With the Ukraine war now marching into its fifth year, and with the next weather-driven “fighting season” underway, a frustrated Ukrainian President Volydymyr Zelensky says the Trump administration is pressuring him to give up the Donbas region in exchange for US security guarantees. He also claims that Russia is offering to stop providing intelligence to Iran if the United States stops giving intel to Ukraine. 

Last week, we reported that trilateral talks about the Ukraine war had been suspended, thanks to the United States now having to focus on executing Trump’s war on Iran with Israel. However, in an interview with Reuters, Zelensky said that Trump is now pressuring Ukraine to cave on its biggest demand just to wipe the war off his to-do list. In his 2024 campaign, Trump told voters that he’d have the war settled “before I even arrive at the Oval Office.” 

“The Middle East definitely has an impact on President Trump, and I think on his next steps. President Trump, unfortunately, in my opinion, still chooses a strategy to put more pressure on the Ukrainian side,” he told Reuters. The principal thrust of that pressure: Ukraine giving up on its demand that the eastern Donbas region be returned to Ukraine, in exchange for US security guarantees for what’s left of the Ukraine after the shooting stops. Comprising the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the great majority of the Donbas is already under Russian military control. 

“The Americans are prepared to finalize these guarantees at a high level once Ukraine is ready to withdraw from Donbas,” Zelensky said, adding that such a move would leave Ukraine and Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression, because ceding Donbas would also cede key defensive terrain.   

Zelensky also bemoaned what he says is an insufficient supply of interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems. “We were not stopped from deliveries. I’m very grateful to President Trump, and to his team, but this supply of Patriot missiles is not as large as we need.” That gripe comes as both US and Israeli interceptor missile supplies are being rapidly diminished in responding to wave after wave of Iranian attacks — weeks after White House boasts that Tehran’s ballistic missile capability had been “functionally destroyed.” Meanwhile, Ukraine has apparently come up with an alternative air defense tactic straight out of a video game: 

🇺🇦 #Ukraine: Wild footage shows a Ukrainian soldier flying aboard a Yak-52 aircraft, shooting down an incoming Russian Shahed drone with his rifle.

The footage was taken last month, and the location is described as “somewhere in the south,” possibly in Kherson or Zaporizhzhia. pic.twitter.com/uliweMjomj

— POPULAR FRONT (@PopularFront_) March 25, 2026

Zelensky also claimed that his military intelligence had acquired “irrefutable” evidence that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, as the country continues to defend itself in the war launched by Israel and the United States on Feb. 28. What’s more, he claimed Putin is using that as a bargaining chip to persuade Trump to acknowledge Russian sovereignty over Donbas: 

“I have reports from our intelligence services showing that Russia is doing this and saying: ‘I will not pass on intelligence to Iran if America stops passing intelligence to Ukraine.’ Isn’t that blackmail? Absolutely.” 

This latest stirring of the pot by Zelensky comes on the heels of Russia launching the largest 24-hour aerial attack since the Feb 2022 Russian invasion. Counting both drones and cruise missiles, 979 warheads poured into Ukrainian airspace, with about half of them coming in a very rare broad-daylight blitz on Tuesday.  

While we can’t verify its authenticity, this video seemingly shows that Trump isn’t the only one who’s unenthusiastic about Zelensky’s pipe dream of retaking the Donbas: 

Civilians resist to the military dictatorship in Ukraine.

A man gave a draft officer a ride on the hood of his car, showing him that forcing people to war is wrong.

Zelenskyy made a promotional video for GTA 6 about Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/TseVnR4XPo

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) March 25, 2026

Authored by Chris Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles.

The assumed level three million years ago of CO2 was around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another.

The title of the paper, produced by 17 America-based scientists, was enough to set alarm bells ringing in the ‘settled’ science, Net Zero-obsessed community: ‘Broadly stable atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels over the past three million years.’ A related paper examining ocean heat content derived from the ice core record was also published. Carrie Lear, Professor of Past Climates and Earth System Changes at Cardiff University, claimed that the papers “don’t rewrite the role of CO2, they underline how sensitive the climate system is… that is why today’s rapid  CO2 rise is so alarming”.

Ah, yes. Even if CO2 movements are minimal, probably within a margin of potential error, they are still responsible for large variations in temperature. The laws of climate science are ‘settled’ – if the trace atmospheric gas CO2 is rising, falling or generally stable, it is almost wholly responsible for large movements in global temperature. Under this rather shaky assumption, humans must stop burning hydrocarbons and return to a neo-Malthusian pre-industrial age.

Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson noted: “We definitely were a bit surprised. If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate.” That’s a little bit of a scary thought, she added, possibly with an eye on future grant funding. “May suggest” is doing a lot of the work here, and it may also be suggested that more plausible opinions are available.

Quoted in New Scientist magazine, Tim Naish, Professor of Earth Science at Victoria University in New Zealand, said it was “way too early to thrown the baby out with the bathwater”. Perish the thought that baby should be given its marching orders, ending a science-lite 40-year demonisation of CO2 and related promotion of a hard-Left Net Zero dream.

The latest Nature-published research gives a snapshot from ancient Antarctica ‘blue’ ice drilled in the Allan Hills area. It looks back further in time past the usual 800,000 ice core records. The key finding is that over the last three million years, when sea levels fell and ice periods intensified, the level of the main ‘greenhouse’ gases remained remarkably stable. For the first time, the work has pushed the direct gas measurements back into the late Pliocene era. Over the last three million years moving into the Pleistocene, global temperatures showed a long-term cooling trend of several degrees Celsius, interrupted by increasingly large interglacial oscillations. Interglacial temperature swings, as in the current Holocene, often see temperatures rise by 5°C and more.

Critics seeking to downplay ice core evidence often suggest it is too imprecise to provide a wholly accurate record of gas levels and temperature. But it is accurate enough to give a broad cyclical insight. It remains the source of some of the best data we have on the past climate. It is undoubtedly more accurate than most proxy evidence from millions of years ago. But whatever the evidence used, it is hard to detect any obvious and continuous link between CO2 and temperature across the entire geological record going back 600 million years to the start of abundant life on Earth. Certainly none to justify the political notion that humans control the climate thermostat by burning hydrocarbons.

In fact the evidence is so slim that Les Hatton, Emeritus Professor in Computer Science at Kingston University, was recently able to determine from ice core records that 100-year rises of 1.1°C in the current interglacial, which started 20,000 years ago, have occurred in one in six centuries. Going back 150,000 years, the frequency was around one in six to one in 20 centuries. None of these findings suggest that current warming is either unusual or primarily caused by human activity. Needless to say, none of these findings trouble the headline writers in narrative-addicted mainstream media.

Hungary is moving to choke off gas flows to Ukraine, escalating an energy standoff after Kiev halted Russian oil transit via the Druzhba pipeline.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a fresh social media video address reiterated that Ukraine has blocked the Soviet-era route for a month, and he newly warned: “As long as Ukraine does not provide oil, it will not receive gas from Hungary,” according to a translation.

Orban added that diverted supplies will be stockpiled domestically, filling up the country’s own reserves, arguing the move is justified as Ukraine “is also attacking the southern gas pipeline that supplies Hungary,” referring to the TurkStream corridor.

Framing the dispute as an energy security battle, Orban declared: “We will defend Hungary’s energy security, the protected petrol price, and the reduced gas prices” – adding Hungary has so far “successfully defend against Ukrainian blackmail.”

Orbán further called the Russian oil stoppage “Ukrainian blackmail”. According to more from The Associated Press:

There was no immediate comment from Kyiv and a Hungarian government spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press.

Ukraine imports a major portion of its gas needs through Hungary, amounting to around 45% of all gas imports last year, according to Ukrainian energy consultancy EXPRO. That number dropped to 38% by January.

This comes amid inter-EU turmoil and growing Brussels distrust of and anger toward Budapest:

The EU is limiting the flow of confidential material to Hungary and leaders are meeting in smaller groups — as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned of long-standing suspicions Viktor Orbán’s government is sharing information with Russia.

But there will not be any formal EU response to a fresh set of allegations because of the possible impact on the Hungarian election on April 12, according to five European diplomats and officials who told POLITICO they were concerned about the risk of Budapest leaking sensitive information to the Kremlin.

Last week Orban had made clear this week that Hungary will block all EU summit decisions in Ukraine’s favor until oil Russian flows resume.

“We would like to get the oil, which is ours, from the Ukrainians, which is now blocked by the Ukrainians, I did not support any kind of decision here, which is in favor of Ukraine … [as long as] the Hungarians are not able to get the oil which belong to us,” Orbán stated.

Orban has already blocked a proposed €90 billion ($103 billion) loan for Ukraine as well as efforts to slap new sanctions on Moscow, despite the pleadings, pressure, and interventions from other EU leaders.

“I will never support any kind of decision here which is in favor of Ukraine,” Orbán made clear at an EU meeting Thursday. “The Hungarian position is very simple. We are ready to support Ukraine when we get our oil, which is blocked by them,” Orbán underscored further.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Big developments are underway in Tennessee and Alabama. Over the next five years, the joint Japanese-American project will bring several so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) of the BWRX-300 type online. Almost one percent of U.S. electricity production—slightly more than three gigawatts—will be added to the existing energy mix by reactors designed by Hitachi and GE Vernova.

A caveat for purists of market economics: this is a hybrid project. While the majority is privately financed, export support from Japan as well as offtake guarantees and credit facilities accounting for roughly one percent of the total volume come from the U.S.

Overall, this project represents an investment of $40 billion. It joins a number of major initiatives currently being driven largely by the private sector in the U.S. Major platform operators and tech giants—Google, Meta, and Microsoft—are deeply involved in building new nuclear capacities. This disproves, above all, the claims of most German ideologues who insist that nuclear power has no future worldwide.

The fog has lifted. The truth is indisputably on the table. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz completes the evidence that Germany’s energy transition has not only failed but has destroyed hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of euros. Once the work of the eco-socialists is complete, we must conclude, more than a year’s worth of economic output may have gone up in smoke. This is economic substance and the guarantee of our prosperity. It is a reminder that the societal damage of this policy far exceeds what GDP figures alone can convey.

In the wake of this realization—now felt in everyone’s wallet—several fatal insights emerge, describing the current state of the Federal Republic. First is the successful narrowing of public discourse to Merkel’s principle of “no alternatives.” Like a pyramid scheme set from the top, the issue of CO2-driven climate change dominated not only politics. State-aligned media and corporations closely tied to the government played along, submitted to the rules, and positioned themselves at the forefront of executing this new moral framework.

After the Fukushima accident, Germany’s nuclear phase-out was sealed: too dangerous, not future-oriented. The future would lie in energy forms that, according to the green agitprop department, sent no bills. Nearly all politicians joined this intellectual blackout, enacting a monogenetic correction of party DNA across the spectrum, which now sits in front of the “firewall.”

The narrative frame was set, deeply embedded into public consciousness by the omnipresent NGO influence. A chain of guilt linked every action to a supposedly burning planet. It helped install subsidy and redistribution mechanisms and drowned even the faintest critique of the grand looting in a mixture of climate apocalypticism, moral sauce, and Thunberg-style infantilism.

That this looting continues unabated through the productive sectors of our society, and even accelerates, speaks volumes about the state of our society. Political apathy among voters combines with extraordinary arrogance and ideological stupidity in the highest ranks of this catastrophic regime.

Alongside intermittent green energy, a megastructure of new backup gas plants is to be built. Authorities speak of up to 50 such “backstops” to prevent the country from literally collapsing into social chaos during a dark doldrums period.

The statistics are indisputable. Since 2004, electricity production in China has increased by over 330 percent; in the U.S., roughly 11 percent. Germany, however, has lost 13 percent of its electricity production since its peak year 2021 and is now a net importer. Prosperity derives from energy production. Any self-imposed restrictions at this point lead society down the path of impoverishment. A historical and economic lesson, apparently never contemplated in union seminars or green think tanks. Meanwhile, in the circles of degrowth enthusiasts, rationality and bourgeois values trigger an immune-like resistance similar to the effect of advanced humanistic education.

In the U.S., President Donald Trump set in motion a shift back in 2016, briefly interrupted by the Biden administration: away from the European model of artificially constrained energy production and toward a deregulated market. Trump’s slogan “Drill, Baby, Drill” benefits the United States as a net exporter of oil and gas in the current crisis. Across the Atlantic, it is understood that autonomous control over energy capacities translates seamlessly into geopolitical leverage. The U.S. seeks strong access to energy markets to maneuver more effectively against China, for example, in the area of rare earth elements.

The emerging U.S. energy power structure, controlling Venezuelan oil, soon the Strait of Hormuz, and fostering closer ties with Arab energy states, is likely to consolidate America’s dominant position for the foreseeable future.

While Germany sheds crocodile tears over shifting geopolitics and remains frozen watching events in the Strait of Hormuz, one must ask: what is to be made of a chancellor who, despite the failed energy transition, ostentatiously rejects a return to nuclear power? Merz embodies with full force the destructive spirit of ideological blindness, too often mingled with foolish power-seeking in Berlin.

In Germany, two cooling towers at the former Gundremmingen nuclear power plant were demolished, almost four years after the last reactor was shut down. Thousands came to watch the spectacle, according to the police. pic.twitter.com/Lqh2vaQNqa

— DW News (@dwnews) October 26, 2025

Or will the Social Democrats continue to suffice to form another left-ecologist coalition and carry Merkel’s globalist project into the future?

Germany gives the impression of a stagnant pond, where sedated frogs have grown accustomed to the stench of decay. The fresh stream flowing past them is unseen—or unwelcome.

Even so, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has finally noticed, years late, that something is moving in the nuclear sector.

Tactically following Brussels’ handbook, she announced support for existing and planned nuclear projects across the EU. Whether in France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, or even Italy, where further nuclear investment is under consideration—the political dam is broken. From nuclear investment, we can gauge Europeans’ efforts to preserve national sovereignty against Brussels’ green transformation machine.

It is obvious: technological progress will not stop even European utopians in Brussels.

To counteract the erosion of her influence, von der Leyen offered a “fund” of €200 million—a joke against the backdrop of hundreds of billions burned in the green crony economy. Yet she seeks to publicly position herself at the head of a caravan long already in motion. It is a display of power, not real politics, but at least a form of indirect acknowledgment that ideological, irrational policies have pushed the old continent deep into an economic dead end.

The entry into modern forms of nuclear power, driven by free markets, backed by reintegration of cheap Russian gas to buy time, would shatter the walls of the one-way street. Yet Degrowth Chancellor Friedrich Merz shows no interest in this path.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years 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.

Meta Platforms’ new AI Ray-Ban smart glasses with a built-in display are facing three major roadblocks in the European Union, where battery rules, AI regulations, and supply constraints have derailed plans to roll out the glasses across the continent.

Bloomberg spoke with people familiar with the new AI glasses, an upgrade over the previous model, which lacked built-in optics, and warned that Meta is attempting to launch the glasses in the EU, but its manufacturing partner, EssilorLuxottica SA, will not be able to secure enough supply to support the rollout.

Compounding EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes, the people warned that the delayed EU launch is also due to regulations governing AI features and batteries.

The big obstacle on the battery front is that one EU requirement mandates that devices sold on the continent must have removable batteries by 2027, which creates big design challenges for compact wearables like these glasses, as well as headlines and other similar devices.

Meta is reportedly pushing for an exemption with Brussels, arguing the rule would hurt not just glasses but other wearables across the consumer electronics market. 

Making matters worse for Meta, EU rules would also limit some of the AI functions that are key to the glasses, making a stripped-down launch very unattractive to consumers. 

EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes are understandable, but Brussels’s overregulation of nearly everything, including AI and batteries, shows how elected and unelected bureaucrats can slow or kill innovation.

Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the European Union, told an audience at an event earlier this week that the glasses will not be available in the region.

“Where is the one place in the world that you can’t sell these glasses? The European Union. Why? Because the battery isn’t removable,” Puzder said.

Earlier this year, we cited Goldman analyst Jerry Shen’s report on how the mass adoption cycle for AI glasses is just ahead, outlining the full supply chain of companies that make every component of these glasses (read here and here).

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Hamlet, William Shakespeare famously wrote, “To thine own self be true.”

The problem is when others want to present a different “truth” long after you are gone.

Shakespeare is under an unrelenting attack in the United Kingdom from trigger warnings to censoring his prose.

Now, Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust has announced that it will “de-colonise” the Bard.

In the name of creating “a more inclusive museum experience,” the Trust is moving away from Western perspectives to avoid the dangers of “white supremacy.”

A prior research project between the trust and Dr Helen Hopkins at the University of Birmingham raised concerns over just praising the writer. 

Even recognizing Shakespeare’s genius “benefits the ideology of white European supremacy.”

The new push at the Trust follows The Globe Theatre’s previous move to “decolonise” Shakespeare’s famous plays.

Again, while many of us denounce this type of revisionism, it appeals to this community of cultural overlords.

It is personally advancing for these academics and experts to seek to change or cancel such works.

The same voices are being heard in the United States. As we previously discussed, in a column in the School Library Journal, Minnesota librarian and journalist Amanda MacGregor questioned why teachers were even still exposing their students to this harmful influence: “Shakespeare’s works are full of problematic, outdated ideas, with plenty of misogyny, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism and misogynoir.”

Lorena German, National Council of Teachers of English Anti-Racism Committee chair and a co-founder of the Disrupt Texts forum, insisted “everything about the fact that he was a man of his time is problematic about his plays. We cannot teach Shakespeare responsibly and not disrupt the ways people are characterized and developed.”

It is time for the dwindling population of sane Brits to step forward and fight for their culture and heritage. These advocates have used academia and the media to attack the foundations of British culture. It is not enough to foster diversity in other areas, they must change and reframe how historical figures and works are presented.

They recognize this as a culture war, but have met little resistance. It is time, as the Bard himself wrote, to “Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.”

When challenging progressives to give an example of a socialized welfare state that actually works, they will invariably bring up Denmark with its extensive public subsidy programs.  However, the Dutch system only functions when the population is small and generally homogeneous (mostly European).  In the past decade, the far-left Dutch government under the Social Democrats has allowed over 1 million migrants to enter the country with a population of only 5 million.

The non-western population of Denmark is now 10% (or more), and a large percentage of this immigration is Muslim.  For such a tiny country, this kind of abrupt demographic change can be destabilizing.  The government was forced to respond with tougher restrictions on asylum and tighter controls on border. 

They have also instituted measures to prevent third world “no-go” zones – Third world immigrants have a tendency to pack into small areas and “tribalize” neighborhoods, making those areas into colonized enclaves.  The level of complaints from these people in the face of common sense immigration reforms is telling.  They see Europe as an open buffet; a place where they are entitled to feed until their buttons burst.  They cannot comprehend the idea that they could be limited in any way.     

The Dutch population does not feel that the restrictions imposed by Social Democrats are enough.  They want deportations. Critics argue that the party only decided to take the immigration issue seriously after growing pressure from the public, along with the threat of election defeat.  Their actions were too little too late and the Social Democrats were pummeled in the latest election.

Danish Prime Minister ​Mette Frederiksen on ‌Wednesday submitted her government’s ​resignation to ​the king after her ⁠three-party coalition ​suffered a crushing ​defeat in the general election, the royal ​palace said ​in a statement.  Parties are ‌set ⁠to launch potentially tough negotiations ​to ​determine ⁠whether the next ​government will ​be ⁠formed by Frederiksen or another ⁠party ​leader.

Socialist Democrats ran largely on geopolitical issues, including their handling of the Trump Administration’s attempted purchase of Greenland (Denmark still maintains extensive control over Greenland’s political and economic affairs). 

Frederiksen called the snap election in late February 2026 partly to capitalize on a temporary poll boost from her “firm stance” against Trump’s comments regarding Greenland. She also assumed her strong support for Ukraine and increased defense spending would win over the voters. However, her plan backfired.

Once the short campaign began, domestic “bread-and-butter” issues overwhelmingly dominated the agenda for the Social Democrats and most other parties.  They probably should have taken into account popular polls.  A recent Gallup poll in Denmark found that 54.5% of Danes are “completely in disagreement” or “in disagreement” with the statement that Islam is compatible with Danish values.

Only about 17.4% (3.3% “completely in agreement” + 14.1% “in agreement”) think it is compatible, with the rest neutral or unsure.  The same survey showed 33.3% of Danes view Muslim immigrants as a threat to the country.  The right-wing “Blue-Bloc” gained 8 seats, bringing their total to 77.  The right-wing bloc’s overall seat increase was driven mainly by the strong recovery of the Danish People’s Party, reflecting continued voter concern over immigration, integration, and welfare sustainability.  

The core issue of the Blue Bloc is deportations of incompatible migrant groups; a subject which progressive parties traditionally refuse to address, but one that is becoming increasingly important for the success of any political party in the west.  

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

If anyone still needed a concrete figure to illustrate the dramatic state of the German economy, the Federal Statistical Office has now delivered it. The country’s investment ratio is negative, as depreciation exceeds nominal investments. Slowly but surely, the lights are going out.

Public discourse in Germany often sounds monocaudal and lacks complexity. Regardless of which social conflicts, administrative difficulties, or economic issues are being debated, for the majority of Germans, the state is not the cause of many problems but the ultimate solution.

A majority of Germans regularly fall for the statist-arguing snake-oil salesmen of the major party cartel beyond the firewall. The solutions that Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his junta of green, red, and dark-red socialists apply to every problem arising from the long-term recession are simple and resonate with voters – as we have seen recently in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate.

To put it bluntly: more of the same medicine, more state intervention, more regulation, all intended to cover up the loss of control in the fundamental areas of our time – migration, the definition of our social system, and the organization of the economic framework.

It sounds so simple, socially warm, yet resentment-laden: higher taxes on the wealthy, squeezing heirs harder. Fundamentally, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are blamed for the energy crisis. Once these childish narratives are established, it’s eyes closed and full speed ahead on the path of green transformation, which has paralyzed the economy. Germany’s economy is running on wear and tear, consuming its own substance just to stay afloat.

This statist mindset, cultivated since reunification, comes at a cost. Economists call it “crowding-out,” which can be observed everywhere. Private-sector engagement is being crowded out by the NGO complex, green subsidy entrepreneurs, and all the incentive hunters who offer no real products or services on the market but are very adept at exploiting public funding.

Meanwhile, the real economy, the free private sector, is packing its bags. The widespread investment restraint of private industry spans all sectors. Whether in mechanical engineering, automotive, or chemicals, companies are retreating and increasingly investing abroad. In 2024, over €60 billion in net direct investment was withdrawn from Germany, down from €120 billion previously.

The data point released by the Federal Statistical Office on Tuesday is more than alarming. It proves that the situation has long passed the point of no return. This crisis is no longer avoidable. The statisticians in Wiesbaden reported the lowest net capital formation ratio since the chaos year of 1990: minus 0.23% of GDP. The figure shows that depreciation exceeded net investment – in other words, depreciation outstripped the renewal of the capital stock.

Germany’s infrastructure, building stock, and industrial capital are eroding over time and are not being maintained. It is clear that an economy unable to renew its capital stock in a market-conform, competitive way is falling behind. People are impoverishing, and society risks severe social upheavals.

It is baffling and evidence of deep-seated cognitive dissonance not to recognize the collapse of German industry for what it is: the dismantling of our prosperity. Since 2018, Germany’s industrial sector has lost about one-fifth of its production volume. This is not a normal recession – it is the fall as the table’s last-place finisher, potentially followed by the immediate insolvency of the entity.

Germany now survives on wear and tear, consuming its own substance while remaining silent to avoid confronting these threatening facts. The hospitality industry, a prime indicator of private household purchasing power, lost around four percent in real turnover last year and started this year at least two to three percent weaker. Households are holding on to their money.

The self-inflicted energy crisis, which now accelerates in public awareness through the Strait of Hormuz, has caused a shock. Yet it has evidently not been enough to produce political course corrections at the ballot box.

German statism has deeply embedded itself into the collective consciousness through the state education system, state-aligned media, and the constant barrage of green-socialist NGOs. This naive faith in the state is a deeply rooted, metapolitical anchor that cannot be easily uprooted.

In the Federal Republic, there is a real risk that society, in the coming years of crisis, will increasingly follow socialist charlatans. They present a painless therapy of simple wealth redistribution as a solution. It is as if a cancer patient, still with a chance of recovery, entrusted themselves to flower remedies, stubbornly refusing to confront the severity of the disease, its causes, and realistic treatment options.

Free media and truly independent academia are now called upon to counter this socio-political super-GAU – the return to complete socialist barbarism, which is becoming increasingly evident. Only a few media outlets, such as Tichys Einblick, are standing up against this decay.

The statist portion of commentary glorifies the nonsense fed into public discourse by pseudo-economists such as Marcel Fratscher of the German Institute for Economic Research. All of them, in one way or another, hang like puppets on the strings of state institutions and have no economic incentive to side with the libertarian renegades.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years 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.

Via zeptabot substack,

Introduction

The modern nation-state is not natural nor permanent. It’s a technological product of the industrial era’s logic of mass warfare, bureaucracy, and centralized taxation. That logic is breaking down. In a world of cyberspace, mobile capital, and digital commerce and geography, brute force lose much of their leverage. You cannot conquer the internet with tanks, nor can a government easily tax a truly digital wallet whose private keys are hidden in someone’s mind. The Information Revolution is a shift in the logic of power as fundamental as gunpowder was to medieval knighthood. Every institution built on yesterday’s logic of violence will either adapt or crumble. This was the original thesis of the 1997 book The Sovereign Individual (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). And in 2026—with the rise of China, the regional military conflicts now underway, and the polarization of politics both within nations and between them—that shift is no longer speculatory. It is existential.

What matters now is what kind of order will emerge from it. The battle is no longer between rival “-isms” competing for control of the same nation-state, but between two fundamentally different civilizational logics: an empowering future that facilitates progress and an authoritarian one that dooms humanity.

A civilization can survive poverty. It can survive corruption. It can survive decadence for a time. What it cannot survive indefinitely is the slow freezing of criticism, the politicization of truth, the administrative management of thought, and the suppression of the independent mind. If centralized authoritarian models become the dominant operating system of the twenty-first century, then the danger is that humanity becomes less capable of discovering what is true, building what is new, and expanding beyond its present limits. In other words, stagnation. And stagnation necessarily leads to extinction.

This manifesto therefore renews the sovereign individual thesis under harsher conditions. The survival argument is simple: decentralization is the only civilizational trajectory that does not end in extinction. The individual mandate follows. Do science. Build technology. Start or fund companies at the frontier—AI, DeFi, fintech, data science, space, neurotechnology, anything that compounds intelligence and autonomy.

For every unit of wealth created, disperse it: into offshore jurisdictions that compete for your presence rather than conscript you, and into cryptographic infrastructure that answers to mathematics rather than to ministers.

Sections I through IV establish the theory. Sections V through VIII show how to live it.

I. Progress Only Happens Where Criticism Is Free and Error Is Correctable

Human progress has a habitat.

Modern science became cumulative, self-correcting, and civilization-transforming within a moral and institutional ecology shaped by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment: criticism over dogma, experiment over inherited authority, open dispute over enforced orthodoxy, and a growing recognition that no claim is final simply because it is backed by rank or power (Deutsch, 2011). What mattered was a method that can be stated plainly as: reality must answer, error must be corrigible, and no authority may permanently close inquiry.

Decentralization is the political expression of that humility. It begins from the recognition that no ruler, committee, ministry, or expert class knows enough to centrally design the future. Discovery is distributed. Knowledge is local before it is general. Progress emerges through criticism, variation, risk, and recombination, not through administrative command (Deutsch, 1997, 2011).

Where thought is free, error can be exposed. Where error can be exposed, knowledge can compound. Where knowledge compounds, civilization advances.

Where criticism becomes dangerous, speech is narrowed, capital is trapped, and individuals are reduced to manageable units inside a bureaucratic machine, the range of possible futures contracts. Centralization misallocates resources. It narrows the imagination.

II. Every Decisive Breakthrough Has Come From Free Civilizations First

The United States achieved the first controlled fusion experiment in history to produce more fusion energy than the laser energy used to drive it at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility in December 2022 (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2022).

Europe’s Joint European Torus then set a record of 69 megajoules in its final 2023 deuterium-tritium campaign, announced in 2024 (UK Atomic Energy Authority, 2024).

China has simultaneously pressed forward with its own fusion program. Its Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST)—built on a tokamak architecture first conceptualized by Soviet physicists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm and further refined across Western laboratories—set a world plasma confinement record of 403 seconds in 2023, then broke it again with 1,066 seconds in January 2025 (Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2025). EAST itself is described by its own engineers as a testbed for ITER technologies. China is now constructing the China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR), a demonstration-scale plant expected to break ground by the late 2020s, explicitly designed as the next step after ITER, the Western-led international megaproject under construction in France. China’s flagship fusion facility is, by its own characterization, an implementation vehicle for a scientific framework established elsewhere.

Each of China’s fusion milestones is a record in plasma confinement duration—engineering feats of operational endurance within a device architecture invented and theorized outside China. The NIF’s December 2022 result was a foundational physics threshold: the first time in history that a fusion experiment produced more energy than the laser energy used to initiate it. China has not attempted that category of result.

The modern West’s greatest contribution was the creation of environments in which invention could become self-sustaining.

The atomic bomb emerged from the Manhattan Project in the United States, culminating in the Trinity test on July 16, 1945.

The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949—four years after Trinity. China followed in 1964, nineteen years behind.

The first full-scale thermonuclear device, Ivy Mike, was detonated by the United States on November 1, 1952. Russia followed on August 12, 1953. China on December 28, 1966.

The first practical transistor was invented at Bell Labs in New Jersey in December 1947.

The first programmable general-purpose electronic digital computer, ENIAC, was built in the United States during the Second World War and unveiled in 1946.

The Apple II in 1977 and the IBM PC in 1981—both products of the American free market—first transformed computing from a state and corporate instrument into a mass-market personal tool.

In quantum theory, David Deutsch, working in Britain, published the foundational paper on the universal quantum computer in 1985, establishing the modern theory of quantum computation.

The first cloud-accessible quantum processor was made online in 2016, and the first integrated commercial quantum system was unveiled in 2019, both by IBM in the United States.

China, on the other hand, launched the Micius quantum satellite in 2016 and achieved major quantum-communication and quantum-computational milestones by 2017, 2020, and 2021.

The record is consistent: authoritarian systems can mobilize labor, direct capital, and scale what already works with systematic, disciplined execution—but always within frameworks that open scientific civilization originated. As we can observe, “China is copying at terrifying speed everything the free world originates.” That strength is real. But it is downstream. What such systems cannot reliably reproduce is the civilizational ecology—tolerant of eccentricity, dissent, and unplanned combinations of ideas—from which those originals emerged. The decisive breakthroughs—first fission, first thermonuclear device, the transistor, the personal computer, net-energy fusion ignition—emerged first in civilizations that made criticism productive rather than obedient.

That inheritance can be lost. A civilization can live for a long time on imitation. But if every civilization becomes too centralized to permit genuine criticism, eventually there is nothing left to copy. When that happens, decline is inevitable, and eventually leads to extinction—as all resources available to the static world are exhausted.

III. The Free Market Is the Only System That Actually Discovers Solutions

Socialism mistakes compassion for intelligence and assumes that visible suffering is evidence that command must be superior to emergence.

The free market is superior because it is a discovery process. Prices encode information about supply and demand that no planner can fully aggregate. Profit and loss expose reality faster than administrative committees. Hayek’s Knowledge Problem overwhelms any centralized economic system: all actual knowledge is on the edges, in the hands of the people closest to the transaction. Decentralization harnesses that complexity; centralization will starve you to death.

Markets lift people out of poverty—by far the most effective mechanism in history for doing so. Even under totalitarian regimes, an incremental relaxation of state control over production and trade produces rapidly rising incomes.

William Nordhaus showed that innovators capture roughly two percent of the economic value created by their technology—the other ninety-eight percent flows to society as surplus. Technological innovation in a market system is inherently philanthropic. A static morality says: solve the suffering directly in front of you. A civilizational morality says: build the engines that make fewer people poor, sick, and trapped across generations.

Nassim Taleb’s framework reaches the same conclusion from a different direction. Decentralized systems grow on volatility, error, and disorder—they are antifragile. Centralized systems suppress volatility, accumulate hidden fragility, and eventually shatter. A market economy processes errors continuously through profit and loss, killing bad ideas cheaply and at small scale. A planned economy suppresses error signals until failures compound invisibly and collapse catastrophically. The Soviet collapse was a fragility event—the accumulated cost of suppressed error, finally clearing (Taleb, 2012). That is what a decentralized system does: it processes failure continuously and cheaply, so collapse never has to be total. The free market is that system.

IV. Humanity Is Doomed on One Planet—and a Multiplanetary Civilization Cannot Be Centrally Governed

Fact: Humanity is doomed unless it becomes multiplanetary.

Solve every resource problem. End every war. Cure every disease. Feed every child. The sun still expands into a red giant in roughly five billion years, incinerating the Earth and everything on it. No redistribution policy, no sustainability framework, no amount of earthly justice changes that sentence. The only exit from it is leaving. As Deutsch observed, our history, science, art, philosophy, and moral values are, from the cosmos’s vantage point, “tiny side effects of a supernova explosion a few billion years ago, which could be extinguished tomorrow by another such explosion”—unless intelligence spreads far enough to prevent it (Deutsch, 2011). Stephen Hawking stated the nearer-term version with characteristic bluntness: humanity has “no future if it doesn’t go into space” (Hawking, 2014, 2016).

The objection—how can anyone spend capital becoming multiplanetary when we have the poor still here in front of us—is a false dilemma. Injustice always exists. The decel doomers who make this argument often also believe humans on Earth will probably go extinct within a thousand years anyway—through war, environmental collapse, or some other catastrophe. There is no substantial difference between extinction in a thousand years and five billion due to the sun’s expansion. Either way, we have to deal with it. We need to be on our way to escape velocity.

Another fact: Space civilization is necessarily decentralized. NASA analyses show one-way communications delays to Mars can reach roughly 21 to 23 minutes, with further disruption and blackout periods (McBrayer et al., 2022; NASA, 2024a). That already makes management harder. The principle becomes far more severe as humanity moves outward.

Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light-years away—a round-trip exchange takes 8.6 years (NASA, 2018). Kepler-452b is 1,400 light-years away—a round-trip takes 2,800 years (NASA, 2015, 2025). Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away—communication crosses out of politics and into geological time (NASA, 2024b).

A civilization spread across stars cannot be governed like one compressed onto a single planet. Delayed feedback, local scarcity, environmental hostility, and divergent adaptation all destroy the fantasy of centralized control. Multiplanetary humanity decentralizes by physics as astronomical distance enforces autonomy.

V. Accumulating and Dispersing Wealth Away From Predatory States Is a Moral Imperative

Wealth is stored optionality—the capacity to migrate, fund research, defend speech, exit failing systems, and act without pleading for permission. Davidson and Rees-Mogg predicted that individuals would “achieve increasing autonomy over territorial nationstates through market mechanisms” (1997). Mobile capital is the mechanism.

Davidson and Rees-Mogg warned in 1997 that as wealth became more mobile, states would turn against their most productive citizens with increasing desperation: “like an angry farmer, the state will no doubt take desperate measures at first to tether and hobble its escaping herd. It will employ covert and even violent means to restrict access to liberating technologies” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). We are living that future right now.

In November 2020, the Chinese Government cancelled the Ant Group IPO overnight—what would have been the world’s largest, at a $37 billion valuation—after founder Jack Ma gave a speech mildly critical of financial regulators. Beijing’s regulatory crackdown that followed wiped more than a combined $1 trillion from China’s biggest tech companies. Alibaba was fined $2.8 billion; Didi, valued at $70 billion at its U.S. IPO, was forced to delist; the entrepreneurial business model that had driven China’s tech boom was, in the assessment of analysts, permanently extinguished. Ma himself disappeared from public view for months. The message was unambiguous: private wealth that grows too autonomous will be brought to heel. The state does not negotiate with capital it can still reach.

This is the coercive nature of the centralized nation-state in its full honesty. The accumulated capacity to relocate, fund research, exit failing institutions, and act without permission is precisely what Beijing’s model cannot tolerate.

We believe David Deutsch when he said that wealth is the set of all physical transformations that you are capable of bringing about. Accumulating that wealth and dispersing it into offshore jurisdictions and cryptographic cyberspace is therefore morally just. Every dollar removed from the reach of predatory institutions is a dollar withdrawn from the machine that kills the only process by which genuine knowledge grows. Left unchecked, it forecloses that growth. To starve that institution of capital is to fight for the survival of the species. Cryptographic infrastructure is the most powerful tool in this fight to date.

VI. Cryptography Is the Technical Instrument of Individual Sovereignty

Davidson and Rees-Mogg predicted in 1997 that cybermoney would become “the new money of the Information Age, replacing the paper money of Industrialism”—and that it would “substantially free you from the power of the state” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The mechanism they described was Hayek’s: competitive private currencies, freed from legal-tender requirements, would force issuers to preserve value or lose customers—eradicating inflation by market discipline alone. Physical offshore jurisdictions had long allowed the wealthy to escape predatory taxation. Cybermoney would complete what geography had only partially achieved: an economy with no territorial jurisdiction, where “cyberspace is the ultimate offshore jurisdiction” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The cows, as they put it, would have wings.

Bitcoin is that prediction realized.

Cryptocurrency altered a balance that had held for all of recorded history: for the first time, individuals could store value, communicate, and coordinate across borders in systems that do not require the permission of any institution to operate.

In the foreword to the 2020 reprint of The Sovereign Individual, Peter Thiel described the technology conflict of the Information Age as running on two poles: “Artificial Intelligence holds out the prospect of finally solving what economists call the ‘calculation problem’—AI could theoretically make it possible to centrally control an entire economy. It is no coincidence that AI is the favorite technology of the Communist Party of China. Strong cryptography, at the other pole, holds out the prospect of a decentralized and individualized world. If AI is communist, crypto is libertarian” (Thiel, 2020).

The reason Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin, kept his identity unknown is integral to Bitcoin’s history: had the creator been identified, “our too powerful central government would probably do some very unpleasant things to that person” (Thiel). Bitcoin’s founding anonymity was a design principle. An act of decentralized, individual liberty from the start.

Bitcoin’s implementation has been far from clean. Short-sighted cash-grabbers have hijacked the category and turned swaths of it into speculation and outright fraud. Governments and major institutions have moved to integrate cryptocurrency into regulated platforms rather than displace them—BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust accumulated over $91 billion in assets under management by 2025, making the world’s largest asset manager the second-largest known holder of Bitcoin, its ETF structure reintroducing the very centralized custody and intermediary dependence the protocol was designed to eliminate (Bitget Academy, 2025; TRM Labs, 2026). The subcultures that formed around crypto are often ideologically shallow, speculative, and corrosive to its founding purpose.

None of this refutes the underlying architecture. The potential of sovereign cybermoney remains infinitely worth pursuing because no better instrument for individual financial autonomy and exit optionality has been invented. The protocol itself is structurally resistant in ways its capture by institutions cannot undo. A Bitcoin transaction is a signed string of text. It can be transmitted by email, by radio, by any communications medium that exists. It does not require a Bitcoin node inside any particular jurisdiction. As one technical analysis put it: “a protocol cannot be blocked. Ports can be blocked but software quickly learns how to port-hop—see torrents for example. Impossible without shutting down all internet communications. If there’s a communications medium, there’s nothing stopping bitcoin blocks and transactions from being transferred over it” (Stack Exchange, n.d.). Gavin Andresen, one of Bitcoin’s earliest core developers, demonstrated the point at the MIT Bitcoin Expo by blinking a transaction in morse code. China cannot block Bitcoin. No government can. It can be built better, made to serve its true purpose more faithfully, and freed from the institutions that have tried to domesticate it. That is the work.

VII. Decentralization Is Not Inevitable—It Must Be Actively Fought For

Davidson and Rees-Mogg wrote in 1997 as if decentralization were a tide—inevitable, irresistible, beyond the capacity of any state to reverse. They were only partially correct. The Chinese Communist Party read the same trends and built a counter-architecture: a digital panopticon that captured the Information Age’s tools and turned them toward total surveillance and nationalist control. Populist movements across the democratic world are closing jurisdictional exits, weaponizing tax law, and criminalizing the financial privacy that sovereign individuals require. The technology arc bends toward decentralization. It can be bent back.

This is the existential update to the 1997 thesis. The sovereign individual is the force that determines which direction history moves. Centralization wins through atmosphere: caution, exhaustion, guilt, and managed decline. That outcome must be actively refused.

VIII. What You Must Do

Depending on your circumstances, each of the following points may or may not apply to you. The more you can check, the better.

1. Obtain additional passports. Reside primarily in a country other than the one from which you hold your first passport. Keep the bulk of your money in a third jurisdiction—preferably a tax haven. Never leave your money in any jurisdiction that claims the right to conscript you or your descendants (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

2. Travel widely. Select alternative residences in attractive locales where you will have right of entry in an emergency.

3. Domicile your businesses offshore where possible. Structure corporations as virtual entities—“bundles of contracting relations without any material reality” held through offshore trusts—to minimize political surface area (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

4. Hold sovereign assets. A meaningful share of wealth in Bitcoin or equivalent seizure-resistant, inflation-proof, borderless instruments—not as speculation, as infrastructure. Cybermoney is the offshore tax haven that fits in your mind. Aggressive governments will attempt to bar effective encryption and fail—just as the medieval Church failed to ban printing, the technology will retreat to wherever authority is weakest and resurface more subversively (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

5. Avoid debt. Pursue savings with urgency. Structure compensation flexibly. “Debt should be avoided; savings and cost reductions should be pursued with greater urgency” as entitlement programs collapse and deflation accompanies the reordering of power (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The sovereign individual does not depend on the system he is routing around.

6. Get equity. Invest in, co-found, or build companies, as salary is becoming less stable and trustworthy. “Jobs will increasingly become tasks or piece work rather than positions within an organization” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Hold equity, not just a role.

7. Play long-term, iterated games with long-term people. All returns in life—wealth, relationships, reputation—come from compound interest. Trust compounds. Knowledge compounds. The growing danger of crime and fraud, Davidson and Rees-Mogg observed, “will make morality and honor among associates more crucial and highly valued” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Pick people with high intelligence, high energy, and high integrity. Build relationships you can keep for decades.

8. Guard your mind. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto names the disposition required: “free thought, free speech, and free inquiry” and “an absolute rejection of resentment” (Manifesto, n.d./uploaded text). Do not let institutional credentialism or the political management of information corrupt unimpaired reasoning. “Thinking about the end of the current system is taboo,” Davidson and Rees-Mogg wrote—“you must transcend conventional thinking and conventional information sources” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Ideas are the primary form of wealth in the Information Age.

9. Get out early. Those who recognize systemic collapse and reposition before the nationalist reaction hardens are consistently better placed than those who wait for social consensus. The window for frictionless departure narrows as the crisis deepens. “The dangers of a nationalist reaction to the crisis of the nationstate make it important not to underestimate the scope for tyranny,” Davidson and Rees-Mogg warned (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

10. Refuse the moral vocabulary of stagnation. Wealth creation is not extraction. Jurisdictional optimization is not evasion. Ambition is not greed. Privacy is not criminality. Building technology is not exploitation. These framings exist to keep productive individuals legible, taxable, and stationary. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto identifies the source: a “mass demoralization campaign” run under names like sustainability, de-growth, stakeholder capitalism, and the precautionary principle (Manifesto, n.d./uploaded text). Reject every version of it.

11. Build foundational leverage. Skills that apply leverage to any domain: logic, computers, arithmetics, probability, statistics, and microeconomics—the tools that allow you to reason about systems, incentives, and price signals rather than just memorize facts. Add persuasion and communication, because selling—in the broadest sense of conveying ideas—is the other half of building. These are the foundations. Everything else compounds on top of them.

12. Build, or invest in, the technologies that widen human agency. AI systems that decentralize intelligence rather than concentrate it. DeFi protocols that remove institutional gatekeepers from finance. Cryptographic infrastructure that makes individual sovereignty technically enforceable. Fintech that routes around the rent-extracting intermediaries of the old banking stack. Every product that empowers the individual at the expense of the administrative machine is a contribution to the civilizational project this manifesto describes.

13. Build, or invest in, the technologies that extend human reach. Nuclear fusion—the only energy source capable of powering both a post-scarcity Earth and an interplanetary civilization. Neurotechnology that expands cognitive capacity and ultimately may permit the transport of mind beyond the biological substrate. Hibernation and long-duration life support systems that make deep space survivable. Cheaper launch, reusable propulsion, orbital manufacturing. These are the literal instruments of the transition from a single-planet species to a multiplanetary one. Andreessen’s challenge stands: “our forefathers built roads and trains, farms and factories, then the computer, the microchip, the smartphone”—the only way to honor that legacy is to build the next layer (Andreessen, 2020).

Every one of these imperatives serves the same end. The sovereign individual who holds seizure-resistant assets, operates transnationally, invests in the companies that widen human agency, and builds the frontier technologies is tending the decentralized ecology—of open inquiry, corrigible error, unimpeded conjecture, and free exchange—that David Deutsch identifies as the only habitat in which genuine progress has ever occurred. He is starving the institutions that would freeze that ecology. He is planting the seeds of a civilization capable of reaching the stars, rather than one that kills growth and shall live out its days in stagnation.

The stakes are high. It’s time to act.

The market barely had time to process news that alternative investing giant, Aresm had joined the private credit “gate parade” – where fund after multi-billion fund informed investors they would get only a fraction of their requested redemption from money invested in Software “not so perfectly money good” private credit loans – before finding out that the same Ares private credit fund, posted its steepest monthly loss on record in February, providing further evidence of the rapid decompression in the $1.8 trillion private credit market (which Goldman valiantly defended overnight, in what may prove very quickly to have been a futile endeavor).

The Ares Strategic Income Fund, a non-traded business development company launched in December 2022, lost 0.68% in February, according to Bloomberg calculations based on the fund’s regulatory filings.

February was the worst month for the broader leveraged loan market since September 2022, as the private credit shoes started to fall one after the other. Just this weekend we reported that “Blackstone’s Flagship Private Credit Fund, World’s Largest, Posts First Monthly Loss Since 2022.” And suddenly everyone is rushing to remark their fund from myth to something resembling a market (of course it will take them months to get there). 

Including a small loss in January, the Ares fund, which manages nearly $23 billion of assets, is down 0.7% so far this year.

The fund’s decline reflects the broader selloff in public debt markets, which Ares uses to assign prices to its assets, rather than losses on any specific investments, Bloomberg sources said, although if its software investments are even in the remotely same ballpark as other funds, watch out below.

Ares – aptly named after the ancient Greek god of war – officially launched ASIF on its wealth management platform and through investment advisers in April 2023 as part of a move to broaden its reach among individual investors (read: to get retail suckers in)..

As noted above, the Ares “performance issue” is not an isolated case. A similar fund managed by Blackstone also just recorded its worst monthly performance in over three years in February, which Blackstone attributed to wider spreads across public and private markets, as well as unrealized losses on individual names.

Both funds are still outperforming the leveraged loan market, which has delivered returns of -0.82% in February and -1.08% for the year through February, according to the S&P UBS Leveraged Loan Index. However, their outperrformance won’t last if the pressure is finally one to admit the truth about the rather sordid affair taking place with cash flows in a world of AI disruption and ahead of what may be a brutal stagflationary recession which could lead to default as high as 15% across the Private Credit space according to UBS. 

Meanwhile, as reported last night, amid mounting panic over the entire industry’s long-term viability which has led to a surge in individual investor redemptions from private credit, Ares followed in the footsteps of many of its rivals and decided to cap withdrawals from ASIF at 5% of the fund’s net assets, after investors asked to pull out 11.2%. In other words more than half of the redemption requests were gated. 

In a letter to investors announcing its decision, Ares pointed out the fund has delivered annualized returns of 10.6% since inception through the end of January and affirmed its dividend through June. Unfortunately, what investors were much more focused on is that the fund has pre-gated future redemptions as well, indicating it will only allow 5% redemptions max next quarter, when the cumulative “bank run” is already well over 10%.

Yet even now, greater fools are in abundance, and Blackstone’s attempt to repackage its loans as bonds in hopes of finding a new batch of gullible investors has worked: Bloomberg reports that not only did the world’s largest private credit fund successfully find enough investor demand to plug a $400 million hole, it even managed to upsize the new collateralized loan obligation deal, finding enough demand for the debt to boost its size by $50 million to $450 million from $400 million. 

The largest portion of the offering, rated AAA, was sold to investors at a premium of 1.28 percentage point over a floating interest-rate benchmark. That’s a similar risk premium to previous CLOs issued by BCRED. 

The increase in the size of the offering by the firm that shook down its employees a few weeks ago to fund the redemption shortfall from the very same fund, indicates that despite concerns about the risks in private credit, institutional investors are still happy to invest in deals backed by pools of those loans confident that a bottom has finally been found. 

Or maybe not.

According to former Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, the accumulation of unsold private assets on investors’ balance sheets is a warning that some may be overvalued — and a spark could trigger a widespread markdown 

“At some point there needs to be a forcing function or a reckoning that causes you to come to grips with what your balance sheet really is worth,” Blankfein said in a Bloomberg Television interview with Francine Lacqua.

The former Wall Street chief, who spent much of his career as a trader before leading Goldman during the financial crisis, when he was pitching subprime-backed RMBS deals to some investors while also pitching ways how to short those same subprime-backed RMBS to other investors (all of which culminated in a very theatrical congressional hearing), made his comments as the disruption caused by artificial intelligence and pockets of alleged fraud have caused jitters in private markets. The CEO also warned that the likelihood of a larger blowup has risen with the length of time since previous crises.

“The analogy I like to give is you accumulate tinder on the floor of the forest and eventually a spark will come,” Blankfein said. “But the longer between intervals where there’s a spark that sets it on fire, the more that accumulates.”

Maybe we should call what comes next a fire…sale. In which case, don’t worry Lloyd: it already started.

The former Goldman CEO has also voiced concerns about the growth of private credit in the portfolios of individual investors. “When you lose money for individual consumers — i.e. taxpayers and citizens — people in government get very, very upset,” he said earlier this month, sensing with delightful accuracy what comes next… 

* * * 3 MONTHS OF DIVERSE FOOD // USE CODE THANKYOU10 FOR 10% OFF