technologies in specific heavy‑oil projects could double recovery factors over a 5-year period, showing +20% IRR project‑level economics relative to reserves in place.

Can it be done quickly? An Atlantic Council study highlights that licensing and contract reforms letting existing operators expand, plus new and transparent participation contracts, could add 500–600 thousand barrels per day in 12–18 months.​

The only reason why analysts see the current challenges as insurmountable is because it seems difficult to believe that the legal and investor security framework will change drastically to an investment-friendly and transparent system.

What Greenland and Venezuela show is that the enormous resource and development opportunities may have technical challenges, but those are easily solvable once the legal and regulatory framework changes from a corrupt and unstable system, in Venezuela, or an interventionist one, like Greenland, to a political and regulatory system focused on facilitating investment and looking for solutions, not creating problems.

Once politics stop interfering, investment will thrive. If you want respect for the environment, economic development, and sustainability, you should trust engineers, not politicians.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 12:40

HUD Initiates Investigations Into Race-Based Housing Programs In Minneapolis

HUD Initiates Investigations Into Race-Based Housing Programs In Minneapolis

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is investigating the city of Minneapolis’s “comprehensive racialized housing plans,” the department said in a statement on Jan. 16.

HUD’s Office for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) notified the city of the investigation and stated its belief that the city’s race-based housing programs violate the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a Jan. 15 letter to Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, FHEO Assistant Secretary Craig W. Trainor said the Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate against any person on the basis of race or national origin in the sale or rental of a dwelling. Title VI bans racial or national origin discrimination in any program that receives federal funding.

The letter alleged an increase in racial and ethnic favoritism within the Minnesota government, calling it “alarming.”

Trainor cited fraud committed by Somali citizens in the state that he said cost U.S. taxpayers at least $9 billion. Trainor accused Gov. Tim Walz’s administration of allowing the fraud to flourish and of trying to politically align with the Somali community, primarily for election favoritism.

“This racial favoritism appears to extend to Minneapolis’s housing policy,“ the letter reads.

”Specifically, Minneapolis has committed to making available and allocating housing resources based on race and nationality.”

The letter cited the “Minneapolis 2040” plan issued by the city, which aims to prioritize housing resources to “cultural districts,” which are defined in the plan as areas rooted in “communities significantly populated by people of color, Indigenous people, and/or immigrants.”

The plan promises to expand programs that support existing homeowners in affording and maintaining their homes, with a “focus on people of color, indigenous people.” It vowed to use “racial equity goals” as one criterion when examining various state programs and services.

The city’s Community Planning and Economic Development department also intends to prioritize rental housing to black people, indigenous people, people of color, and immigrant groups by leveraging its rental licensing authority, the letter reads.

“As a result of Minneapolis’s racialized housing policy, I have directed the Office of Special Investigations to investigate Minneapolis,” Trainor wrote.

“If FHEO finds reasonable cause to believe Minneapolis has or intends to violate the civil rights of its citizens, we will file charges of discrimination or refer the matter to the United States Department of Justice for further enforcement.”

President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Eric Scott Turner, testifies before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 16, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

HUD Secretary Scott Turner called Minnesota ground zero for fraud and corruption, accusing the state of choosing to ignore the law and instead serving a “cynical political agenda.”

These alleged actions undermine American values and the commitment to equal treatment under the law for all citizens, he said.

“In Minnesota, @HUDgov has uncovered up to $84 million in ineligible assistance during Biden’s final year—including $496,000 in improper assistance to 509 dead tenants,” Turner said in a Jan. 13 post on X.

The Epoch Times reached out to Walz and Frey for comment and did not receive a response.

Minnesota Operations, Fraud

Both Walz and Frey have been highly critical of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions in the state.

In a Jan. 15 statement, Walz accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents of “pulling over people indiscriminately, including U.S. citizens, and demanding to see their papers.”

On Jan. 17, Walz’s office dismissed reports that the governor was being investigated by the Department of Justice.

“Weaponizing the justice system and threatening political opponents is a dangerous, authoritarian tactic,” he said.

Meanwhile, in a Jan. 7 statement, Frey asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement to leave Minneapolis and the state “immediately.”

“We stand by our immigrant and refugee communities—know that you have our full support,” he said.

Multiple federal agencies are probing Minnesota for the fraudulent use of federal funds.

Last month, a federal prosecutor suggested that more than 50 percent of the approximately $18 billion in federal funds assigned to the state since 2018 may have been stolen.

The funds were channeled into 14 state programs, including housing, autism, and child nutrition services run by Somalis.

Since 2022, almost 100 people have been charged in various Minnesota fraud schemes, and most of them are of Somali descent.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 12:00

US NatGas Spikes Most Since Ukraine Invasion On Arctic Blast, Major Winter Storm Threat

US NatGas Spikes Most Since Ukraine Invasion On Arctic Blast, Major Winter Storm Threat

US natural gas futures surged for a second straight session as an Arctic cold blast and mounting winter storm threats forced traders to reassess energy demand, with heating demand across much of the eastern US now forecast to surge sharply.

As of 09:00 ET, NatGas futures are up nearly 27%, marking the largest intraday jump since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late January 2022. The move comes as weather models flipped sharply colder, now forecasting a massive deep freeze across the eastern half of the country through the end of the month.

NatGas prices are set to reclaim the $4 per mmbtu level.

Average temperatures across Washington, DC, are plunging and could average around 10°F by the weekend. This cold blast is far more extreme than the one in the first half of December. Notably, this period typically coincides with the most intense part of winter.

The cold blast has sent the heating demand forecast for the next two weeks through the roof.

More details on the cold blast:

  • A colder outlook indicates a higher heating demand that would erase the modest storage surplus seen earlier this month.

  • Hedge funds had increased bearish bets last week, leaving the market vulnerable to a short-covering rally once forecasts changed.

  • Forecasters at Atmospheric G2 said earlier that weather models underestimated both the intensity and the geographic reach of the Arctic cold.

  • Commodity Weather Group expects average temperatures around 8°F below normal across much of the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and parts of southern New England through this weekend.

  • The US Weather Prediction Center warned two dozen weather stations could break or tie daily temperature records through Jan. 26.

Among meteorologists on X, discussion has abruptly shifted toward what could become a historic winter storm stretching from Texas to the Mid-Atlantic, beginning Friday. Weather observer Ryan Hall detailed this winter threat in a report Monday titled “This Could Be The Big One.”

Here's what meteorologists are saying:

All eyes are on the Mid-Atlantic late this week as winter storm threats rise.  

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 11:40

30 Ways Trump Impacted The World In His First Year

30 Ways Trump Impacted The World In His First Year

Authored by Travis Gillmore and Cathy He via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump used his first year back in the White House to set the tone for his second presidency, changing the nation and the world in the process.

Through more than 225 executive orders, the president reorganized federal government policy and focus, while advancing his America First agenda.

On the world stage, Trump reset global trade policy, brokered peace deals, and used the U.S. military in several defining moments.

Here are 30 ways the Trump administration has transformed the country and beyond.

1. One Big Beautiful Bill Act

In July 2025, Congress passed Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—that implemented sweeping changes to tax and social policies over the next 10 years.

The legislation included making Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent; tax breaks on tips, overtime, and Social Security income; completing the border wall, adding $150 billion in defense spending, and imposing work requirements for Medicaid.

Other elements allow for accelerated depreciation deductions meant to incentivize business development and tax exemptions for interest paid on American-made vehicles.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak on his policy to end tax on tips in Las Vegas on Jan. 25, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

2. Curbing Illegal Immigration

After the president enacted strict border security policies, including invoking the Illegal Alien Enemies Act of 1798, illegal immigration plummeted to the lowest numbers ever recorded.

Zero illegal immigrants were released by authorities for eight straight months, starting in May 2025, and more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants living in the United States were deported, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Administration officials prioritized the removal of known gang members and violent criminals, while nearly 2 million illegal immigrants chose to self deport, some using Customs and Border Protection’s Home app.

Efforts to secure the border included hiring thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents, ending catch and release policies, and expanding detention capacity.

Trump said deportations of illegal immigrants will benefit Americans by lowering crime and reducing competition for jobs and housing.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent from the Big Bend Sector takes part in a binational patrol called “Operation Mirror” with Mexican Army personnel to deter migrant crossings from Ojinaga, Mexico, to Presidio, Texas, on Nov. 4, 2025. Herika Martinez/AFP via Getty Images

3. Expanded Travel Bans

Trump cited national security concerns when he fully restricted travel from 12 countries last year—including Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia—then expanded the directive in December 2025 to include five more nations. Nineteen countries are also subject to partial restrictions.

Beginning Jan. 21, the State Department will halt immigrant visa processing for nationals from 75 countries. The move stems from concerns that those nationals would require welfare or public benefits in the United States.

Soldiers of the Somalia National Army walk near the frontlines at Sabiid, one of the towns they have liberated from the Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, Al-Shabaab, in Somalia's lower-Shabelle region on Nov. 11, 2025. Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images

4. Birthright Citizenship

One of the first executive orders signed in Trump’s second term challenged traditional interpretations of the 14th Amendment by ending birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants or individuals in the country on temporary visas.

States and groups filed lawsuits against the administration, and lower courts ruled to block the president’s order. A challenge to the blocks reached the Supreme Court, prompting a landmark decision restricting courts’ use of nationwide injunctions.

The high court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

The entrance to the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services location where a New York City Council data analyst of Venezuelan origin was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while making an immigration appointment, in the Long Island town of Bethpage, N.Y., on Jan. 14, 2026. Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

5. Visa Changes

The administration increased fees for H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers to $100,000, expressing hope that this would incentivize businesses to hire American workers.

A newly introduced Trump Gold Card, available for purchase for $1 million for individuals and $2 million for businesses, will expedite residency processing for qualified applicants who pass background screenings.

The administration also suspended the green card lottery program in the wake of the Brown University shooting in December 2025. The diversity visa lottery awarded approximately 50,000 green cards each year to people from countries with limited representation in the United States.

A Trump Gold Card is displayed in the Oval Office as President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025. Trump signed an order creating the Trump Gold Card expedited residency progam for a fee of $1 million for individuals and $2 million for sponsorships by corporations. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

6. National Guard Deployments

The president first deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles to quell riots that erupted in June 2025 after protests targeted Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Trump then sent troops to Washington to help combat high rates of violent crime in the capital. Subsequent deployments sent National Guard members to Portland, Chicago, and Memphis.

Democratic leaders challenged the deployments, and the Supreme Court in December 2025 ruled on a preliminary basis that the administration could not deploy National Guard troops to Chicago to protect federal immigration agents. Trump later withdrew guardsmen from Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles.

National Guard members patrol the National Mall in Washington on Aug. 27, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

7. DOGE

On the first day of his second term, Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government..

Initially led by Elon Musk, the department cites $215 billion in taxpayer savings on its website, derived from contract cancellations, lease terminations, the elimination of duplicate payments, and halting fraudulent activities.

Agencies most impacted by DOGE include the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, and the Social Security Administration.

Efforts also included the large-scale layoff of federal workers, totaling about 317,000, of which approximately 92 percent left voluntarily after taking up buyout offers, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk receives a key from President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on May 30, 2025. Musk served as an adviser to Trump and led the Department of Government Efficiency. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

8. Jan. 6 Pardons

On Day One, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people charged with various crimes for participating in protests and riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

He also commuted the sentences of 14 incarcerated individuals rather than granting full, unconditional pardons, thus leaving criminal convictions in place for some charged with seditious conspiracy—including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and others.

People gather outside the DC Central Detention Facility, after President Donald Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants, in Washington on Jan. 20, 2025. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

9. Pulling US Out of Climate Pacts

Trump initiated the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords for a second time on Jan. 20, 2025. In January 2026, the United States pulled out of the global benchmark climate treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and withdrew from the Green Climate Fund, which finances much of the U.N.’s climate initiatives.

Domestically, the administration has moved to overhaul climate-related regulations, including rescinding electric vehicle mandates, halting offshore wind projects, and revoking a climate finding that would pave the way for expansive deregulation.

The COP30 logo is seen in front of the central building ahead of the COP30 Brazil Amazonia 2025 in Belem, Brazil, on Nov. 3, 2025. The Conference of the Parties (COP) meets annually to discuss and negotiate on climate-related issues. Wagner Meier/Getty Images

10. Eliminating DEI

Federal guidelines pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) were eliminated on Trump’s first day in office. The change terminated training programs and requirements, along with positions related to DEI, and reprioritized merit-based hiring practices.

The administration, citing civil rights law, has also sought to ban DEI in universities and public schools that receive federal funding.

The moves were made amid a broader backdrop of corporations—including Amazon, McDonald’s, and Meta—rolling back their DEI policies.

President Donald Trump, joined by golf legend Tiger Woods, speaks during a reception honoring Black History Month in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 20, 2025. The Black History Month celebration comes as Trump has signed a series of executive orders ending federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and cutting funding to schools and universities that do not cut DEI programs. Win McNamee/Getty Images

11. Dismantling Education Department

Trump is pushing Congress to eliminate the Education Department, with Secretary Linda McMahon leading the charge to phase it out. More than half of the department staff has been laid off, and many functions are being transferred to other departments.

The administration wants states to oversee administrative functions for their own education systems.

The Department of Education building in Washington on July 6, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

12. Probing Universities

The federal government has withheld billions of dollars in funding from colleges and universities with recent histories of alleged civil rights violations and disruptive or violent pro-Palestinian protests, prompting legal challenges.

Settlements were reached with Brown, Columbia, Cornell, and others. Columbia agreed to pay a $200 million fine plus $21 million to Jewish employees harassed by co-workers and students.

The administration is currently locked in a legal battle with Harvard, with billions in federal funds frozen.

Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on July 4, 2025. Learner Liu/The Epoch Times

13. MAHA Agenda

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment as secretary of Health and Human Services prompted a reimagining of the federal government’s approach to managing food and medicine.

Under the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, Kennedy called on states to remove junk food from food stamp programs. Eighteen states have moved to do so.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released a new inverted food pyramid that prioritizes healthy fats, proteins, fruits, and vegetables.

“The new guidelines recognize that whole, nutrient-dense food is the most effective path to better health and lower health care costs,” Kennedy said while unveiling the new guidelines.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins hold up ice cream cones during a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington on July 14, 2025. Kennedy held a press conference along with Rollins, and others, as they announced that ice cream makers who are responsible for 90 percent of the nation’s ice cream and frozen dairy desserts are pledging to eliminate many artificial food dyes by the end of 2027. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

14. Lowering Drug Prices

The administration balanced the threat of tariffs on imported medications and ingredients with financial incentives to change the longstanding practice of major pharmaceutical companies of charging U.S. customers 400 percent or more for brand-name medications than they charge overseas customers.

More than a dozen pharmaceutical companies have entered into Most Favored Nation agreements with the United States so far, and Trump has asked Congress to codify this pricing policy into law.

Among the price reductions included in these agreements are Amgen’s cholesterol lowering drug Repatha from $573 to $239; HIV medication Reyataz, by Bristol Myers Squibb, from $1,449 to $217; and Hepatitis C medication Epclusa, by Gilead Sciences, from $24,920 to $2,425.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks next to charts displaying drug prices at an event in which President Donald Trump delivered remarks on lowering drug prices in the Oval Office on Nov. 6, 2025. Trump announced that his administration has reached agreements with drugmakers Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk that would lower the price of some GLP-1 weight loss medications. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

15. Gender Clarification

On his first day in office, Trump defined the federal government’s position on gender with an executive order declaring that the United States recognizes “two sexes, male and female.”

“These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the order reads.

Trump later barred federal funding from schools and institutions that allow men to compete in women’s sports.

The University of Pennsylvania, which was sanctioned for allowing a male to compete on the women’s swim team, agreed to strip that athlete, Lia Thomas, of all awards, including his 2022 NCAA national championship, and send a letter of apology to all female swimmers who competed against him.

Health officials in December 2025 moved to cut federal funding for hospitals that perform transgender procedures for minors.

In the wake of Trump’s policies, more than 20 medical clinics that offered gender transition procedures have paused or halted the treatments.

President Donald Trump joined by women athletes signs the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order in the East Room at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. The executive order, which Trump signed on National Girls and Women in Sports Day, prohibits males who identify as transgender women from competing in women’s sports. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

16. Redistricting Push

Trump’s push for Texas to redraw its congressional maps precipitated a nationwide effort to redistrict for partisan gain.

After Texas adopted new maps aimed at giving Republicans five extra House seats, California responded with a voter-approved ballot measure that redraws districts to favor Democrats in five seats.

Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina redrew maps in favor of Republicans, while Utah helped Democrats. Other states, including Florida, are in the process of redistricting or are considering redistricting options.

Texas state Rep. Matt Morgan holds a map of the new proposed congressional districts in Texas, during a legislative session as Democratic lawmakers, who left the state to deny Republicans the opportunity to redraw the state's 38 congressional districts, begin returning to the Texas State Capitol in Austin on Aug. 20, 2025. Sergio Flores/Reuters

17. Eyeing Greenland

Trump upped the ante on his bid to acquire Greenland for national security purposes in January, prompting Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers to meet with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Jan. 14.

The White House has said purchasing the island is under consideration, along with other options, including military force.

Denmark, Greenland, and European leaders have pushed back on Trump’s comments. The president has reiterated that the island is critical for the United States’ security.

“There’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do,” Trump said on Jan. 14.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt speak to the press after a meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 14, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

18. Resolved Global Conflicts

Trump threatened tariffs and applied economic pressure to help negotiate resolutions to eight conflicts around the world, some of which had been ongoing for decades.

Brokered cease-fires include those between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, as well as Thailand and Cambodia.

The president prioritized diplomatic solutions while wielding tariffs as a negotiating tool, emphasizing outcomes based on development and financial opportunities.

(Left) U.S. President Donald Trump (C) hosts the signing ceremony of a peace deal with the President of Rwanda Paul Kagame (L) and the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Felix Tshisekedi (R) at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington on Dec. 4, 2025. (Right) Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump (R) watch as Thailand's Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (2nd L) and Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet (2nd R) hold up a document after the ceremonial signing of a cease-fire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images, Mohd Rasfan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

19.  Ending Israel–Hamas Conflict

Trump oversaw a landmark peace treaty between Israel and Hamas, known as the 20-point Peace Plan, which resulted in the release of all Hamas-held hostages, living and deceased.

Trump called the moment the “historic dawn of a new Middle East,” celebrating an opportunity to pave a path toward peace in a region engulfed in struggles that date back millennia.

Egypt awarded Trump its highest honor, the “Order of the Nile,” and Israel made him the first non-citizen to ever receive its Israel Prize for his peacekeeping efforts.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and U.S. President Donald Trump sign a Gaza cease-fire agreement in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on Oct. 13, 2025. Trump is in Egypt to meet with European and Middle Eastern leaders in what’s being billed as an international peace summit, following the start of a US-brokered cease-fire deal to end the war in the Gaza Strip. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

20. Shifted Ukraine Policy

Trump ramped up pressure on Ukraine and Russia to bring the fighting to an end, suggesting Ukraine will have to cede territory it already lost in the war.

The Trump administration halted the Biden-era policy of free aid to Ukraine and negotiated arms sales instead.

Trump repeatedly expressed disappointment with Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin for failing to work towards a peaceful resolution, though he said talks are ongoing and productive.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a press conference following their meeting at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Dec. 28, 2025. Trump invited Zelenskyy to work on the U.S.-proposed peace plan to end the Russia–Ukraine war. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

21. Iran Strikes

Ten days into the Israel–Iran conflict in June 2025, Trump flexed America’s military might during a top-secret operation known as Midnight Hammer that destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Fordow fuel enrichment plant—buried deep underground—was targeted along with two other plants by a fleet of B-2 bombers dropping 14 bunker buster bombs, and a barrage of Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines.

Two days later, the conflict ended in a cease-fire.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a targeted strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., on June 22, 2025. President Donald Trump addressed the nation last night after three Iranian nuclear facilities were struck by the U.S. military. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

22. Backing Iranian Protesters

Iran’s violent clampdown on people protesting the Islamic regime drew criticism from the president.

Trump repeatedly voiced his support for the protesters, telling them to “take over the institutions” in a Truth Social post and promising them that “help is on the way.”

Human rights groups reported that more than 2,200 people were killed by Iranian officials since the protests began.

The president, on Jan. 16, said that the regime’s decision not to go ahead with scheduled executions of protesters impacted his decision not to strike Iran.

People gather during a protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 8, 2026. Demonstrations have been ongoing since December 2025, triggered by soaring inflation and the collapse of the rial, and have expanded into broader demands for political change. Anonymous/Getty Images

23. Maduro Capture

In what may be a legacy-defining foreign policy action, Trump ordered the audacious military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their fortified compound in Caracas on Jan. 3.

The two were brought back to the United States and indicted in a New York federal court on several charges, including narco-terrorism conspiracy. Both pleaded not guilty

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that prior to his capture, Maduro was given multiple opportunities to avoid the outcome.

In December 2025, the United States designated the Cartel de Los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization, with Maduro as its head. The Cartel de Los Soles is the umbrella term used to describe Venezuelan regime officials involved in drug trafficking.

Rubio said on Jan. 7 that the United States has a three-phase plan for Venezuela: stabilization, recovery, and transition.

Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores (rear), are escorted by federal agents after landing at a Manhattan helipad, as they make their way into an armored car en route to a federal courthouse in New York City on Jan. 5, 2026. XNY/Star Max/GC Images

24.  Drug Boat Strikes

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has targeted narcotics trafficking operations by striking boats smuggling drugs out of Venezuela. The United States has also amassed an unprecedented armada in the Caribbean Sea.

The first known land strike was conducted on a facility used to load illicit shipments in December last year.

Since December, U.S. forces have seized oil tankers attempting to evade sanctions by turning off their transponders and flying false flags to avoid detection.

(Left) A vessel used for drug smuggling burns after the U.S. military struck it in the Eastern Pacific, in this screengrab taken from a handout video released Dec. 18, 2025. (Center) A still taken from footage of a boat strike targeting drug trafficking in the Eastern Pacific on Dec. 4, 2025. (Right) A still taken from footage of a strike on a drug boat in the Caribbean on Nov. 6, 2025. U.S. Southern Command/Handout via Reuters, @Southcom/X, @SecWar/X

25. Focus on Latin America

Trump resurrected and redefined the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine as the “Donroe Doctrine,” establishing U.S. strategic dominance in the Western hemisphere. The strategy culminated in drug boat strikes and U.S. forces deposing Maduro in the latter half of Trump’s first year, but the region was a key focus of the administration early on.

In early 2025, the president launched a pressure campaign threatening to retake control of the Panama Canal if Chinese influence was not removed from the area.

Last February, Panama announced it would not renew its Belt and Road infrastructure investment agreement with Beijing, a win for the U.S. administration.

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino looks on as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (R) signs a bilateral agreement, in Panama City on April 9, 2025. Franco Brana/AFP via Getty Images

26. Trade War, Truce With China

Trump imposed two sets of tariffs on China: fentanyl tariffs over the country’s role in sending chemical precursors to Mexican cartels that traffic the drug into the United States; and reciprocal tariffs over Beijing’s decades-long unfair trade practices harming the United States.

Tit-for-tat tariffs imposed after last April’s “Liberation Day” saw U.S. levies reach as high as 245 percent for some Chinese products. After several bouts of escalation and de-escalation, the two sides reached a 1-year trade truce during Trump’s meeting with Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October.

Under the deal, Beijing agreed to resume buying U.S. soybeans, allow for the export of rare earths, and take measures to mitigate the flow of fentanyl precursors to the United States.

Shipping containers are seen at the port in Qingdao, in China's eastern Shandong Province on Aug. 12, 2025. China and the United States delayed higher tariffs on each other's imports for 90 days, hours before a trade truce between the world's two largest economies was due to expire on Aug. 12. STR/AFP via Getty Images

27. Tariffs and Trade Deals

The president’s expansive tariff policy has sought to reset global trade and reshore manufacturing to undo what U.S. officials describe as decades of unfair trade practices against the United States.

“Liberation Day” tariffs kicked off trade negotiations with dozens of countries. They’ve resulted in agreements with a host of nations, including the UK, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea.

Meanwhile, tariffs have raised record revenues—approximately $264 billion so far.

The trade deficit in October fell to the lowest level in 16 years.  Tariff revenues have lowered the national debt, and the president has proposed $2,000 tariff rebate checks for citizens. Such a measure would require legislative approval.

The Supreme Court, however, is set to decide whether Trump’s global tariffs are legal. U.S. officials have said that even if they are overturned, the government has other authorities to use to continue levying tariffs.

A chart that shows the reciprocal tariffs the United States is charging other countries is on display at the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 2, 2025. President Donald Trump announced new tariffs targeting goods imported to the United States from most trading partners, including China, Japan, and India. Alex Wong/Getty Images

28. Trillions in Investments

Trade negotiations led to a record level of investment in the development and expansion of manufacturing facilities nationwide.

Trump’s May 2025 visit to Gulf countries led to deals totaling more than $2 trillion with the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Trade deals with the U.K., the European Union, Japan, and South Korea have led to more than $2 trillion in purchases and investment commitments in the United States.

The United States and Taiwan in January announced a $500 billion deal aimed at reshoring American semiconductor manufacturing.

Trump recently said the “unbelievable success” of tariffs will drive an economic revival in the United States.

Taiwan's chief trade negotiator, Yang Jen-ni (L), Taiwanese Vice Premier Cheng Li-chiun (C), and Taiwan’s top representative to the United States, Alexander Yui (R), speak at a press conference at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington on Jan. 16, 2026. Eva Fu/The Epoch Times

29. Shuttering USAID

The federal government reorganization included the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Trump administration eliminated approximately 94 percent of contracts, about $54 billion.

Rubio said the organization “strayed from its original mission of responsibly advancing American interests abroad.”

Since December, the United States has signed health deals with more than a dozen African countries under a new aid model, called the “America First Global Health Strategy.” The United States has pledged billions to improve the health systems of the countries, which have committed billions in matching funds.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with Kenyan President William Ruto (L) as they arrive for a Health Framework of Cooperation signing ceremony at the State Department in Washington on Dec. 4, 2025. Trump administration officials said the agreement would be the first in a series of agreements with developing countries, based on the “trade not aid” policy. Allison Robbert / AFP via Getty Images

30. Securing Rare Earth Supply Chain

The administration, recognizing the threat posed by China’s chokehold on rare-earth refining, has made a series of domestic and international investments to build an alternative supply chain for critical minerals. Rare earth elements are essential for modern manufacturing, including for cars, electronics, and weapons systems.

Ramaco Resources plans to extract more than 450 tons of rare earths from its 4,500-acre Brook Mine near Ranchester, Wyo., on July 11, 2025. John Haughey/The Epoch Times

In July 2025, the Pentagon entered into a landmark partnership with MP Materials, the country’s largest rare earth miner, committing billions of dollars to support the company and becoming its largest shareholder. MP Materials and the Pentagon also entered into a joint venture with a Saudi state-owned mining company to build a rare earths refinery in the Gulf country.

In October 2025, the United States and Australia agreed to invest $3 billion in rare earth projects.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 11:20

Trump Calls UK Chagos Deal "Great Stupidity" - Demonstrates Greenland Must Be Taken

Trump Calls UK Chagos Deal "Great Stupidity" - Demonstrates Greenland Must Be Taken

Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Canada... and now President Trump sets his sights on 'defending' America's influence over the tiny but strategically important Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands.

Early Tuesday the US president on social media blasted the UK government led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, branding Britain's prior agreement to hand sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius as an act of "great stupidity" and "total weakness." 

via AP

Washington had backed the arrangement last year under the Joe Biden administration, which transfers the Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius while allowing the UK to retain access to the Diego Garcia air base under a 99-year lease. He has claimed the deal means the UK is planning to "give away the island of Diego Garcia".

In his Truth Social post, Trump took aim at the deal under which London would surrender sovereignty while leasing back the strategically critical military base on the islands, including Diego Garcia - where US forces also have a base. He took the opportunity to say the move underscored exactly why he wants the United States to take control of Greenland.

"The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING," Trump wrote as his concluding sentence in the message.

Despite that Diego Garcia lies some 1,000 miles from the nearest continent (that's how far the southern tip of India is), it hosts a highly secretive UK-US military base - and has since the 1970s.

At this point its inhabitants are all military personnel and contractors, after over 900 Chagossian inhabitants were forcibly removed to make way for the military base in the 1960s.

The remote airbase has at times been used by the United States to attack targets in the Middle East. For example, typically just ahead of any potential or threatened Iran strike, the US begins building up aerial assets and forces at Diego Garcia.

For further background: "The U.K. purchased the islands for the equivalent of around $4 million, CBS News partner BBC News reported, but Mauritius had long argued that it was forced to give the islands away in order to achieve its independence in 1968. The U.K. invited the U.S. to build a military base on the island of Diego Garcia, and it has become a cornerstone of American defense infrastructure in the vast Indian Ocean region."

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 11:00

Oklo's Isotope Business: Atomic Alchemy

Oklo's Isotope Business: Atomic Alchemy

Submitted by Tight Spreads

Oklo is one of the most impressive nuclear companies in the public equities market. They uniquely and strategically intersect arguably the most important themes today: energy dominance, critical material supply chains, and national defense.

The market is not pricing in the potential value of the Y-Combinator backed company: Atomic Alchemy acquisition. And those who attempted to value the business have likely found it difficult with the little information given from management. But the most important takeaways are:

  1. Oklo’s management said on a recent earnings call they will be receiving isotope revenues from this segment in the first half of 2026.

  2. Atomic Alchemy’s Versatile Isotope Production Reactors (VIPR) can simultaneously extract isotopes from waste and create 40+ variations of new types via direct irradiation.

  3. Co-locating Atomic Alchemy’s VIPR with Aurora Powerhouses are projected to lower their levelized cost of energy by 30-40%.

  4. VIPR technology converts silicon into Phosphorus-31 with atomic-level consistency for cooler-running chips - which could lead to an interesting partnership/contract for Oklo, Intel, and Nvidia as hinted by management.

Oklo has vertically structured its business into the following segments:

  • Power and heat generation

  • Nuclear waste to fuel recycling and fuel fabrication

  • Advanced fuel services

  • Radioisotopes business via Atomic Alchemy

Last February, Oklo acquired Atomic Alchemy for ~$28.4million, primarily funded via stock and represented less than 1% of dilution to Oklo shareholders. As mentioned in my Isotopes 101 article, Atomic Alchemy’s key technology is the Versatile Isotope Production Reactors (VIPR). The VIPR simultaneously extracts high-value radioisotopes from waste streams (ranging from SMRs to traditional nuclear power plants) and by directly irradiating targets in the VIPR to create over 40 types of radioisotopes on demand.

Oklo sees this as a significant high-margin opportunity and it stands up its nuclear generation business, and is moving expeditiously with the DOE to launch their first radioisotope facility. Recently on January 7, 2026, Oklo and the DOE signed what is known as a “Other Transaction Agreement” which established a framework for execution and risk reduction to design, construct, and operate the first radioisotope pilot plant under the DOE Reactor Pilot Program. Atomic Alchemy is using the radioisotope pilot plant to lay the groundwork for future commercial plants that make medical and research radioisotopes in the United States. Today, many are produced overseas or in aging facilities creating a structural supply shrinkage in an increasing demand environment.

This OTA is significant as it is a faster, well-structured pathway to scaling their isotope business compared to their prior planned Meitner-1 commercial radioisotope production facility at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

And when thinking about timelines, it’s important to note that this superior pathway to commercializing their isotopes business was only recently announced. Richard Craig Bealmear, Oklo’s Chief Financial Officer, made the following statement about ten months earlier on Oklo’s March 2025 earnings call when the isotope business was still pursuing production at INL:

“Radioisotopes are among the most valuable materials on earth. Take Actinium-225 for example, which sells for $400 per nanogram or an astonishing $400 billion per gram. With our recent acquisition of Atomic Alchemy, we are positioning Oklo to capitalize on this high margin market. Our radioisotope demonstration project is already underway and we could begin generating revenue as early as the first quarter of 2026, unlocking significant near-term value for our business… [while] this acquisition is not expected to have material near-term operating cost increases for Oklo”

Isotopes that are currently disclosed, including special isotopes not found in nature and exclusive to VIPR technology, and rumored are included at the end of the article.

Unpacking Oklo’s vertically integrated business model

In a co-located facility, the Aurora Powerhouse and VIPR function as a single, integrated ecosystem where the flow of nuclear material is never a "choice" between power or isotopes, but rather a sequential process that maximizes every atom. The “closed-loop” system is anchored by Oklo’s Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, which employs electrorefining-based pyroprocessing—a high-temperature electrochemical technique uniquely capable of recycling spent fuel into fresh high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) metallic fuel for reuse in Aurora units. VIPR complements this by acting as an on-site “value-added” processor: as spent fuel exits the Aurora core, it undergoes initial extraction in co-located “hot cells” to harvest high-value isotopes like Strontium-90 and Americium-241, removing fission products that act as impurities without diminishing the fuel’s remaining energy potential. The purified remnants are then shipped to Tennessee for full re-fabrication, closing the loop and achieving up to 95% fuel reuse while minimizing waste.

Oklo could also co-locaate their VIPR technologies with the Tennessee fuel recycling and fabrication site as they scale to concentrate the logistics of mass producing and shipping isotope products. But if Oklo chose to co-locate generation and isotopes, that would likely be for a significant contract. The strategy of co-locating Oklo’s Aurora Powerhouse with the VIPR creates a highly efficient industrial hub by functioning as a “shared oven” for energy and advanced materials. By simultaneously extracting high-value co-products from spent fuel and irradiating specialized feedstock, Oklo aims to maximize neutron utility and transform the traditional nuclear cost structure. As highlighted in company updates from August 2025, this vertically integrated approach leverages the Atomic Alchemy segment to create a multi-stream revenue model. By offsetting power generation costs with high-margin isotope production, Oklo is positioning its Aurora-VIPR ecosystem to significantly lower the levelized cost of energy, with analyst projections suggesting a potential 30-40% reduction in long-term operational costs compared to non-integrated advanced reactor designs.

Putting it all together into one Golden Formula,

Bundled services (Aurora nuclear power + fuel services + partnership with RPower for back-up generation + VIPR materials) = (Reliable power delivery that is not at risk to the grid + supplies customers with specialty materials within half-life spans in decay)

Oklo additionally intends to use their Tennessee fuel facilities to recycle spent U.S. nuclear fuel reserves and Atomic Alchemy to produce isotopes from U.S. nuclear waste. The annual cost of managing spent nuclear fuel across the U.S. has risen sharply, reaching nearly $49 billion in 2025 according to congressional testimony. This will only increase as the U.S. expands its nuclear install base. The company views the approximately 94,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel stored across the U.S. as a significant energy reserve equivalent to 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. The nuclear fuel recycling market has a CAGR range of 6.5-8.5% between 2024-2035. And if spent fuel management wasn’t burdensome enough, the country is also facing a potential liability of up to $39.2 billion due to its failure to fulfill a legal mandate to dispose of uncontrollable nuclear waste. The market opportunity for high-level waste management for isotope recovery is a 7.8% CAGR between 2024-2034.

Applying the power and material stack to other industries

Semiconductors and Quantum Computers

In late 2025, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang publicly backed nuclear energy as the essential “round-the-clock” power source for the AI era. It makes sense that NVIDIA, Intel, and Oklo could form a vertically integrated “Quantum and AI Stack” that addresses the critical hurdles of power density and material evolution.

The technical and economic logic for this trifecta is driven by the escalating energy crisis in modern data centers, where individual server racks now demand up to 1 MW of power. To manage these unprecedented loads, Intel requires high-performance power semiconductors, such as MOSFETs and IGBTs, capable of high-frequency electrical switching with minimal thermal loss. While the industry has long used phosphorus as a "dopant" to induce electrical conductivity in silicon, traditional chemical methods are often "blotchy" and uneven, leading to efficiency-draining heat. By leveraging Oklo’s VIPR reactor, Intel can convert its pre-existing silicon sources into Phosphorus-31 atom-by-atom. This achieves an atomic-level consistency that no other commercial method can currently replicate, ensuring chips run significantly cooler and more efficiently bringing down the total cost of ownership in its factories.

It is notable to highlight that Richard Craig Bealmear, Oklo’s Chief Financial Officer, made the following statement on Oklo’s earnings call March 2025:

“We are already exploring joint ventures with customers in radiopharmaceuticals and advanced silicon doping for semiconductor manufacturing positioning Oklo for long-term success in high growth industries”

This collaboration between Intel and NVIDIA, announced in September 2025, elevates both companies from traditional semiconductor manufacturing to a next-generation tier that tightly integrates software and specialized hardware for accelerating AI workloads, requiring next-generation materials. NVIDIA agreed to invest $5 billion in Intel common stock, while the two firms jointly develop custom x86 CPUs designed to connect seamlessly with NVIDIA’s GPUs using NVIDIA’s high-bandwidth NVLink interconnect (a technology that provides significantly faster data transfer and lower latency than standard PCIe connections used in most systems today). This creates a unified “super-system” where Intel’s CPUs and NVIDIA’s GPUs work as one cohesive unit, allowing enterprise customers—such as data centers running massive AI models—to process complex tasks more efficiently without needing to rewrite existing software codebases heavily reliant on NVIDIA’s CUDA platform.

Beyond the atomic-level architecture of the chips themselves, the collaboration between nuclear production and semiconductor fabrication enhances industrial quality control and long-term hardware reliability. Thallium-204 is utilized as a vital tool for high-precision thickness gauging, allowing foundries like Intel to monitor the extreme uniformity required for advanced 300mm wafer fabrication nodes. This ensures that microscopic layers across the wafer meet the rigorous standards necessary for next-generation Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. To further safeguard these assets, Krypton-85 is employed for sophisticated leak detection in hermetically sealed electronic components. This is especially critical for high-power AI enterprise hardware, where the failure of sealed cooling systems or protective enclosures could lead to catastrophic thermal failures. Together, these isotopes provide the material precision and operational security required to reduce the total cost of ownership for data centers while enabling the reliable scaling of the world's most advanced computing technologies.

List of Isotopes associated with Atomic Alchemy:

More in the Tight Spreads substack

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 10:40

Bipartisan FY26 Minibus Released As January 30th Shutdown Approaches

Bipartisan FY26 Minibus Released As January 30th Shutdown Approaches

It seems that Congress may bypass our regularly scheduled shutdown drama - as House appropriators released the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 early Monday, marking a significant step toward completing all 12 annual spending bills ahead of the January 30 funding deadline and averting another government shutdown. The package reflects a rare point of bipartisan convergence on topline funding - even as Republicans and Democrats frame the deal in sharply different political terms.

The legislation packages conference agreements covering Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services and Education; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; and Homeland Security, though GOP leaders have committed to moving the Homeland bill separately. Together, the three-bill minibus released Monday totals roughly $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending, according to Democratic appropriators.

Punchbowl News' John Bresnahan has summarized a few key provisions:

  • FEMA gets a big increase, $4.7 billion.

  • $28 billion-plus for ICE & CPB. This includes nearly $4B for “custody operations to bolster the Trump Administration’s efforts to detain and deport all criminal and removable aliens.”

  • $744 million in Homeland Security bill for “the transportation and removal of every alien who no longer has a legal basis to remain in this country.”

  • $2.6B for Homeland Security Investigations

  • $273 million in earmarks in FEMA

  • Keeps in place HUD layoffs, about 24% of staff.

  • $3.8 billion in earmarks in THUD bill

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee cast the agreement as proof that Congress can complete its work without relying on year-end omnibus packages. Chairman Tom Cole said the deal reflects “a deliberate, member-driven process” that delivers full-year funding aligned with the Trump administration’s priorities while keeping spending below levels projected under the current continuing resolution.

“America has always been a nation of builders,” Cole said, arguing the bills reinforce military readiness, border security, education, health systems and transportation infrastructure while applying fiscal discipline. GOP leaders emphasized that the measures were negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and described the package as advancing an “America First” agenda centered on defense, innovation and domestic security.

The Defense title includes funding increases for military pay, investments in weapons systems and industrial supply chains, and research and development accounts aimed at accelerating next-generation capabilities. Homeland Security provisions emphasize enforcement, border operations and emergency preparedness, while maintaining longstanding riders barring housing assistance for undocumented immigrants and preserving restrictions related to abortion and livestock transportation.

Labor-HHS-Education funding, according to Republicans, prioritizes biomedical research, workforce training and rural health care, while Transportation and Housing provisions focus on air traffic control modernization, infrastructure safety and economic development assistance for local communities.

Democrats, however, described the agreement as a rebuke of the Trump administration’s budget proposals rather than an endorsement of them.

“This latest funding package continues Congress’s forceful rejection of extreme cuts to federal programs proposed by the Trump Administration,” said House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro. She said Democrats and Republicans jointly rejected proposals to eliminate or sharply reduce funding for federal health, education and housing programs, instead sustaining or increasing funding in several areas.

The bill includes a ban on any new border crossing fees, which DHS cannot even study. 

DeLauro highlighted increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, investments in transportation infrastructure, and expanded resources for affordable housing and homelessness assistance. She said the housing provisions would prevent millions of households from losing housing while also supporting new construction.

Regarding ICE funding, DeLauro said: "I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE. I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency. I encourage my colleagues to review the bill and determine what is best for their constituents and communities."

"The Homeland Security funding bill is more than just ICE. If we allow a lapse in funding, TSA agents will be forced to work without pay, FEMA assistance could be delayed, and the U.S. Coast Guard will be adversely affected. All while ICE continues functioning without any change in their operations due to $75 billion it received in the One Big Beautiful Bill. A continuing resolution will jettison the guardrails we have secured while ceding authority to President Trump, Stephen Miller, and Secretary Noem."

The package also includes a pay raise for service members and funding increases for national security priorities - points of overlap that helped unlock bipartisan agreement despite deep philosophical differences over the role of federal spending.

Both parties emphasized the importance of completing full-year appropriations before the end of January, after years of stopgap funding measures that lawmakers from both sides say undermine agency planning and oversight. Republicans framed the deal as a break from what they described as “rushed, Christmas omnibuses,” while Democrats emphasized Congress’s role in reasserting its constitutional power of the purse.

The remaining point of contention is procedural rather than substantive: House Republicans have pledged to hold a separate vote on the Homeland Security bill, decoupling it from the current minibus even as the text has already been negotiated.

Still, with conference agreements finalized and leadership on both sides publicly backing the deal, the FY26 funding package appears on track for floor action later this week — setting Congress up to clear one of its most consequential must-pass items before the end of the month.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 10:20

1956 & 2026: Bookends For Europe?

1956 & 2026: Bookends For Europe?

Authored by Michael Every via Rabobank,

As our senior strategist Ben Picton underlined yesterday, the US has total escalatory dominance in its clash with the EU over Greenland, which all emotions aside, is not in the EU or even in Europe: geographically, it’s in the Western Hemisphere / North America.

There is no field where the EU can hurt the US more than it hurts itself. In trade - it’s a net exporter; in tech - it uses US systems in the absence of its own; in energy - it now relies on US LNG, not Russian; in finance – it’s deeply interwoven into the Eurodollar system, which the US controls; and in defence - it still needs the US in Ukraine, and NATO, and can’t defend itself, nor Greenland… and certainly not from the US. This is not to be provocative, just to look at raw facts.

Europe may talk about using its trade ‘bazooka’ Anti-Coercion Instrument, but it seems unlikely to do so. Ironically, it’s too powerful, so would unleash too awful a retaliation. In this respect there’s a parallel to nuclear weapons, which France possesses independently of the US. Military strategists point out it’s also critical to have conventional capabilities at every level of the escalatory ladder, which Europe doesn’t, because otherwise every conflict either ends in nuclear war or defeat.

One must consider such thoughts when reacting to headlines like Denmark dispatching additional troops to Greenland. If, and it still seems extremely unlikely, the US were to take the world’s largest island by force, it would be over in the same timeframe it took to seize Venezuela’s Maduro. The idea of an EU-US war is of course ridiculous. Yet so are all Europe’s other geostrategic ‘options’. Is it going to strike a defence deal with Canada, which can’t defend itself? Or will it pivot to China, which implies embracing its own deindustrialisation and abandoning Ukraine/reaccepting Russia? The former would greatly irritate the US to no end effect for Europe. The latter would make the US an EU opponent in a way that dwarfs Greenland.

Logically, the EU --through clenched teeth-- is likely to be forced to concede once a facesaving deal can be struck. Wolfgang Munchau argues the same via UnHerd stating: “So here is my bold prediction: Trump will win his battle for Greenland. The Europeans will not stop him, for they are weak and divided. The irony is that the EU chose this military and geostrategic weakness.” Some talk of Europe then upping its efforts towards strategic autonomy. If so, Stefan Auer argues either EU power needs to be pushed up to Brussels or back down to the member states, as the current structure cannot react fast or decisively enough in the geopolitical context. Even if either were achieved, the economic costs of the changes required are staggering: neomercantilism, not ‘we like free trade’ Merkelcantilism, and a near-war economy starting from large budget deficits and high public debt. Even if those obstacles were overcome, such steps would cause huge frictions with the US, which wants Europe to be a subordinate part of its neomercantilist bloc, not independent. The US would step in as the EU flag was being woven, let alone unfurled. In short, the logical path of least resistance, and damage, still flows back to concession.

For Europe, 2026 may well be seen by historians as a bookend to 1956. Then, the UK and France tried to show they were still Great Powers by sending their armies to Egypt after President Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal. The US opposed the action and, using economic statecraft, caused a major run on both Sterling and the French Franc. Both countries were forced to retreat and accept they would only be supporting actors to the US on the world stage.

2026 sees the US join other powers in using realpolitik statecraft in its own national interests, as the UK and France did in 1956, even when it makes Europe look like Egypt. This shatters Europe’s view of itself as being an equal, if junior, partner in a joint enterprise, not just on Ukraine, but globally. Indeed, some are now using the words “vassal” or “client states” even as Brussels clings to the liberal world order like a shipwreck survivor to a plank of wood.

But does that actually move markets if we don’t see a shooting war over Greenland, nor an EUUS trade war?

As the Wall Street Journal puts it today, ‘Trump Wants Greenland. Markets Don’t Know What to Make of That: New world order may be so hard to imagine that investors just ignore it.’

Let me help with some ‘imagineering,’ as the Americans call it:

1. Greenland is just a symptom of the end of the liberal world order we’ve been warning of for over a decade. It’s important to focus on for Europe, but the logical outcome, assuming that emotions do not rule, is one that doesn’t shake up markets too much for too long.

2. The end of the liberal world order doesn’t just mean the end of WTO paraphernalia: it means the end of Westphalia, the 1648 European treaty that established the principles of state sovereignty and shaped international relations until recently. That has vast market implications. It’s not good for countries without power, because there’s no international system to prop them up with rules.

3. There’s a fat tail risk of West failure if we were see a EU-US split. That would mean see huge swings in markets – and ironically it’s perhaps Europe’s weakness that might end up being its best card --“We might try to burn down the casino rather than keep playing.”-- if they can scare the US into thinking they really are prepared to burn themselves doing it.

Overall, lines on maps are going to move, as they did in the 19 th and 20th centuries. The new Trump Board of Peace is seen by some as an embryonic rival to the UN, not a group of technocrats to rebuild Gaza. Even Davos will this week echo to the thunder of Trumpian realpolitik, not its usual acronyms and technobabble. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink just warned attendees that, “Capitalism must evolve.” It is: back towards something we also saw more in parts of the 19th and 20th centuries, which were not very “Because markets!” in the way we see things now.

If lines on maps move, lines on screens will too.

The EU is applauding the EU-Mercosur trade deal: the US is applauding a $1.5bn deal to build a naval base in Peru near a Chinese-run port. Which will matter more in the long run for controlling trade flows – technocrats in committees talking tariffs and phytosanitary standards or those in uniform on the ground or at sea? That’s what markets shouldn’t ignore.

In short, markets are probably right to be relatively calm about Greenland headlines. Yet at the same time one should not ignore gold and silver soaring even higher, showing larger tectonic plates shifting.

Likewise, Japanese long bond yields are spiking again, if largely due to their own election-related dynamics, which the rest of the world is not immune to with a lag: the 40-year JGB yield just hit 4% for the first time since it was launched in 2007, for example.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 10:00

USA Rare Earth Soars, To Build Plant In France With Government Support

USA Rare Earth Soars, To Build Plant In France With Government Support

USA Rare Earth (USAR), a US-based (duh) rare earth miner, refiner and processor, which for much of the past year lived in MP Minerals' shadow amid expectations that it too will receive government generosity, surged on Tuesday on news that it will build a facility in Lacq, France, capable of producing 3,750 metric tons per year of rare earth metals and alloys; and while it will finally get government funding, the source is not the US but the French government, which doesn't matter: in a time when China is cracking down on all rare earth exports, anyone who can provide alternatives will benefit no matter where they are located. 

The USAR facility, which will be developed through the company's European subsidiary, Less Common Metals Europe, will be co-located with Carester SAS's 1,600-metric-ton-per-year Caremag rare earth oxide processing facility, which is scheduled for commissioning in late 2026.

Together, the sites are expected to establish an integrated supply chain for rare earth processing, metal and alloy production in Europe, USA Rare Earth said Tuesday.

But the reason why the stock is surging is because the French government has approved direct tax credits for the project under its C3IV program, covering up to 45% of eligible equipment costs and up to 130 million euros ($151.4 million) for real estate, and is also considering support for hiring and training programs. From the press release:

The French government has committed to address multiple aspects of LCM Europe’s capital and operating requirements. LCM Europe was approved for direct credits under the C3IV program of up to 45% of all eligible equipment and up to a total of €130m for real estate. The French government is also interested in providing support for hiring and training programs to bolster talent development and skills building at LCM Europe’s new facility.

USA Rare Earth said the project will strengthen its integrated rare earth value chain and support the development of a secure transatlantic supply chain.

“The development of an integrated rare earth processing and metal-making platform in France enhances USAR’s integrated rare earth value chain, to the benefit of the United States and our allies,” said Barbara Humpton, Chief Executive Officer of USAR. “We are proud to establish Europe’s first metal-making platform, which will accelerate the realization of a secure, sustainable transatlantic rare earth value chain.”

USAR stock soared 11% on the news, a rare gainer in a market dominated by selling. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 09:52

"The US Is Basically Not A Good Credit": Danish Pension Fund To Sell US Treasuries

"The US Is Basically Not A Good Credit": Danish Pension Fund To Sell US Treasuries

Over the weekend, Deutsche Bank's head of FX George Saravelos laid out one theoretical reason why in his view, Europe has leverage over the US in the latest burst of transatlatnic tensions over Greenland: or rather $8 trillion reasons why the US has leverage.

As  Saravelos wrote, "European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined" and added that in an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, "it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish  pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing."

Sure enough, just hours later, Europe appears to have taken the Deutsche Bank strategist's advice and contrary to Scott Bessent's appeals this morning that European governments aggressively selling American debt to counter Washington's threats over Greenland, would "defy logic", Bloomberg has reported that the Danish pension fund AkademikerPension is planning to exit US Treasuries by the end of the month, amid concerns that the policies of President Donald Trump have created credit risks too big to ignore. 

“The US is basically not a good credit and long-term the US government finances are not sustainable,” Anders Schelde, chief investment officer at AkademikerPension, told Bloomberg on Tuesday, which is hilarious because this has been the case for years if not decades. Amusingly, it was another Dane, Hans Christian Andersen, who first pointed out that the Emperor is naked. Two hundred years later, Denmark has done it again. 

AkademikerPension, which manages around $25 billion in savings for teachers and academics, held about $100 million in US Treasuries at the end of 2025, Schelde said. Risk and liquidity management is the only reason to remain in Treasuries, and “we decided that we can find alternative to that,” he said.

Schelde cited Trump’s threats to take over Greenland as part of the reason to sell US Treasuries. But concerns about fiscal discipline and a weaker dollar also justify a retreat from US exposure, he said.

Not only is the $100 million they own infinitesimal in the Treasury market, it doesn’t mark a change in trend: Denmark has been selling down its holdings for the last decade.

And since Europe has a thing for virtue signaling first - like blowing up all their nuclear power plants without any valid replacement in store - and asking questions much later, expect many others to follow in Denmark's shoes, only to find out months later that there is no market that is deep or liquid enough to absorb the funds without completely blowing up the bid/ask in the process. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 09:40

Bessent Says MSM Causing "Hysteria" Over Greenland, Downplays Treasury Dumping Threat

Bessent Says MSM Causing "Hysteria" Over Greenland, Downplays Treasury Dumping Threat

Asian and European stocks, along with US equity index futures, are deeply in the red this morning as tensions between President Trump and Europe intensify over Greenland.

At the annual World Economic Forum in Davos earlier, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged calm on the Greenland issue. He also said the next Federal Reserve chair could be announced as early as next week.

"I am confident that the leaders will not escalate, and that this will work out in a manner that ends up in a very good place," Bessent told reporters at a press conference.

Bessent called the uproar over Greenland "hysteria" that was very similar to the narrative chaos produced by corporate media headlines in April of last year, surrounding President Trump's tit-for-tat trade war with top trading partners.

"This is the same kind of hysteria that we heard on April 2," Bessent said. "There was a panic. And what I'm urging everyone here to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and let things play out."

Asked about Europe dumping US treasuries, a potential economic weapon used by Brussels to combat Trump, Bessent dismissed that speculation as a "false narrative."

Bessent said the US Treasury market is "the best-performing market in the world" and the "most liquid" debt market in the world. He expected Europeans to hold their current exposure, not offload it.

"There's a completely false narrative there," he said. "I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. Do not listen to the media, who are hysterical," adding, "It defies any logic, and I could not disagree more strongly on that."

Over the weekend, President Trump said that Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden would be subject to a 10% tariff on all goods shipped to the US until Denmark agrees to cede Greenland.

Swissquote analyst Ipek Ozkardeskaya pointed out, "Europeans hold roughly $10 trillion in US assets: around $6 trillion in US equities and roughly $4 trillion in Treasuries and other bonds. Selling those assets would pull the rug from under US markets."

In markets, UBS analyst Justinus Steinhorst said, "Sell America Trade is re-accelerating; week to date the dollar index is 85bp lower whilst Gold has added 2.7%. The US 10y has broken out above its 200DMA for the first time in months."

Simon Penn from UBS also said, "Sell America is back on - all of US equities, Treasuries, and the dollar are under downward pressure."

Penn noted:

Until last April's initial tariff threats, that had never happened before. The S&P Emini is down 1.4% since Friday's close, the US 10y yield has added 4bp, and the DXY down 0.4% from Friday's close. Not only because of the latest tariff threats related to Greenland, but also because one of the pillars of this year's US economic outlook – more cuts from the Fed, is now being questioned by the markets on chair uncertainty. Note that the 10y yield has added 13bp in the last three trading sessions – a greater range that it had experienced in the prior eight weeks. It's back to where it was in the middle of last August.

"What President Trump is threatening on Greenland is very different than the other trade deals, so I would urge all countries to stick with their trade deals. We have agreed on them, and it does provide great certainty," Bessent noted. He reaffirmed the US commitment to NATO, saying that US membership in the security bloc was "unquestioned." "That does not mean we cannot have disagreements on the future of Greenland," he concluded.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 06:55

Germany's Censorship Frontier And The Rise Of Digital Control

Germany's Censorship Frontier And The Rise Of Digital Control

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Schleswig‑Holstein’s Minister‑President Daniel Günther has, in what felt like a genteel salon, pulled back the curtain on the true censorship ambitions of politics. In the safe biotope of public broadcasting, he simply babbled and hit the spotlight on the repressive tendencies within the party system. We now find ourselves in a critical defensive struggle against the enemies of liberty.

Some achieve notoriety and fame by chance. Fortune may fall into one person’s lap, another may experience his ten minutes of public shine through a fluke rhetorical spark. In the case of the Minister‑President of Schleswig‑Holstein in Germany, however, this is a dubious honor.

In his appearance on Markus Lanz’s show on Germany’s state TV "ZDF", CDU politician Daniel Günther slid into that revealing tone of small talk to which people are prone precisely when they believe themselves in a supposedly safe social environment – a place where no criticism is expected, no matter what leaves their lips.

What emerged during his guest spot on Lanz was a condemnable attitude toward the principle of free speech and toward critical media: the threat of censorship up to and including the blocking of individual platforms, including the portal Nius, reveals a profound ethical collapse. A growing, subtly operating apparatus of repression is now reaching us – a warning we should take seriously.

It was almost comical how Lanz, styled by public‑broadcasting elites as a star moderator, in tandem with the state‑aligned media sector repeatedly sought in the aftermath to rhetorically downplay Günther’s clearly articulated desire for censorship. Decontextualize, diffuse, and smother the real scandal with new waves of outrage like the Greenland debate – that’s how the media repair operation works.

Imposing Order in the Digital Sphere

What is forming before our eyes is unmistakable. A surveillance apparatus coordinated by the EU Commission in Brussels is emerging, built on the Digital Services Act and extending like a kraken over national intelligence agencies such as the Federal Intelligence Service (BND).

In an echo chamber, Daniel Günther now operates in the mode of a censor‑in‑waiting, confident that he is secured by the party apparatus. As early as June of last year, the CDU of Schleswig‑Holstein unveiled a policy paper titled “Protecting Democracy – Effectively Combating Disinformation as Well as Hate and Incitement Online.” In fifteen pages, its authors sketched a concrete strategy to regulate content on platforms such as Telegram, Meta, and X. Totalitarian thinking and the prospect of fulfilling a secretly cherished control fetish seem to exert a peculiar fascination even on the second tier of party functionaries.

Followed over the past months — culminating in a real dispute with the U.S. government — one thing becomes clear: Europe’s political leadership seems to fear nothing more than losing its dominance over the public discourse.

Yet that is the very nature of social media: it allows individual opinions to float freely, to form clusters and to be cast loudly into the public sphere. That is their explosive power — and apparently the genuine problem from the perspective of those who would rather order, canalize, and control discourse. Günther is not alone in his crusade against a defiant opposition that raises its voice now against COVID lockdowns, now against overheated climate apocalypticism, and otherwise positions itself as broadly skeptical of the state.

German Roots

Strategically, the politics of initially gentle censorship followed a seemingly intelligent, media‑political path. Two strands define the rhetorical front:

On the one hand, so‑called youth protection is invoked whenever politicians attempt to justify instruments of surveillance into private communication. On the other, the fuzzy concept of combating “hate and incitement” online is used as a vector against our privacy. The state proclaims itself a moral warrior against evil, leaves definitions of what may be said in political discourse largely open, and operates alongside a network of so‑called Trusted Flaggers — digital informants who diligently report rhetorical borderline cases to public institutions. Then things can get tricky: house visits by the state or account suspensions have emerged as effective tools in the fight against dissent. State and banks — here, too, they pull in the same direction.

Such an apparatus creates a space of silent threat in which unspoken prejudgments loom. Participants in public debates — commentators, podcasters, and media makers — already apply the mental censorship scissors in advance, reducing the critical sound against government institutions, parties, and political personalities.

As the politics of gentle censorship increasingly proves ineffective, sharper swords are drawn. The atmosphere on digital platforms is growing harsher. Even memes, sharp comments, or legally unproblematic insults become casus belli for the surveillance apparatus — a fine but increasingly overt network that perceptibly constricts the free field of opinion.

History will not look kindly upon our country. Germany was, in a way, the starting point — the sick root — of this system. In 2017, with the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), the first institutionalized attack on freedom of speech occurred, and Germany was its impetus. This censorship contraption was championed by SPD politician and then‑Justice Minister Heiko Maas. He seized the opportunity to indulge his resentment toward the civic sphere of freedom. He was backed by his coalition partner, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière of the CDU, who appears equally devoted to the spirit of unfreedom. A fateful duo, carrying this grim work forward in an ethically sclerotic coalition.

It is striking how this push, born of German intent, first took tangible form in the Digital Services Act in Brussels, how eagerly the Brussels apparatus adopted this initiative, and how it later took hold in the political programs of German parties. Everything now follows a hierarchical command cascade. The CDU Schleswig‑Holstein’s digital control guidelines fit seamlessly into the prescribed strategy.

There is unanimity within the party apparatus; dissent comes only from the much‑maligned AfD, which staunchly opposes citizen surveillance in the digital space. In front of the firewall, it is getting uncomfortable.

The progress achieved in building the EU’s censorship apparatus, and the frantic national efforts to bring it into practical operation, show unmistakably how poorly our freedom is faring. Just as grim is the future of civilizational fundamental values — personal liberty before the repressive apparatus as well as freedom of expression itself.

What we are witnessing now is an anti‑civilizational blow, a form of cultural degeneration presented in the guise of a climate‑socialist restructuring of our society. The rhetoric is morally charged, the scope sweeping, the consequences deeply authoritarian. Where are the voices of elite representatives in this land who would speak out against the growing apparatus of repression? They have fallen silent and thereby been discredited.

The Price of Crisis

It is foreseeable what we must expect. The more severe the economic crisis becomes, impacting the prosperity of the broad masses, the more relentlessly the constructed apparatus will hunt dissidents and free media. Repression follows crisis like a shadow follows the body, ever deeper into the desert of totalitarianism.

And who knows — perhaps one day we will thank Daniel Günther for his naive, short‑sighted honesty. Perhaps he was the one who inadvertently stimulated our society’s immune system, sharpening the awareness of many for the real underlying problem of our time.

If so, Günther would have succeeded — albeit as antagonist and accidentally, yet ultimately in the service of freedom, seizing his moment of fame. He would have done a good deed by helping to save our society from drifting into the swamp of socialist planned economy — a system that always produces a repressive, presumptuous, and stupefying control apparatus.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 06:30

UBS: Will There Be Chinese EVs In America?

UBS: Will There Be Chinese EVs In America?

UBS analyst Joseph Spak asked clients on Sunday: Will there be Chinese cars in the US?

Spak pointed to comments from President Trump last week at the Detroit Economic Club, in which he said, "If they want to come in and build a plant and hire you and hire your friends and your neighbors, that's great. I love that. Let China come in, let Japan come in. They are. And they'll be building plants, but they're using our labor."

Trump's comments come after Chinese automaker Geely stated at CES in Las Vegas that it could make a major announcement about a U.S. expansion within the next 24 to 36 months.

"The big question for us is when and where we will go to the U.S.A.," Ash Sutcliffe, Geely's global communications chief, said in an interview last week at the Autoline Network at CES.

This also follows Canada's decision last week to allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs per year at a low tariff rate. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the decision is "problematic for Canada."

"There's a reason why we don't sell a lot of Chinese cars in the ‌United States. It's because we have tariffs ‌to protect American auto workers and Americans from those vehicles," Greer told CNBC on Friday.

But Trump's comments suggest that if Geely or BYD Motors were to announce new manufacturing plants in the US, their products would avoid tariffs and be competitively priced with domestic car brands.

UBS analyst Spak offered his team's thoughts on Chinese EVs in the US market:

  • Currently, there is a 100% tariff on Chinese EV imports. But of course, this wouldn't be an issue if vehicles are built here. The bigger issue, in our view, is that the US bans Chinese software in vehicles starting in 2027, and then hardware in 2029. We believe that even for Chinese vehicles built in the US, they would want to leverage their software and hardware development.

  • Investors point to the recent rapid rise of Chinese vehicles in Europe, with their December share hitting 18% in the UK and 12% in Spain. For the year, Chinese share in the UK was up to 9.7% (aided by China owned MG brand which has UK heritage) from 4.8% in 2024, Italy 8.1% from 4.7%, Germany remains lower at 2.5%. But of course, this large inflection was aided by imports. And China exports grew meaningfully in 2025, to >1mm units, as they looked for global growth especially as domestic demand slowed and amid high domestic competition. In the US, the Chinese don't have the ability to test the waters or see early gains given exports to the US are tougher.

  • Building factories, supplier parks, dealerships, distribution networks, and service would take some time (though many dealers we have spoken to have indicated they would welcome selling them). Rental/fleet seems like a way the Chinese OEMs could first start to get a foothold in the US and test out the market.

  • So, as has been our belief for a while (we wrote this in 2023), it is likely only a matter of time before the Chinese automakers are in the US, a sentiment others such as Ford CEO Jim Farley have echoed. From Ford's 2Q25 earnings call: "We really see not the global OEMs as a competitive set for our next generation of EVs. We see the Chinese, companies like Geely and BYD."

  • However, because of policy, the US OEMs likely still have a protected window for a number of years. Moreover, in our view, if/when the Chinese come, they are less likely to compete with the D3 bread and butter (and major profit driver) of large pickup trucks and SUVs. These segments have very brand loyal customers and also, for now, are less likely to be electric. Thus, smaller cars and small/midsize CUVs are more likely at risk. These are already competitive segments but also areas where Japanese/Korean brands tend to be more successful as F/GM have pulled out of many of these areas. Chinese autos in the US would also be a headwind for TSLA, RIVN. Further, China seems to be a topic US voters are more aligned on than not, so we wouldn't expect the administration to move much on China auto investment before the mid-term elections.

  • And of course, there are still the political considerations as China remains a hot button topic. For instance, in response to a WSJ article which said Ford could buy batteries from BYD for hybrids for Ford factories outside the US, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro posted on X, "So @ford wants to simultaneously prop up a Chinese competitor's supply chain and make it more vulnerable...?" Recall, Waymo recently changed the branding of their Zeekr based robo-taxi to Ojai ("ohhi").

  • What about the US "back doors"? Canada just struck a deal with China to allow up to 49k Chinese EVs at a 6.1% tariff (had been a 100% tariff), and Canadian PM Carney indicated he expected the agreement would drive considerable Chinese investment into Canada's auto sector. This is likely to draw scrutiny from the US as they review/renegotiate USMCA, where rhetoric has become more adversarial. During President Trump's recent visit to Detroit, he called USMCA "irrelevant" and that Canada wants it but the US doesn't need it. However, given the complexity of current supply chains, this would cause challenges for the US auto industry. We also believe that as part of the US discussions with Mexico, the US is seeking ways to limit Chinese auto investment in Mexico. That said, we believe this administration may be thinking one way to close the back doors is to eventually open the front door.

  • Also, we found this article that the first "dark" factory could open by 2030 (our understanding is that the Xiaomi factory is already very highly automated) interesting, since if the Chinese do come to the US, it may also be a headwind to President Trump's stance that they will use "our labor" (though we believe US OEMs are also highly likely to continue to automate their facilities).

  • Key to the future of GM and F is what they do with strong profits during this period. We highlight F is still investing in their UEV platform, and GM CEO Mary Barra recently said EVs are still the end game.

  • Finally for suppliers, while they may claim this is an opportunity for new business, at a steady state, we believe this is at best case a neutral outcome (win with Chinese OEM replaces win with existing customer) with risk skewed to the downside as it could be a share loss, the win with the Chinese OEM could be lower content, and Chinese suppliers could also invest in the US (again political issues, but we are assuming a case where the Chinese OEMs come). That said, they may also have more time if we are right that initial Chinese vehicles in the US take share from Asian OEMs where the NA supply base tends to have less exposure.

To sum up, with Chinese EVs rapidly gaining market share in Europe and beginning to appear on roads in Canada and Mexico, it is likely only a matter of time before they reach the US. Trump suggested that building factories in the US could be their pathway to US consumers, a development that would pressure Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, and other domestic EV companies. It is likely Elon Musk would talk with Trump if there were any threat of a flood of Chinese EV imports.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 05:45

Childish Media Games: How The SPD's "Germany Food Basket" Masks State-Driven Inflation

Childish Media Games: How The SPD's "Germany Food Basket" Masks State-Driven Inflation

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

Party politics today is essentially a mélange of media strategy, personality cult, and the constant struggle to expand one’s own sphere of power. At the Willy Brandt House, the Social Democrats’ command center, a two-track media strategy appears to have been agreed upon for this year: taking and giving.

From the wealthy, the party intends to take—by expanding inheritance taxes on corporate assets—what, according to the Social Democrats’ moral code, never truly belonged to them. To the citizen, meanwhile, they want to give a basket of cheap groceries. After years of steadily rising food prices, SPD strategists believe they have discovered the perfect marketing instrument—and behold: suddenly it’s about the purchasing power of “ordinary people.”

Of "Ordinary People" and the Emotionally Unstable

Yes, you heard that correctly. The ordinary man—that obscene phrase of left-wing salon arrogance, barely concealing its deep-seated contempt for real lives—is once again being invoked in a fight for survival. Lars Klingbeil and the self-appointed champions of social justice signal a return to their roots. After years spent cultivating the woke, emotionally unstable segment of society, attention now shifts back to the core voter: the worker.

Have the Social Democrats finally struck bedrock in their deep search for a solution to inflation and the impoverishment of the lower classes? Their idea: persuade major discount chains and food retailers, on a “voluntary” basis, to include a predefined basket of basic groceries at low and stable prices. It sounds childish—and it is.

Adding patriotic undertones to this piece of neo-feudal arrogance only makes the “Germany Basket” smell unmistakably like a product pulled straight from the SPD marketing kitchen.

Imagine its creation in practice: Lars Klingbeil, himself no stranger to calorie-dense cuisine, sits one weekend with his working group—“Germany Basket: The Ordinary Man Eats Healthy”—in front of the party’s position paper. With a mid-range Chianti and a juicy Pizza Tricolore (three-pack, Mediterranean Week) from the premium section of a well-stocked discounter, young socialists, union officials, and party grandees work their way, bite by bite, toward defining the basic provisions of the archetypal precarious household.

They are informed. They listen to the people. They are always close to the pulse of the times. Why not also at the breakfast table? Didn’t Germany’s minister of the heart, Robert Habeck, run his last campaign exactly this way—approachable, in a hemp sweater, sipping mate tea at kitchen tables across the republic? Perhaps the finance minister senses that elections are won as long as the pan is hot, the pizza is in the oven, and a cold beer doesn’t cut too deeply into the weekly budget.

One kilo of floury potatoes, gluten-free pasta for allergy sufferers, of course a non-alcoholic beer—sugary drinks excluded—a bit of greenery on top, maybe some long-life milk, plain yogurt, and a nostalgic nod to good old junk food, naturally soy-based. Thus it may soon take shape: the socially just, functionary-approved food basket, complete with the finance minister’s seal of approval.

Attention to Detail Required

Fine-tuning the Germany Basket forces the working group into excursions—reenacting life at the front lines of daily economic struggle, venturing into that terra incognita of the ordinary consumer’s harsh reality. They will advance to the places where elections are decided: the meat counters, the vegetable aisles with their astonishing variety, the endless freezer sections filled with goods from all corners of the world.

It would be instructive to attach to every product its pre-COVID price. Such an existential shock might spoil the soup for one or two party officials.

Everyone can participate in the Germany Basket—from the finance minister and the labor minister to union secretaries and representatives of food NGOs. After years of disagreement, a common denominator is quickly found—and lies just a few steps away, possibly already in the freezer of the SPD canteen.

Inflation and the World of Fables

How bewildering rising prices must seem in these circles, where inflation is imagined to be nothing more than the result of entrepreneurial greed and excessive profit-seeking.

That inflation might stem from an ever-growing state apparatus financing itself to a significant extent through the printing press would never occur to them. And that Germany’s energy crisis—the ban on importing cheap Russian gas, the nuclear phase-out, and the entire climate-regulation catalogue—might negatively affect agriculture and generate immense price pressure is likewise relegated to the realm of fairy tales.

Yet the surge in prices has been massive. Since before the lockdowns, food prices in Germany have risen by nearly 40 percent. Few households have been able to offset this increase through income gains. The problems cut deeply into household budgets. At the same time, open-border policies clog the housing market while regulation and rent controls systematically prevent new construction—creating an economic situation from which fewer and fewer households can escape.

In economics, one principle is well known: the cure for high prices is high prices. They signal investors to deploy capital and eliminate scarcity. That this does not happen is also the work of these culinary-minded Social Democrats. They cling desperately to price controls like rent caps and to the regulatory machinery of the climate complex. In the bureaucracy thus created—in a dictated framework that now extends even to the refrigerator—they find their power base.

Within SPD circles, they believe they have discovered yet another trump card in the attention economy. The Germany Basket is merely another media-political low point: tasteless, undignified, ineffective. The SPD is finished.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 03:30

China's 200,000-Satellite Filing Sparks Fears Of An Orbital Power Grab

China's 200,000-Satellite Filing Sparks Fears Of An Orbital Power Grab

China has filed requests to reserve orbital slots for almost 200,000 satellites, prompting concerns it may be positioning itself to control large swathes of near-Earth space, according to the Daily Mail.

The applications, submitted on December 29 by the newly formed Institute of Radio Spectrum Utilisation and Technological Innovation, outline two constellations—CTC-1 and CTC-2—each with 96,714 satellites spread across thousands of orbits. If built, the system would dwarf SpaceX’s Starlink plans and could restrict access for rival operators.

Officials have offered little detail about the satellites’ role, fuelling speculation about military or security uses. According to China in Space, Nanjing University of Aeronautics says the network would support “Low-altitude electromagnetic space security, integrated security defence systems, electromagnetic space security assessment of airspace, and low-altitude airspace safety supervision services.” Analysts say this closely resembles SpaceX’s military-focused Starshield system.

The Daily Mail writes that the filings were made with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which allocates orbital spectrum. Once registered, other companies must prove their satellites will not interfere. While the spacecraft could have civilian uses, the move comes amid intensifying US-China competition in space.

Satellites now underpin modern warfare, forming part of the so-called “kill mesh.” The war in Ukraine has shown how vital satellite communications and jamming capabilities can be, and US officials have raised alarms about unusual manoeuvres by some Chinese satellites in geostationary orbit. One senior officer warned they are “sliding” across the GEO belt, behavior seen as inconsistent with normal communications missions.

China openly treats space as a strategic domain. President Xi Jinping has called it an “important strategic asset for the country that must be well managed and utilized and, more importantly, protected.” China’s satellite count has risen from about 40 in 2010 to roughly 1,000 today.

Despite the scale of the proposal, many experts doubt it will be realised. China would need to launch around 500 satellites every week for seven years—far beyond its current manufacturing and launch capacity. This has led analysts to suspect the move is an orbital “land grab,” reserving space for future use rather than signalling an imminent build-out.

As Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation put it, “It is possible they’re just trying to create some space for later on.” Even Chinese industry figures have played down the feasibility, with Spacety executive Yang Feng warning that “Leading in terms of filing applications does not mean surpassing in final execution,” citing major technical and capacity hurdles.

The move is notable given China’s recent criticism of SpaceX at the UN, where it argued that the unchecked spread of commercial satellite constellations “has given rise to pronounced safety and security challenges.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 02:45

Much Defiance, No Strategy: Germany's Outrage At Trump's Greenland Policy

Much Defiance, No Strategy: Germany's Outrage At Trump's Greenland Policy

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The defiant reaction of Germany’s business and political elite to Donald Trump’s tariff measures in the Greenland conflict reveals a remarkable denial of reality. It is increasingly clear that Brussels and Berlin are more willing to accept significant collateral damage in a dispute with the United States than to pursue rational solutions. It is high time to acknowledge their own weaknesses.

In the end, the dispute over Greenland’s strategic future unfolded as expected. In response to the deployment of a tiny contingent of European troops to the Danish-administered island, Washington wielded a substantial lever: trade tariffs. This now well-established tool is aimed at the eight nations participating in the action – including Germany, which contributed a mere 13 soldiers to this peculiar measure.

Starting February 1, an additional 10 percent tariff will take effect. If the situation remains unchanged, it will rise to 25 percent on June 1. Should the Greenland dispute escalate into a trade casus belli, it will directly impact the overall economy. Export-heavy economies like Germany could see up to 0.3 percent of their GDP wiped out.

Shipping Routes and Resources

What is this conflict really about? Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland’s strategic control is twofold. On one hand, Greenland’s rich natural resources – particularly rare earths – are crucial. On the other, it’s about controlling key Arctic shipping routes. Washington’s focus is on dominating the Northeast Passage along Russia and the Northwest Passage along Canada. These routes linking Europe, Asia, and North America could become strategically vital in the future. The Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada also plays a key role in the U.S. power game, providing access to significant resource zones. The North Atlantic region is generally considered essential for the U.S. government’s military security.

In recent days, Trump repeatedly emphasized that neither NATO nor the European Union had taken substantive political action in response to China’s and Russia’s growing influence in the region.

This raises the inevitable question: why is Europe suddenly so interested in Greenland? A clean resolution would undoubtedly be a referendum on the partially autonomous island. How this process will develop remains to be seen.

Defiance Instead of Strategy

Germany’s business and political responses indicate a willingness to escalate rhetorically. Representatives of German trade associations speak of a “U-turn” in U.S. policy. VDMA President Bertram Kawlath criticized the tariffs as politically motivated, calling the new demands absurd. Similarly, DIW President Marcel Fratzscher warned that Germany and Europe should no longer allow themselves to be extorted in the trade dispute with the U.S.

BGA President Dirk Jandura and VDA President Hildegard Müller labeled the announced tariffs grotesque. They would place an enormous burden on an already heavily affected European industry. Both called on Brussels to act decisively and strategically.

Notably, Fratzscher’s call for closer cooperation with China stands out. Yet only weeks ago, the rare earth supply dispute with Beijing nearly escalated – a player that enforces its interests just as ruthlessly using its resource leverage.

There is agreement that Brussels must now pick up the gauntlet thrown by the U.S. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced negotiations for a retaliatory tariff package, which could hit U.S. businesses in Europe with up to €93 billion. The signs point to a storm, but it remains unclear whether the U.S. administration will be impressed.

From a European perspective, two main options emerge: first, the long-discussed model of heavily taxing American tech companies – the so-called digital tax – could finally be implemented. Second, EU-proposed counter-tariffs could be used to apply pressure in upcoming negotiations with the U.S. administration.

The crucial question: how far can the EU play this power game before the economic costs become unbearable? Brussels has shown a tendency in conflicts like the Ukraine war to stick to maximalist demands while accepting significant collateral damage. The same dynamic now threatens in the trade dispute with the U.S.: European rhetoric is strong, but economic substance is vulnerable.

Much like in its standoff with Russia, the EU faces a visible power asymmetry against the U.S. economy, which grew at an annualized 5.5 percent in the last quarter while unemployment fell to 4.4 percent. Growth is driven primarily by private investment and a massive gain in productivity – the true measure of sustainable economic success.

By contrast, the EU – and Germany’s industrial heartlands in particular – are bleeding. Despite massive borrowing and extensive government stimulus programs, private investment and productivity gains remain elusive.

Power Asymmetry

Over the slowly escalating trade conflict hangs the Damocles sword of the Ukraine conflict and Germany’s associated energy crisis. The missed opportunity months ago to resolve a Gordian knot with U.S. mediation now exacts its toll. Step by step, the United States could adjust its security guarantees for Europe, exposing the EU’s economic and military vulnerabilities.

Washington’s new security strategy, released in December, makes it clear that the EU is no longer regarded as a strategic ally. Instead, the U.S. is prepared to pursue its own interests with an iron hand if necessary.

There is no denying it: under the current administration, realpolitik is back in the EU-U.S. relationship. Europe must recognize these new realities and approach them with a realistic assessment of its own position. And the current economic situation is anything but rosy.

Moral posturing over the supposed “Wild West methods” of the Americans is hypocritical. Was it not the EU Commission that, over many years, forced trade partners – most recently the Mercosur countries – under its climate-protectionist regime? Is it not at least equally problematic to drive one’s own population into economic hardship to enforce climate-socialist power fantasies and expand political control?

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/20/2026 - 02:00

Architecture Of Plunder: Why The Modern Democratic Party Is A Kleptocracy

Architecture Of Plunder: Why The Modern Democratic Party Is A Kleptocracy

Authored by Saggezza Eterna, 

In the lexicon of polite political discourse, we are told that "kleptocracy" is a phenomenon reserved for the decaying regimes of the third world—banana republics where dictators in gold-braided epaulets stuff suitcases with cash while their people starve. This is a comforting fiction. It allows the American mind to believe that corruption is something that happens over there, in places without marble capitols or Ivy League economists.

But this definition is archaic. It fails to capture the sophistication of the modern predator state. A true kleptocracy in the twenty-first century does not require a dictator with a Swiss bank account; it requires a bureaucracy with a grant-making authority. It does not steal with a gun; it steals with a regulation.

The modern Democrat Party is not merely a political coalition; it is a syndicalist engine of wealth extraction. It has evolved beyond the crude graft of Tammany Hall, where votes were bought with turkeys and beer, into a highly complex "NGO-industrial complex" that launders public treasury funds into private political power. They are not governing. They are looting. And they have built a moral fortress around their theft so that to question the robbery is to be branded a heretic.

"The modern kleptocrat does not break the law; he writes the law to make his theft mandatory."

'

To understand this, we must strip away the veneer of "public service" and look at the mechanics of the machine. We must observe how the Managerial Elite has perfected a system where the decline of the American middle class is not an accident of history, but the direct, mathematical result of their enrichment.

Part I: The Laundromat – The Non-Profit Industrial Complex

The genius of the Democrat kleptocracy lies in its ability to make the taxpayer fund their own political subjugation. In a traditional bribery scheme, a corporation gives money to a politician for a favor. This is illegal and risky. The modern Democrat machine has professionalized this by inserting a middleman: the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).

Consider the flow of money. The federal government, under Democrat stewardship, allocates billions in grants to "community organizations," "activist groups," and "non-profits" ostensibly for public welfare—voter education, green initiatives, or social justice programs. These entities are staffed almost exclusively by partisan operatives. The funds, stripped of their "public" designation, are then used to build voter rolls, organize protests, and push radical policy agendas that benefit the party that wrote the check.

It is a closed loop of money laundering. You pay taxes. The bureaucrats you did not elect send that money to an activist group you do not support. That activist group uses your money to campaign for the bureaucrat’s boss.

"They have not just seized the means of production; they have seized the means of distribution, turning the U.S. Treasury into a campaign war chest."

This is why the Left fiercely defends the bloated administrative state. It is not because they love efficiency; it is because the bureaucracy is their bank. Every new agency created is a new revenue stream for their client class. The teachers' unions are the archetype of this model. They compel dues from members, funnel those dues almost exclusively to Democrat campaigns, and in return, the party ensures the unions maintain a monopoly on education, free from the competition of school choice. It is a protection racket disguised as a labor movement.

The "Foreign Aid" grift operates on the same frequency. When billions are sent overseas to nebulous "democracy building" initiatives, we must ask: who are the contractors? Who are the consultants? Who sits on the boards of the NGOs administering this aid? Invariably, we find the children, siblings, and donors of the party elite. They are not exporting democracy; they are importing kickbacks.

Part II: The Regulatory Shakedown – Corporatism Disguised as Progress

If Part I is about stealing tax money, Part II is about stealing market share. The classic definition of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. The modern Democrat party has achieved this synthesis under the banner of "saving the planet" and "equity."

The primary weapon here is the regulatory squeeze. When the government mandates "Green Energy" transitions or "ESG" (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores, they are not saving the polar bears. They are destroying small and medium-sized competitors who cannot afford compliance, while subsidizing the massive conglomerates that can.

"Regulation is the tax that time pays to power. It is the moat the elite dig to protect their castles from the competition of the peasantry."

Look at the "Green New Deal" infrastructure. It is a mechanism to transfer wealth from the productive energy sector (oil, gas, nuclear—industries that actually power civilization) to the speculative "green" sector—industries that exist only because of government subsidies. Who owns the solar startups and the wind farms? The same donor class that dines in Martha’s Vineyard. They use the power of the state to crush cheap, reliable energy, forcing the working class to pay higher prices, which effectively funnels wealth from the poor (who pay for energy) to the rich (who collect the subsidies).

This is why they despise the free market. The free market is unpredictable. A kleptocrat hates unpredictability. They want guaranteed returns. By using the regulatory agencies to pick winners and losers, they ensure that their portfolios outperform the S&P 500 by margins that would make a hedge fund manager blush. When a Speaker of the House can trade stocks in industries she regulates and beat the market with supernatural consistency, we are not looking at "public service." We are looking at insider trading legalized by the very people committing it.

The concept of "Stakeholder Capitalism" is the final nail in the coffin of free enterprise. It posits that corporations are not responsible to shareholders, but to "stakeholders"—a nebulous term that effectively means "political activists." It allows the party to extort corporations: adopt our cultural agenda, hire our consultants, donate to our causes, or face the wrath of the regulatory state. It is a shakedown, pure and simple.

Part III: The Cultural Smokescreen – Identity Politics as Camouflage

The most cunning trick of the modern kleptocrat is the use of "Woke" ideology as a distraction. While they are looting the treasury and rigging the economy, they need a smokescreen to keep the populace fighting each other rather than looking at the bank vault.

Identity politics is that smokescreen.

By obsessively focusing on race, gender, and sexuality, the Democrat elite creates a permanent state of cultural warfare. This serves two strategic purposes. First, it fragments the working class, preventing a unified coalition that might challenge their economic dominance. If the white mechanic and the black truck driver are at each other's throats over "privilege," they will not notice that the private equity firm has bought their houses and the government has devalued their wages. 

"Wokeism is not a moral awakening; it is the HR department of the kleptocracy. It is the shield they use to deflect scrutiny of their plunder."

Second, it provides a moral shield for their corruption. When you accuse them of theft, they accuse you of bigotry. When you point out that their policies have decimated the inner city, they call you a racist. They wrap their greed in the language of compassion. They are not destroying the energy grid to enrich their donors; they are doing it to "save the climate." They are not censoring the internet to protect their narratives; they are doing it to "stop hate speech."

This moral blackmail is the hallmark of the Machiavellian ruler. They claim the mantle of the oppressed while living like kings. They lecture the populace on "privilege" from inside gated communities funded by the very systems of inequality they claim to fight.

The result is a hollowed-out nation. The infrastructure crumbles while billions are spent on "consultants." The borders are erased to import a dependent underclass that reinforces their political hegemony. The currency is debased to pay for their patronage networks.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

We are witnessing the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" in its final, terminal phase. The Democrat party is no longer a party of the people; it is a party of the managers, the academics, the bureaucrats, and the subsidized corporate elite. They have constructed a system where they can be wrong about everything—the economy, foreign policy, crime, the border—and yet never lose power, and never lose money.

To call them "kleptocrats" is not an insult; it is a precise taxonomic classification. They have privatized the state for their own benefit. They have turned the concept of "public good" into a private revenue stream.

The first step in dismantling this machine is to see it for what it is. Do not listen to their moralizing. Watch their hands. Watch where the money goes. And realize that the chaos, the decline, and the division we see around us are not accidents. They are the overhead costs of their business model.

*   *   *

Book Promo:

Saggezza Eterna and the material I write on this page, specifically about politics and power dynamics, is inspired by a book written in the 15th century called "The Prince" by a Florentine Philosopher named Niccolò Machiavelli.

Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Prince" was banned by the Vatican in 1559 because its unflinching portrayal of pragmatic and often ruthless political strategies held a mirror to the hypocrisy of rulers, including Church leaders, exposing how power was truly wielded in contrast to professed ideals.

I highly recommend that anyone wishing to understand the true nature of politics and power dynamics read the book cover to cover. If you want to completely and utterly destroy any argument and increase your political savviness, "The Prince" will not disappoint. The attached link presents a translation from Italian into English that preserves the integrity of the book as it was originally written.

Check out the Hardcover by clicking here.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/19/2026 - 23:30

China Flies Military Drone Into Taiwan Airspace For First Time

China Flies Military Drone Into Taiwan Airspace For First Time

In the latest geopolitical escalation - because let's face it, all that's left now for the global geopolitical chaos to be complete is for Beijing to finally launch its much anticipated invasion of Taiwan - China sent a military drone into Taiwanese airspace for the first time, underscoring Beijing’s efforts to test the island's defenses.

The Chinese reconnaissance drone flew in the airspace of Pratas Island for about four minutes early Saturday, Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said in a statement. The islet is near the southern end of the strait, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) from Taiwan’s main island.

The unmanned aerial vehicle was a WZ-7 known as ‘Soaring Dragon’ according to a Taiwanese national security official. It flew at an “altitude outside the range of our air defence weapons and left following warnings Taipei broadcast via international radio channels”, Taiwan’s defence ministry said in a statement.

The ministry added that the drone flew above the range of air defense weapons, adding that it left after warnings were broadcast over international radio frequencies. In 2022, Taiwan downed a Chinese civilian drone that flew near another one of its offshore outposts, Kinmen.

China’s military said on social media the aircraft conducted “legitimate and lawful” training.

According to the FT, analysts said the move highlighted Taiwan’s difficulties in countering China’s high-end drone capabilities and allowed Beijing to further undermine the country’s sovereignty.

“China has found another soft spot,” said Kitsch Liao, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. “They can repeat this to demonstrate that they can enter Taiwan airspace with impunity. And what do you do if they start flying lower and lower? If you decide to shoot the drone down when it comes into range, China can blame Taiwan because it didn’t do anything before.”

Increasingly often China also harasses Taiwan’s outlying islands with its coastguard and maritime militia — armed fishing vessels that carry out paramilitary missions. Pratas has become a preferred target for those operations over the past year. On Wednesday, Taiwan’s coastguard published footage of two Chinese coastguard ships approaching the atoll. It is located about 420km from southern Taiwan, in waters both US and Chinese submarines would have to pass through in a potential future conflict.

The latest drone incident highlights China’s efforts to militarily intimidate Taiwan. Taipei rejects Beijing’s claims to its territory, and under President Lai Ching-te has stepped up efforts to bolster its defenses to deter any attack.

Last month, the People’s Liberation Army held live-fire drills around Taiwan after the US announced an $11 billion arms package for Taipei, one of the biggest ever. The PLA has in recent years held large-scale military exercises with the declared goal of intimidating Taiwan. It has also launched increasingly frequent naval and air patrols which are growing in scale and gradually moving closer to Taiwan. 

US and Taiwanese government officials believe that, while the US might help defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese attack, it would not intervene over Pratas, which is part of Tapei’s disputed claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea as a legacy of the Republic of China.

Under US domestic law, Washington is required to provide Taiwan with the weapons needed to defend itself and to maintain the capacity of the US to resist any force or coercion that would jeopardise Taiwan’s security.

“China could severely weaken Taiwan’s morale and confidence in defending itself if it got away with seizing Pratas,” said a foreign military official in Asia.

Taiwan’s defense minister Wellington Koo told lawmakers in 2024 that the country’s armed forces would view the unauthorized entry of any Chinese military aircraft, ship or other asset into Taiwan’s territorial airspace or waters as a “first strike” against which Taiwan could order a counterstrike in self-defense. But according to Taiwan’s latest quadrennial defence review published last March, the military is still working on rules which would spell out under what circumstances frontline officers would be empowered to order such a move.

Two Taiwanese officials said Taipei would exercise “extreme caution” to avoid any incident at Pratas sparking a broader conflict. “We would consult with our ally,” one of the officials said, referring to the US.  

Also Saturday, the Chinese military said in a statement on social media that it tracked the USS John Finn, a guided-missile destroyer, and a US oceanographic survey vessel as they passed through the Taiwan Strait. The US usually sends warships through the busy shipping lane following major Chinese military maneuvers.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/19/2026 - 23:00

Eric Swalwell's Bid For California Governor Hits Snag Over Residency Claims

Eric Swalwell's Bid For California Governor Hits Snag Over Residency Claims

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has a major hurdle to overcome in his bid to succeed California Governor Gavin Newsom - he has been accused of not living in the Golden State. 

California's constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have resided in the state for the previous five years, however a new lawsuit from conservative activist and filmmaker Joel Gilbert claims that Swalwell's "home address" listed on his election paperwork is actually a lawyer's office. 

According to Gilbert, Swalwell actually lives in a $1.2 million, six-bedroom mansion in Washington DC with his wife Brittany Watts, who apparently didn't take his last name (how progressive!) and their three children. The couple listed the DC home as their 'principal residence' when they took out a mortgage on it in April 2022. 

According to Gilbert's complaint, Swalwell's property was listed as the couple's 'principal residence' when they took out a mortgage in April 2022

Swalwell doesn't appear to own any property in California at all, Gilbert claims in a five-page petition for writ of mandate filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber - accusing Swalwell of perjury, and imploring Weber to declare him ineligible to succeed Newsom in November's election, the Daily Mail reports.

Swalwell filed a California Form 501 – Candidate Intention Statement – on December 4 giving his address as a business suite in a Capitol Mall, Sacramento, high-rise.

'That address is not a residence. It is the office address of Swalwell's campaign attorneys,' Gilbert claims.

'Form 501 is signed under penalty of perjury, and the use of a non-residential address constitutes a material representation in a filing required to establish candidate qualifications,' he claimed

The suit asks Weber to 'fulfill her constitutional duty' by disqualifying Swalwell from a crowded field that includes Democrat Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

Failing to do so would cause 'irreparable harm' to California voters and 'undermine ballot integrity.' -Daily Mail

"Eric Swalwell has no California address," Gilbert told the outlet. "So either he's guilty of mortgage fraud in Washington, DC, or he's ineligible to run for Governor of California, he can't have it both ways." 

Swalwell's Candidate Intention Statement on December 4 lists his address as a business suite in a Sacramento high-rise

Swalwell has represented the San Francisco Bay Area since 2012, and drew notable criticism over an alleged extramarital relationship with woman suspected of being a Chinese honeytrap spy, Christine Fang (Fang Fang), who came to the US as a college student before spending years cozying up to prominent California politicians. She reportedly worked on his 2014 re-election campaign before evaporating into thin air. 

Swalwell and Fang

The alleged affair cost Swalwell his spot on the House Intelligence Committee, however the Mail notes that no further action was taken after a two-year standards probe. 

Read the rest of the report here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/19/2026 - 22:00

Socialism Is A Noun - A Synonym For Socialism Is Theft

Socialism Is A Noun - A Synonym For Socialism Is Theft

Submitted by Mitchell Vexler,

socialism is defined as a political system advocating that the means of production and distribution are owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Words that you may have heard of being representative of socialism are collectivism, communalism, communism, leftism, progressivism, Marxism, Bolshevism, Leninism, Trotskyism, welfarism, Maoism, neo-Marxism, social democracy, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, classless society, collective ownership, public ownership, state ownership, Stalinism, Sovietism Marxism-Leninism, Eurocommunism, totalitarianism, radical socialism, state ownership, rule of the proletariat, and state socialism.

All of these synonyms can be replaced with 1 word, and that word is THEFT.

Theft of your money or theft of any person / victim who earns money and pays taxes, where those taxes go into pet projects which the victims did not vote for and or to cover the compound cumulative interest on the non-stop production of fraud created by the fraudsters (socialists).

It is no coincidence that the 2 largest purveyors of fraud in the U.S. are the Federal Reserve and the School Districts, which own the Central Appraisal Districts, both of which utilize the mantra of printing money. One, the Federal Reserve via its right hand, the U.S. Treasury, prints money, not backed by assets, at will. The other being the School Districts which print their money by committing accounting fraud and bond fraud, demanding continuous bond raises, delivering pre-determined budgets for their owned CAD to contrive additional property valuation fraud and thus over taxation for you the victim to pay for in perpetuity, and as a result the median household income (MHI) shrinks at an alarming rate.  In other words, the FED, School Districts, and CADs are socialist organizations that execute the plan socialism while simultaneously paying themselves which is again, transferring your money via fraud into their pockets.

This Article is now part of a series of recent important articles all of which should be read by every citizen in the U.S. & Canada, and any country across the world, to help people understand that socialism is the scourge of any society.

The reason why these articles are so important is that our goal is to expose the fraud that touches the lives of every property owner and also, directly or indirectly, every single Citizen.

It has become clear in recent years that many people paid for an education that did not create a return on their investment. It is also clear that many so-called bastions of education have now been exposed as incubators for socialists. Isn’t it interesting, and not at all coincidental, that on average, across the U.S., property taxes account for 83% of local revenues for public schools, allocated in two components: operations and maintenance (O&M) and interest and sinking fund (I&S), both of which are now proven to be counterproductive to the education of students. We have shown conclusively how the theft of your money by the school districts occurs.  See School Districts and Accounting Fraud - Presentation to President Trump and Elon Musk and article, For the Kids.

The psychology of a socialist is detailed in “Chain the Doors of the Federal Reserve” linked above and further expanded below.

In this Article, an extension of Chain the Doors article and the writing of Thomas Pain presented in Thomas Paine - Quotes on Taxes & The Necessity of Taxation, I would like to dig deeper to show why socialism is the antithesis of capitalism and the U.S. Constitution and why socialism should be codified as illegal.

Without exception and without question, stealing private property is immoral and illegal. socialists via taxation, and as you are seeing play out in Minnesota, want to make this acceptable. 

To crystalize the thought, money is property. Physical assets are property. Businesses are property. Your mortgage is property from which over time the amortization on your mortgage being the principal reduction is property. Bank accounts are property. In all 5 instances, which in totality are your life, the socialists want to steal your money. 

Therefore, as socialists promote socialism (A) and socialism is theft (B) then socialists are thieves (C).

If A = B and B = C then A = C.

Not just theft of property, but theft of Constitutional Rights, and theft of the fabric of civilized society, being morals and respect for individual rights.

Could it be that the warped moral view of socialists is a direct result of an education system that does not teach how to survive and prosper in the real world thus making / brainwashing people to be dependent on the handouts from the government rather than participating in the only system that has worked for 5,000 years which is capitalism?

Are the students to blame, or are the teachers and politicians who are the preachers and screechers that create the fraud from which to take your tax dollars to support the fraud they created? Our goal is to explain to those who have been misled to at least consider the truth of socialism which is that it leads to death and destruction and no rational person would want that upon themselves or their families.

The legal view of a socialist, which is not legal under Constitutional law, is that preventing others from stealing your private property is somehow tyrannical. This is beyond rational thought and can only be the ramification of intentional brainwashing from which those in positions of power, regardless of political party affiliation, including the press, receive the benefit of profit and or perceived power. 

Organized retail theft rampant in the most socialist US cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, and Minneapolis is a ramification of socialist policies. The socialists make the argument that they are just the poor working class needing to prevent starvation and homelessness so stealing $5000 Louis Vuitton Bags is perfectly acceptable. This is beyond rational thought.

The need for socialists to support theft and immigration for votes (which costs the taxpayers roughly $1 Trillion per year - $64K per illegal immigrant), also conveys that socialists are not capable of building an economy, or products and services, from scratch.  Socialism has never, in the history of the planet, worked because it terminates when it runs out of other people’s money to steal.

The socialist mantra: "The capitalist is stealing from the worker under wage labor slavery and the worker is not receiving the full value of their labor by pocketing what worker created".

Proof of the idiocy of the socialist cult mantra:

  • In truth, the worker and the capitalist employer voluntarily agree beforehand to wages and the work to be done, so it is not stealing.

  • The Worker would not be able to produce any goods or service of value if they are not working for their employer.

  • The worker can quit and engage in self-employment.

  • Setting up a business, making agreements with suppliers, arranging financing, and setting up a pipeline for customers, which is often what capitalists do, is labor and is much harder than a worker being involved in just one component of the company.

  • The worker can quit and join or start a coop if they believe that that type of work arrangement works better.

Society can’t fix what it can’t define and that is the main emphasis of these articles. In the furtherance of defining the issue, what was in the 1980’s and 1990’s a “democratic party” no longer exists. This is not to say there are not reasonable Democrats who would like to participate in a legitimate political party to voice their opinion. This is to say that reasonable Democrats have been cast aside and overshadowed by pure socialism and that means pure theft. The truth is laid bare in the finances of the DNC which are now negative.

Gustave Le Bon, in his work "The Psychology of Socialism," argues that socialism and radicalism function similarly to religious movements. He suggests that political controversies often stem from contrived emotional responses rather than rational deliberation.  This perspective highlights the role of psychology in shaping political ideologies and movements.

socialism as a cult involves extreme devotion to a leader or ideology, often characterized by manipulation and control over members' thoughts and behaviors. This can lead to a lack of critical thinking and a strong group identity, which may be reinforced through propaganda and social pressure.

Socialism cults often revolve around a charismatic leader who promotes a vision of a collective society. These groups may exhibit extreme devotion to their ideology and leader, which can lead to a strong sense of community among members. Key characteristics include beliefs that diverge significantly from mainstream society, use of manipulative techniques to maintain loyalty and control over members, and the focus is on communal ownership and the idea of working towards a common goal.

The psychology behind socialism cults can involve several factors including that members often find a sense of identity and purpose within the group, which can be appealing, especially in times of social uncertainty. A clear pattern of cognitive dissonance emerges as its members may experience discomfort when their beliefs are challenged, leading them to reinforce their commitment to the group via emotional outbursts, or violence. It is a combination of emotional outburst, violence, and non-willingness to participate in conversation which attempts to strip the rest of society from their first amendment rights of free speech. It goes one step deeper in that there are socialists working among government entities that undermine the purpose of the entities and knowingly, with intent, break the law to support the socialist cult. This is the prime example of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Charismatic leaders play a crucial role in socialism cults. They often create an idealized image where the Leaders are portrayed as heroic figures, which can enhance loyalty. Propaganda is used to manipulate and maintain a positive image of the leader and the ideology. The leaders may invoke nationalistic sentiments to strengthen group cohesion while simultaneously failing to provide one stitch of evidence against the simple fact that socialism dies when it runs out of other people’s money to steal, including the theft of money from its own members.

See if you can figure out where this brilliant quote came from…."They'd come on a fishing boat and gorged themselves on coconut. So how do you get rats off an island, hmm? My grandmother showed me. We buried an oil drum and hinged the lid. Then we wired coconut to the lid as bait. The rats would come for the coconut and they would fall into the drum. And after a month, you've trapped all the rats. But what did you do then? Throw the drum into the ocean? Burn it? No. You just leave it. And they begin to get hungry. Then one by one, they start eating each other, until there are only two left, the two survivors. And then what? Do you kill them? No. You take them and release them into the trees. Only now, they don't eat coconut anymore. Now they only eat rat. You have changed their nature."  This is the back story to Last Rat Standing and exactly what happens with socialism and socialists. 

We are proving the truth with irrefutable evidence, on just a few inter-linked issues with property tax at the nucleus, so that society, being rational thinking people, can deal with the fraud of the socialists and insist that the Republic of the United States stand strong under its Constitution. 

What we have discovered is very much applicable in Canada, and any other Country that claims to use Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, in which USPAP has been rendered meaningless by intent to defraud, which proves the policy is that of socialism executed by socialists.

The Constitution of the United States of America or socialism???

Over 100 million people have died due to socialist, Marxist, and communist regimes—not from war, but from their own governments' brutal policies.

Socialism is cloaked in promises of equality, justice, and “free” service including free education, healthcare, housing, and jobs. Its appeal is emotional, targeting the hopes of the marginalized and the frustrations of the working class.  Beneath the promises, lies the historical reality of oppression, economic collapse, and human suffering.

With Cuba and many others listed herein, socialism has consistently failed not just economically, but leaving behind a legacy of destroyed economies, starved populations, and crushed freedoms.

 The False Promise of Equality

socialism is all promise and no deliver because it is a con. It centralizes power into the hands of the few, creating the very hierarchy and inequality it claims to abolish.  The result is not a classless society, but a society where the government becomes the new elite, often ruled by a dictator, while the people suffer under authoritarian control and economic misery. socialism demands a revolution to tear everything down first, in order to create its new communist infrastructure and you can see this playing out live in Minnesota, Germany, European Union, the UK, and played out in our hemisphere, in Cuba. You can see a portion of my story in Cuba in an above linked Article.

After Castro took over in 1959, he nationalized 70 percent of farmland. The result? Between 1957-58, the period before Castro, and 1963-64, by which time the nationalization had been done, the production of beef, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, corn, rice, root vegetables malanga and yucca, and potatoes all fell by a double digit, and typically a high double-digit, percentage. Output of their biggest crop, sugar, fell by 35 percent. Why didn’t Cubans starve? The Soviet Union bailed them out. The CEA report notes that Puerto Rico and Cuba had relative equal national incomes in 1950 but, by 2000, Cuba’s national income relative to Puerto Rico’s had fallen by almost two thirds. I saw stores in Cuba where the locals go, and even basic toiletries were not available.

 The Soviet Union: Death by Utopia

The USSR was the first major experiment in socialism after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Under Stalin, the state controlled all means of production, abolished private property, and forced collectivization of farms. The result was beyond catastrophic:

  • The Holodomor (1932–1933) – A man-made famine in Ukraine caused by forced collectivization. An estimated 3.9 million people starved to death.

  • Stalin's purges, gulags, and mass arrests led to millions of deaths and imprisonments, often without trial.

  • Shortages became the norm. Citizens stood in long lines for bread and toiletries. Just like

By the time it collapsed in 1991, the Soviet socialist system had claimed over 20 million lives through executions, famines, and forced labor.

Mao’s China: The Socialist Engine of Death

Under Chairman Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party unleashed two of the deadliest campaigns in human history:

  • The Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) – Mao's forced collectivization and industrialization effort caused the deadliest famine in world history, killing an estimated 30–45 million people.

  • The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) – A purge of perceived “capitalist” elements, during which millions were tortured, killed, or driven to suicide, and priceless cultural heritage was destroyed.

All of this was carried out in the name of socialist ideology. The people were promised prosperity. What they received was death and devastation.

Venezuela: The Collapse in Real Time

Venezuela, once one of Latin America’s richest countries, embraced socialism under Hugo Chávez and continued under Nicolás Maduro. Promising to redistribute oil wealth and end poverty, the regime nationalized industries, restricted private property, and eliminated market competition.

The result?

  • Inflation surpassed 1,000,000% in 2018, making its currency practically worthless.

  • Food shortages became widespread.

  • 90% of the population fell below the poverty line.

  • Hospitals lacked basic medicine.

  • Children died of malnutrition.

  • Millions of Venezuelans fled the country, creating one of the largest refugee crises in the Western Hemisphere.

Far from bringing justice, socialism in Venezuela robbed an entire generation of hope.

Cuba and North Korea: Islands of Oppression

Both Cuba and North Korea remain socialist examples of totalitarian control:

  • Cuba, under Fidel Castro, jailed dissidents, eliminated press freedom, and kept the population under tight surveillance. To this day, internet access is restricted, dissent is punished, and scarcity remains the norm.

  • North Korea represents perhaps the most extreme example. Ruled by dictatorship, its citizens face starvation, public executions, and complete isolation. Meanwhile, the regime invests in nuclear weapons and luxury for the ruling class.

 Why socialism Always Fails

socialism destroys the incentive to innovate, produce, and excel by removing profit and competition. It replaces market decisions with bureaucratic ones, often by force. Worse, it concentrates immense power in the hands of the state and as we have seen that power that is almost always abused.

My Father taught me that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

socialism is a con, and in every case, without exception, it led to:

  • Authoritarian control

  • Economic collapse

  • Suppression of dissent

  • Loss of personal freedom

  • Mass death

 The Human Toll: Over 100 Million Dead

According to The Black Book of Communism, a publication by European scholars, the death toll from socialist regimes in the 20th century exceeds 100 million. These are not deaths from war, but from starvation, executions, prison camps, and purges and all were committed in peacetime by governments against their own people.

To the socialists, it is ok if you disagree with your position in life or even this Article. However, if you are a rational thinking person, then ask yourself if there is anything in this Article that is not true. As it is true, then what does that say about you as a person wanting to put yourself, your family, and alleged friends in harms way of a horrific con that has ended in death?

To the alleged Republicans, it is time to look at the policies you created and if they were for socialist reasons and ended in socialist non-stop compound cumulative interest on fraudulent bond debt, then you either move immediately to destroy those polices (all property tax) or the only thing that separates you from the socialists in Minnesota is the violence. If any new policy is a socialist policy, that is, for the benefit of the government and not the citizens, then that attempted policy should never see the light of day or be approved.

We are now at the Supreme Court of Texas with the published statement that either the black letter of the law exists or it does not. See The Importance of the Vexler Case to Texas. The reason for this case is the refusal of the courts to deal with the legal dead zone they created and that is exactly for what the Supreme Courts exists. Either the law exists or it doesn’t. We are about to find out.

Conclusion:

socialism delivers control, coercion, and collapse.

socialism promises free, but the truth is... the world can’t afford free.

socialism must be codified into law as illegal. It is a cult. Call it what it is, and let’s deal with it.

Society, regardless of political affiliation (if any) should realize that a social policy is not socialism. A social policy could and should be a policy to eliminate hunger in the U.S. or a policy to eliminate cancer. These social policies are set forth and defined by the government but financially executed without government involvement. The market must do the lifting, not the government.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/19/2026 - 21:30

Pages