Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmericanGreatness.com,

Hamas was born and exists to kill Jews, seek the destruction of Israel, and, to some extent, overthrow or subvert pro-Western Arab governments. Period.

For those ends, it diverted billions of dollars from the people of Gaza to build a vast subterranean labyrinth of military headquarters and arsenals. It expropriated hospitals, mosques, and schools for use as tunnel entries and exits, using expendable civilian shields to protect its rich terrorist hierarchy. Hamas always counted on plenty of collateral damage to sway the Western left to become active enablers of its murderous causes—in a way, it is also stone silent on other “occupied land” and “refugees,” from the recent ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan and Nigeria to the long-standing illegal occupations of Northern Cyprus and swaths of the Congo.

Hamas was willing to execute its Palestinian Authority rivals, cancel all elections after its first and only victory, hold kangaroo death courts to murder dissidents, and steal hundreds of billions of dollars in Western and international relief. It has already violated the ceasefire, attacking and killing Israelis, and now claims it has “lost” the remains of Israeli hostages, whom it likely murdered (and thus does not want more physical evidence of their barbarity).

Hamas will never give up power, despite the fact that its ruling elite is all but wiped out, thousands of its foot soldiers are dead, and it is now loathed by most nations of the Middle East. The subtext of every negotiation over the future of Gaza is that almost every Arab regime privately wants the U.S. or Israel to eliminate Hamas. It is likely more popular at American college campuses, or in Dearborn, Michigan, and New York City—than in the Middle East.

Nonetheless, the remnants of Hamas are already in public view, in SS fashion, publicly executing any alleged critics or rivals.

And it hopes to be reinvigorated by the recent release of 1,700 convicted terrorists, most with Hamas ties and many flush with cash for their past killing of Jews.

Hamas’s current strategy?

It hopes first to crush any internal Gaza opposition by liquidating critics, particularly oppositional clans and tribes, before mounting terrorist operations against Israel.

It then expects that Iran and Hezbollah will similarly feign cooperation with moderate Arab regimes and the U.S. to “deescalate” and eventually seek “peace”—until the old ring of fire and its Iranian patronage are rebuilt, and once a Democrat administration in Washington returns. It counts on assistance from an insidious UN, expatriate Arabs and Muslims in the West, Western leftist groups, and suicidal Western governments.

For now, Hamas will limit most of its killing to Gazans who complain about the mass death it brought to Gaza by its murderous rampage against Israelis on October 7, or small groups of Israeli peacekeepers.

So, given that peace is impossible with Hamas in the negotiations, who or what is going to eradicate Hamas as it seeks to return to its accustomed killing and terrorism?

If it is allowed power in Gaza, either solely or as part of a coalition, then the entire “peace process” is doomed.

To grant it semi-legitimacy would be analogous to allowing the surviving Nazi apparat to participate in a postwar German democracy, or Tojo and his militarists to help rebuild Japan.

There are three entities who bear the responsibility to end Hamas under the new peace accords: the moderate Arab regimes of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, and perhaps Turkey, along with the U.S. and Israel. All of them wish Hamas to vanish as much as they fear doing so themselves. So while it is far-fetched that the three forces would act in concert to finish off Hamas, it is incumbent upon them not to prevent any of the others from crushing Hamas at its first sign of regrouping to doom the peace.

In practical terms, that reality likely means that Israel must finish off Hamas, with full U.S. support—and tacit Arab acquiescence. But key to the present ceasefire and possible peace is a comprehensive plan to anticipate Hamas’s return to terrorism.

• One, Hamas’s entire underground complex must be destroyed as a prerequisite for any rebuilding of Gaza. The tunnels should be blown up, collapsed, and filled with the rubble of the war Hamas precipitated.

• Two, before Hamas returns to its accustomed killing, it is also important that both Turkey and Qatar expel what’s left of its leadership. Qatar fears another Israeli strike on the Hamas terrorists residing in its territory. So it now seeks U.S. protection, given that all its enemies, neutrals, and friends are tired of its triple-dealing. The Trump administration is apparently offering Qatar a life raft with the status of a protectorate. But the Trump administration should first insist that the Qataris disown Hamas and bar the group from its borders. The same with Turkey, over which the Trump administration has some considerable leverage.

• Three, no Arab, Western, or UN aid money should be sent anywhere near Gaza without assurances that Hamas is barred from appropriating it.

• Four, anyone with Hamas ties, formal or informal, should be prohibited from entering the U.S. and the EU and their Western allies.

• Five, because Hamas has already been branded a terrorist organization for the past 28 years, U.S. campuses should finally be warned that student participation in pro-terrorist demonstrations championing Hamas would be equivalent to rapid expulsion. Businesses, NGOs, and fronts that empower Hamas should be warned that they will be debanked, fined, and prosecuted. In the West, Hamas should be further rebranded as a pariah no different from ISIS.

• Six, no sanctions should be lifted from Iran until the end of its nuclear program is verified, and it ceases all funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. The quickest way for the bankrupt theocracy to implode is to keep it under sanctions and embargoes while it shorts its own people in stealthy attempts to fund its terrorist tentacles—a suicidal trajectory that alone might lead the Iranian street or military to turn on the theocracy.

The chief obstacle to Phase II of the ceasefire and hostage exchange is the elimination of Hamas.

Otherwise, we are at a rare moment of opportunity in the Middle East, where the once unimaginable has become a reality.

Iran, for now, is broke, defenseless, humiliated, and discredited.

Russia has lost its Syrian client and any foothold in the Middle East, and is still trapped in its forever Ukraine War.

China has bet on the wrong Middle East horse.

Hezbollah is still shell-shocked and dismembered.

The equally untrustworthy Palestinian Authority nevertheless sees an opportunity finally to turn on its rival Hamas.

So there is a rare opportunity for the U.S., the Arabs, and Israel finally to forge a peace without the fear of foreign-funded, nihilist terrorism—but only the moment and solely if the last obstacle, the terrorists of October 7 who prompted the last two years of war and death, are finally disarmed, discredited, humiliated, and eliminated.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, compares countries by wealth inequality in 2024 using the Gini coefficient, a standard measure where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents maximum inequality.

The data for this graphic comes from the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025, which analyzes wealth levels and distribution across more than 50 markets.

Where Inequality Is Highest

Brazil, Russia, and South Africa top the list for wealth inequality, each posting Gini coefficients around the low 0.8s.

These scores imply a highly concentrated distribution of assets relative to the rest of the population. Several energy-rich economies—such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia—also rank high, reflecting significant concentrations of financial and real assets among upper tiers of wealth holders.

Where Wealth Is Most Evenly Shared

On the other end of the spectrum, Slovakia and Belgium post the lowest Gini readings in this dataset.

These countries tend to combine robust social safety nets, relatively high savings among households, and policy frameworks that diffuse asset ownership more broadly.

Global Context Since 2000

Globally, wealth equality has decreased slightly since 2000 (–0.4%). At the same time, UBS estimates that millionaire households account for nearly half of all personal wealth worldwide.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: The Countries With the Most Millionaires on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Via Remix News,

Dutch Minister of Asylum and Migration Policy and Minister of Foreign Affairs David van Weel says the continued influx of migrants will destroy the Netherlands. He also had some harsh words about the realities of globalization.

Van Weel believes that the global situation is uncertain, and even countries like the Netherlands, which are theoretically ready for major changes, must be careful. 

“The assumption that globalization will protect us from conflict has proven wrong. We are witnessing economic blackmail and armed clashes. People are worried. We must learn from this and protect ourselves. And we are already doing so, including at the EU level,” he told news outlet Rzeczpospolita, as cited by Do Rzeczy.

He then pointed directly at the EU mandate regarding migrants.

“For too long we have accepted an excessive influx of immigrants. If we do not stop this, society will explode,” he stated. 

Emphasizing the social toll this has taken, van Weel highlighted the ongoing housing crisis in the Netherlands:

“Today we have a very serious housing crisis. Houses are so expensive that immigrants have to stay in refugee centers. And at the same time, society does not want more such centers to be opened. And it is very negative that it is impossible to send back those who do not deserve asylum.”

Nevertheless, van Weel, a member of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) party, ruled out any further cooperation with Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV). 

The Netherlands will be holding its next general election on Oct. 29, and the VVD politician is lamenting the stance of many voters across Europe. 

“In many, almost all European countries, the political scene is very polarized today. The extremes dominate. That’s the will of the voters. And yet, we have to govern the country.” 

The VVD previously entered a coalition with the PVV, which van Weel says Wilders violated. 

“We have to try to build bridges, try to reach an agreement with the extreme parties. We made such an attempt with the PVV. But Wilders didn’t keep his end of the bargain. He broke the agreement. And yet, even if his party is weakened, it remains the largest in the polls. But we will not enter into a coalition with him again,” he said. 

Notably, van Weel is employing a tactic used by many mainstream centrist parties, speaking about the issues of immigration without taking any concerted action against the issue.

Wilders himself ended the coalition because the government was failing to take action on the issue of mass immigration. WIthout his party included in a future coalition, the issue is only expected to grow worse.

Read more here…

A classic saying among preparedness experts in the US is that America is capable of weathering many crises, but when the food stamps shut down all bets are off.  In other words, when the free stuff army loses their handouts, that’s when all hell breaks loose.

The US government spends over $100 billion on SNAP programs every year; the largest single food welfare project in the world.  It’s difficult to predict what an end to SNAP might look like. 

One can assume the worst and be ready for a “Walking Dead” disaster in which angry mobs run rampant.  Or, tensions might continue to simmer.  Many people might be forced to simply get a job, and the welfare subset could decide to adapt.  But they probably won’t.

Food banks offer short term relief, though, these programs can be easily overwhelmed in the event of a broad cancellation of EBT.  

In 2025 around 42 million people have tapped into federal SNAP benefits, which amounts to 12% of the population.  More than enough people to create chaos should they be politically weaponized to do so.  But what are the chances of food stamps actually being canceled? 

The longest federal shutdown in history occurred in 2018-2019.  It lasted 35 days and food stamps continued to remain available through the duration of the political standoff.  That said, around half of the staff of the USDA was on furlough which led to delays in new applications and renewals.  A shutdown would have to run for a substantial length of time beyond the record for SNAP benefits to completely vanish, right?

It really depends on Democrats.  A number of economists are warning that the nation’s largest “anti-hunger program” has a contingency fund of about $6 billion, but November benefits are expected to total around $8 billion. The USDA’s shutdown plan noted that funding is available in the event of a lapse, but if the current conditions hold, SNAP would ostensibly run out of cash in early November. 

BREAKING: Letters are being sent out from the Department of Agriculture directing states to pause EBT and SNAP benefits beginning in November due to the Government shutdown

The letter shows benefits will be paused

🚨 Democrats are about to cause millions to lose food assistance pic.twitter.com/AiqprI9jF9

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 16, 2025

At this time, the government shutdown has lasted 18 days, well below the record.  However, conditions for an extended shutdown have never been so numerous and the nation is quickly heading into the holiday season when the effects will be keenly felt. 

The Trump Administration is facing a rabidly hostile Democratic Party with no intention of compromise.  The Senate requires several of these Democrats to vote in favor of a funding package in order to secure a 60 member majority in tandem with Republicans, and this prospect is growing unlikely.  Keep in mind, Democrats have voted against temporary funding measures seven times. 

The crux of the conflict is over ACA benefits – Democrats demand that Trump continue subsidized health care for millions of illegal immigrants, who qualify for ACA as long as they declared asylum during the Biden Administration.  Trump and Republicans say no.  Democrats have spun a narrative that Trump is seeking to end benefits for millions of American citizens, but the reality is that conservatives want non-citizens removed from the rolls. 

Betting website Polymarket places the odds of the shutdown stretching into the middle of November at 38%, up from 10% a week ago.  Progressives have become even more unhinged than usual in the past year, making a diplomatic arrangement impossible.  Democrat party leaders and the establishment media act as truth filters, keeping left leaning people in the dark.  The world they see is astonishingly different from the world the rest of Americans see. 

Furthermore, Democrats may view a continuing shutdown as a useful crisis in their favor.  They have been successful in the past in scapegoating conservatives as the cause of nearly every budget impasse, even when Democrats were the clear culprit. 

Dems may want the shutdown to drag on, hoping that they can blame any negative consequences on the White House.  If Trump gives them an inch in negotiations, leftists will claim victory and paint the administration as weak.  If Trump refuses to bend, they will paint him as a monster who made little babies starve.   

That is to say, the odds of a food stamp collapse may be far higher than Polymarket currently predicts.        

Authored by Jan Jekielek and Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia millions of people treat as an authoritative source of information, is systemically biased against conservative, religious, and other points of view, according to the site’s co-founder, Larry Sanger.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and former philosophy professor, among stacks of reference books at a library in Columbus, Ohio, on March 26, 2007. Kiichiro Sato/AP Photo

Sanger, 57, who now heads the Knowledge Standards Foundation, believes Wikipedia can be salvaged either by a renewed emphasis on free speech within the organization or by a grassroots campaign to make diverse viewpoints heard.

Failing that, Sanger said, government intervention may be required to pierce the shell of anonymity that now protects Wikipedia’s editors from defamation lawsuits by public figures who believe the site portrays them unfairly.

In an Oct. 9 interview with Jan Jekielek, host of EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Sanger discussed Wikipedia’s derailing and what could get the site back on track.

Systemic Bias

Wikipedia, launched in 2001, was co-opted by a globalist, academic, secular progressive worldview in the early 2000s, Sanger said. He added that the viewpoint monopoly accelerated following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when many media outlets began to abandon the notion of impartiality.

Though the site is overseen by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia describes itself as a self-governing project and states “its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.”

Sanger said that eventually, the site’s original neutrality rules, which he authored, were rewritten to instead forbid “false balance.”

“Basically, it’s required now, even for the sake of neutrality, that they take a side when [they believe] one side is clearly wrong,” Sanger said. “Pretensions of objectivity are out the window.”

One way this is enforced is through a color-coded rating system that favors or bans certain sources, Sanger said.

“You simply may not cite as sources of Wikipedia articles anything that has been branded as right wing,” he said. “I don’t think that The Epoch Times, for example, is particularly right wing, but it is colored red on this list.”

Information from some “green” sources is taken as fact and repeated without attribution, Sanger said.

Sanger, who has long campaigned for a restoration of free speech and accountability on the platform, said many people continue to think of Wikipedia as neutral and accurate.

“Even now, people are still sort of waking up to the reality that Wikipedia does, on many pages … act as essentially propaganda,” he said.

As evidence, Sanger listed a host of public figures, including novelist Philip Roth, journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., and filmmaker Robby Starbuck, who complained to him that they were misrepresented on Wikipedia.

In 2022, Wikipedia deleted its page on U.S. Senate candidate Kathy Barnette, a Republican, saying she was not a notable person. The page was later restored.

Pennsylvania U.S. Senate Republican candidate Kathy Barnette speaks during a Republican leadership forum at Newtown Athletic Club in Newtown, Pa., on May 11, 2022. In 2022, Wikipedia deleted its page on Barnette, saying she was not a notable person. The page was later restored. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The same year, editors deleted an entry for Hunter Biden’s investment company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, saying it was not notable. An editor said keeping the page online could turn it into “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.” That editor didn’t elaborate or provide any evidence.

Sanger likens the intellectual takeover of Wikipedia’s content to the “long march through the institutions,” a communist tactic of taking over a society by gaining control of essential institutions, including media, education, and government.

“Wikipedia is one of the institutions that the left marched through,” Sanger said.

Wikipedia did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Lack of Transparency, Accountability

The way Wikipedia is organized creates a self-perpetuating cycle that Sanger described as an “irrational bureaucracy.”

He said the application of Wikipedia’s editorial rules has become a way to enforce ideological conformity and that some rules need to be revived and others abolished.

One problem is the platform’s policy of preferring secondary sources over primary or original sources. This is contrary to the approach of journalists and higher education institutions, who favor original sources, such as direct quotes from public figures, documents written by historical figures, and original research.

Wikipedia, by contrast, favors sources that have already interpreted original sources, such as magazines and newspapers.

“As a former academic, I find that to be absurd,” Sanger said.

He recalled an incident in which Roth told Sanger he asked Wikipedia to correct its page mentioning the origin story of a character in his book “The Human Stain.”

Though Roth told Wikipedia directly how he created the character, the site’s editors refused to update the page, preferring to rely on a speculative account published in The New York Times. Roth then wrote an article about the matter in The New Yorker, Sanger said, giving Wikipedia a secondary source for what the author had told them directly.

“There’s something really ridiculous about that,” Sanger said.

Novelist Philip Roth in 1967. Roth is among a list of public figures that Sanger mentioned who have complained to him that they have been misrepresented on Wikipedia. Bernard Gotfryd/Public Domain

The anonymity of the majority of Wikipedia’s 62 most influential editors perpetuates the problem, Sanger said, noting it creates a situation in which no one is held responsible for the potential harm the site’s content may cause.

“Eighty-five percent of them are anonymous. So you can’t sue them,” Sanger said.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields companies from lawsuits related to user-generated content, meaning the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be sued either.

Ideas for Reform

On his website, Sanger outlines a series of ideas for returning Wikipedia to its original stance on fairness and free speech. A handful of his ideas center on increasing transparency into site management, such as revealing who Wikipedia’s leaders are, allowing the public to rate articles, ending decision-making by consensus, and adopting a legislative process for determining editorial policy.

Wikipedia’s current policies effectively make Wikipedia insular and ideologically exclusive, according to Sanger, who believes determining policies in an open forum could expose the site to other viewpoints.

Sanger’s other suggestions focus on free speech, such as enabling competing articles on the same subject, abolishing source blacklists, reviving the original neutrality policy, and ending the indefinite blocking of some editors.

Sanger also calls on the site to repeal the “ignore all rules” policy, which he created in Wikipedia’s early days. The rule was intended to encourage editors who were nervous about amending articles to simply focus on the task at hand.

“That was since made into a rule that is used by insiders to exert control over the newbies. So it’s, again, entirely inverted,” Sanger said.

A computer screen shows Larry Sanger’s website on Oct. 16, 2025. Sanger said the way Wikipedia is organized creates a self-perpetuating cycle that he described as an “irrational bureaucracy.” Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

How Change Could Arise

More broadly, Sanger said change could come in one of three ways.

First, the Wikimedia Foundation could voluntarily end the ideological monopoly.

“Centrists and libertarians and Republicans and conservatives, religious people, religious Hindus and Jews and Christians, Falun Gong, they should all be able to participate,” Sanger said.

Failing that, Sanger said a public campaign seeking fairness might move the site to change.

“I’m going to set up a letter of protest,” Sanger said. “I’m going to try to circulate this to a lot of prominent people who have been wronged in various ways by Wikipedia.”

He invites others to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly to make their feelings known.

As a last resort, Sanger said Congress could intervene by creating an exception to Section 230 that would enable a site to be taken down if it published defamatory material. A precedent exists, according to Sanger, who cited a 2018 law that created a similar exception for websites used to organize human trafficking.

“Even if the people who run the website aren’t doing the human trafficking, if it’s being organized on the website, they can still be sued,” Sanger said.

“Wikipedia really does need some reform,” Sanger said.

Though he’s hopeful the site may adopt his proposals, he acknowledged it may not happen.

“They might find ways that are more palatable to them,” he added. “[If so,] I’d be all in favor of that.”

The inherent threat of socialist programs rests in the fact that they can be used by a political party or a politician as a means to bribe voters from certain demographics to support destructive policies in exchange for handouts.  The Democratic Party understood this well when they introduced “The Great Society” welfare programs under President  Lyndon B Johnson in the 1960s. 

The idea?  Primarily to secure the votes of minorities and people under the poverty line in the US for the Democrats for generations by offering taxpayer funded subsidies that would eventually make these groups dependent on the government for their very survival.  Specifically, the welfare system lured in black women and single mothers, offering increasing incentives per child as long as there was no father in the picture. 

This encouraged black women to have multiple children out of wedlock and increased their divorce rate from 17% in 1960 to 48% in 2024.  Single mother households in the black community skyrocketed from 20% in 1960 to 65% in 2024.  Compare this to the white community in the US, which has an 18% single mother rate. 

Economist Thomas Sowell cites the Great Society programs and endless welfare as more destructive to black Americans than any other factor in US history, including the legacy of slavery that progressive activists often rant about.

In the past decade, welfare privilege took a backseat to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts.  Black women received overwhelming special treatment in college admissions (until 2023 when the Supreme Court stepped in) as well as job applications.  Schools and corporations were given access to government subsidies in exchange for increasing their minority quotas.    

DEI also gave black women preferential access to the jobs market through a multitude of subsidies offered to corporations.  These included tax cuts through the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Affirmative Action.  Government programs, largely created by Democrats, funded a 103% jump in black female employment in white collar jobs from 2010 to 2024.    

The problem is, many of these women did not get those jobs based on ability, they got those jobs simply because of racial identity.  What happens when the government stops pumping cash into special privileges?  The result is a mass exodus of DEI workers because they no longer have any value for the companies that hired them.  It’s a catastrophe for women that relied on handouts for so long. 

When Uncle Sam is no longer your sugar daddy, what do you do?

Over 300,000 black women have reportedly lost their jobs since February and the ending of DEI initiatives is cited as the most likely cause.  The black female unemployment rate has spiked to nearly 7%. 

Black women (and single mothers in general) have also been hit hardest by cuts to SNAP benefits (EBT). 

The percentage of black households on SNAP benefits in 2024 was around 25% (compared to 8% of white households).  Approximately 1.3 million of these families are slated to lose benefits this quarter.  Many more will lose benefits if the government shutdown continues into November and the programs run out of money.

The change has caused a panic among recipients who complain that they are required to apply for or hold a job in order to get the benefits back.

Critics of DEI argue that the disruption of subsidies is a reckoning for black women and single mothers after at least 15 years of life on easy mode.  Democrats argue that DEI is similar to “reparations”; a transfer of wealth to make up for slavery and segregation.  Regardless of the supposed effects of historic “inequality”, a society cannot function based on “fairness”, because fairness is largely subjective. 

Only merit keeps the world running smoothly, and it would appear that the black female community is learning quickly that merit matters far more than skin color.

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) is reportedly considering reforms that would allow domestic banks to acquire and hold digital assets, including Bitcoin, for investment purposes. 

This would be a drastic move away from the conservative stance established in 2020, when local banks were barred from holding crypto due to concerns over volatility and financial stability.

Under the proposed framework, banks could trade digital assets similarly to stocks and government bonds, with specific safeguards designed to ensure their financial soundness. The FSA plans to develop risk management protocols to mitigate the potential impact of sudden price swings on banks’ balance sheets.

The reforms are expected to be discussed soon at a working group meeting of the Financial System Council, an advisory body to the Prime Minister. 

Officials are reportedly examining mechanisms that would allow banking groups to register as licensed cryptocurrency exchange operators. 

Back in 2020, Japan enforced strict crypto rules through amendments to the Payment Services Act (PSA) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). These laws established a comprehensive framework governing crypto asset service providers, custodial businesses, and derivatives trading. 

Japan as a safe crypto environment

By involving established banks, regulators hope to create a safer environment for crypto investment while expanding access to digital assets across Japan.

The timing of the proposed reforms comes as Japan faces significant economic challenges.

The country carries a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 240%, among the highest in the world, which has prompted policymakers to explore tools to manage financial pressures, including low interest rates and targeted regulation.

In this context, digital assets may offer investors alternative avenues for returns outside traditional financial systems, potentially boosting adoption.

Japan’s crypto market has grown rapidly in recent years. As of February 2025, over 12 million cryptocurrency accounts were registered in the country, representing a roughly 3.5-fold increase from five years prior. 

Major Japanese banks have already signaled their interest in expanding crypto services. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Mizuho Bank have collaborated to issue stablecoins pegged to both the Japanese yen and the U.S. dollar.

A great example of Japan’s booming crypto market comes from Metaplanet. Metaplanet has acquired and held Bitcoin as a treasury reserve while launching Bitcoin-backed financial products to generate income in Japan’s low-yield market. 

The company raises capital through equity and preferred shares, similar to Strategy, to fund its Bitcoin purchases. 

Authored by Dylan Baddour via Inside Climate News (emphasis ours),

Major oil companies are drilling in East Texas again, but not for oil. This time, they’re after lithium for batteries and other rare elements.

Chevron and Halliburton announced East Texas projects this summer. Exxon has acreage across the border in Arkansas. Smackover Lithium, a joint venture of a Norwegian oil giant and a Canadian miner, announced in late September the discovery of the most lithium-rich fluids ever reported in North America, measured deep beneath its Texas claims in a massive brine deposit called the Smackover Formation.

“It’s ripe for development,” said Jamie Liang, a former Wall Street banker and founder of Houston-based lithium startup TerraVolta, which is developing a lithium refinery on the Smackover with federal support. “There’s tremendous growth potential.”

Lithium mining is one of several mineral industries emerging in Texas as part of broad federal efforts to urgently establish American production of the materials required for advanced manufacturing, from batteries and solar cells to wind turbines, microchips and cruise missiles. 

Competition with China looms over this effort. For much of this year, the world’s two largest economies have been locked in trade tensions— and much of the ire is linked to minerals used in technology. This month, China announced new export controls on critical mineral products, including lithium battery components. President Trump, in social media posts, described China as “very hostile” and threatened to impose export controls on critical software and add 100 percent tariffs to Chinese imports. 

Near Texarkana, the chase for lithium is backed with robust federal support. Liang’s TerraVolta received $225 million from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2024 for its lithium refinery complex. This year the project was selected for fast-tracked permit review. 

It will pump up the naturally metallic super-salty fluids from the Smackover, extract lithium and other minerals and then inject the leftover liquids back underground. At least two other lithium refineries are planned in the area and companies have leased tens of thousands of acres for drilling. More will likely follow as long as lithium prices stay strong. 

“There’s going to be a very large-scale infrastructure buildout,” Liang said. “You’re going to be drilling wells. You’re going to need those service companies. You’ll need pipelines.”

Elsewhere in Texas, a mine is planned near El Paso for the rare metals used in magnets for electric motors. On the rural Gulf Coast, the Department of Defense has invested almost $300 million in a project that would process rare metals like samarium, used in jet engines, guided munitions and stealth technology. From Houston’s petrochemical complex to the Permian Basin, a flurry of startups, oil majors and mining giants intend to recover minerals from industrial waste like coal ash, discarded electronics, mine tailings and oilfield wastewater in hopes of accelerating U.S. mineral supplies. 

Presently, the United States produces a dribble of the raw materials. China broadly owns the global production lines, following decades of investment and securing a dominance that has raised national security concerns as well as financial risk. 

The United States has just one operating lithium mine, in Nevada, where a second mine with government backing expects to begin production in 2027. Only one lithium refinery operates in the country, on the Gulf Coast of Texas. 

“Our exposure to China is unacceptable,” said Douglas Wicks, a former program director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Energy Department. It raises threats that the outbreak of conflict could leave the United States cut off from essential supply chains.

That’s the biggest reason why federal agencies are pushing so hard to play catch-up and boost American mining, Wicks said. As geopolitical tensions squeeze the flow of globalized commerce, Washington hopes to challenge Beijing’s monopolies in a battle of extraction.

“I think American industry can outproduce them,” said Wicks, who retired this year. The United States has “the deposits to do this.”

However, the United States has to contend with China’s gargantuan economy where the state owns key industries and provides subsidies, preferential finance schemes and other market support. Still, Wicks said, the United States knows how to move quickly. Just consider the recent evolution of American oil and gas. Technical innovations and loosened environmental standards in the shale revolution turned the United States from the world’s largest importers of oil and gas to a major exporter in barely over a decade. Wicks believes the United States can transform again.

In 2023, under the Biden administration, the Pentagon was ordered to establish mineral supply chains independent of China. Since then, billions of dollars have flowed to mining and processing projects across the country, spurring a rush of prospectors and entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on federal grants. 

Wisk said, “Now there’s a big push in Texas to ask: ‘Is there something else under the ground other than oil and gas?” 

Tiny Concentrations, Big Mines

In the desert of far-west Texas, a company called Texas Mineral Resources Corp. (TMRC) had plans to dig for rare earth elements at a 950-acre Round Top Mountain site. The company won its first Defense Department contract in 2015. In January it reported a “breakthrough,” producing a sample of high-purity dysprosium, which is used in semiconductors and electric vehicle motors. .

These rare elements aren’t actually hard to find. They’re all over the world, but they exist in tiny concentrations that require a tremendous amount of effort to extract in significant volumes. The process also generates large waste streams.

TMRC had said it would crush up 20,000 tons of rock a day. The material then would soak for a month in pools of diluted acid and undergo a series of electromagnetic processes to separate and cull the much-desired minerals. According to TMRC, the rocks hold 15 rare earth elements and other metals including lithium, gallium, hafnium, zirconium and beryllium.

Some processed byproducts “are expected to show hazardous waste characteristics,” and “the waste may contain naturally occurring radioactive material,” according to a 2019 economic assessment by TMRC. It noted “potential impacts to water quality resulting from mine operations and the storage of mine waste.” The operations are located in Hudspeth County, home to about 3,400 people, according to the latest census. 

However, financial analysts have warned about TMRC’s viability, amid reports of a growing deficit and lack of revenue. In July, according to analyst reports, TMRC had a “severe liquidity crisis.” 

The Round Top site is not an anomaly and, as TMRC struggles, other miners could step in, according to Brent Elliot, a geologist with the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, the state’s official geological survey. There are “many Round Top-like igneous rocks in west Texas to explore,” he said, noting that a recent survey of the area “has shown some hot targets that I’ll go out and investigate.” 

Holiday O’Bryan, a 22-year-old PhD student at the University of Texas, plans a career in mining. At a recent conference in Austin on mineral industries, she pointed out that most mining related to new technologies occurs in faraway countries, which often have lower environmental standards and enforcement. America’s surging investment in extraction should be seen in context of the clean innovations it will support. Mining operations will change the landscape—particularly as the Trump administration cuts backs on regulations of federal land—and no one should be surprised by the compromises that the race for rare earths will demand, she said. 

“You have to have extraction for these technologies to work,” she said. “In the age of the green energy transition that doesn’t fly very well for someone who is trying to protect the environment.”

U.S. Mining Losses

Before 1990 the United States dominated the world’s mineral markets. But domestic production dropped that decade, in part, because of rising environmental protections at home and enticing low-cost foreign production possibilities. New industries and products emerging in the mid-2010s—smartphones and Tesla cars among them—prompted a re-think of the American economy and future needs. Mining had become a lost opportunity. 

“People started looking at what you actually need to be able to build things like electric vehicles,” said Michelle Michot Foss, fellow in energy, minerals and materials at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “We started realizing, oh my gosh, we don’t produce any of this stuff.”

In recent years, it became clear that China had invested in and developed a strategic market, she said. The first Trump administration, within its first year, assessed mineral production as a national security matter. 

A federal mandate was laid out in a 2017 Trump executive order, “A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.” In 2018, 35 minerals were designated “critical” for vulnerable supply chains and essential economic functions.

Federal funding for mineral industries expanded at pace during the Biden administration. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act injected billions of dollars into projects around the country. Notably, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act ordered the military to remove and replace Chinese-processed minerals from its processes within four years, sparking a race to rebuild complex supply chains.

Amid escalating trade tensions in 2024, China banned exports of several key minerals to the United States.

The second Trump Administration so far has allocated billions more dollars toward mineral industries, opened federal lands to mining exploration, ordered expedited permitting for certain projects and imposed tariffs on imports from more than 90 countries. China responded with export controls on 17 minerals used in military manufacturing. 

The Modern War Institute at West Point military academy has called that, “a shot across the bow of the U.S. defense industrial base.” 

Can America fill the gap? It won’t be easy, said Foss of Rice University. As the U.S. mining sector faded, so did its talent, expertise and a workforce pipeline. 

“Nobody knows anything about this,” Foss said. “Not even in the agencies themselves are there good metallurgists anymore… except for down in the bowels of USGS.”

The United States will have to develop more than mines to secure a position in global mineral markets. It needs midstream and downstream industries to process extractions—or the raw material will have to be shipped to China, which has a proficient processing capacity. 

Rare earth elements are critical components of the advanced magnets used in electrical motors and generators. For every megawatt of generating capacity, a wind turbine requires 180 kilograms of neodymium, 17 kg of dysprosium and 7 kg of terbium, according to a 2023 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at the Energy Department. 

Notably, the first large-scale lithium refinery in the United States is owned by Tesla, the electric car manufacturer, and located near Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Launched in December, Tesla’s plant imports ore from Canada’s only lithium mine for processing into battery-grade material. It will eventually use eight million gallons of water per day. That might be difficult given the water shortages there.

About 70 miles north of Tesla’s refinery, another rare earths processing plant, a joint project between an Australian miner, Lynas, and the Defense Department, is also planned. 

The Defense Department has invested $288 million since 2021 into Lynas Rare Earths Limited’s plans for a processor near the tiny town of Seadrift, on the shore of San Antonio Bay. If completed, the mining company would oversee the country’s first processor for elements such as samarium, used in ultra-high-temperature magnets for spacecraft, satellites, missile guidance systems, stealth aircraft and electronic warfare technologies. 

But there’s a hitch, again, tied to water issues. Lynas aims to discharge wastewater through an existing treatment system at a nearby Dow Chemical plant, according to a draft environmental impact statement dated November 2023. That same month, Texas’ environmental regulators issued a draft wastewater permit amendment for Dow, which would increase daily discharge limits at one of its outfalls from 17 million to 42 million gallons. 

The draft permit amendment did not mention Lynas or the reason for the sudden rise in daily discharges.. 

Diane Wilson, a 78-year-old environmental activist in Seadrift who has battled Dow for decades, filed a challenge to the permit amendment, questioning Dow’s need. Dow’s existing permit allows for about 80 harmful chemicals and metals in the wastewater.

To her surprise, Dow withdrew its application in February this year, shortly after state regulators recommended hearing Wilson’s request. 

“They obviously did not want us going to a hearing,” Wilson said about Dow and the mining company. “There is a real secret element here.”

Two months later, Lynas announced its project faced rising costs due to “wastewater challenges,” according to industry news reports. In August, its annual results statement noted “there is significant uncertainty as to whether the construction of the heavy rare earth processing facility at Seadrift, Texas will proceed and, if so, in what form.” 

That’s when Wilson said she surmised the Lynas mining project was behind the permit request. 

Lynas and Dow did not respond to a request for comment. 

Minerals from Waste 

In the heart of Houston’s industrial complex, another Australian company, Metallium, announced in August that it had leased a fully permitted site for a first-of-a-kind facility to recover minerals from industrial and electronic waste. 

Many critical minerals mined or refined in China ultimately end up in American landfills as discarded consumer electronics. Metallium aims to use flash heating technology developed at Rice University to haul in the abandoned material and extract an array of elements. The facility plans operations in 2026. 

Other companies are exploring extraction of critical minerals from old industrial waste including coal ash, mine tailing and the red mud residues buried over decades at alumina processing sites along the coast. One pilot project in San Antonio is extracting the mineral graphite from methane gas.

A small landscape of startups has also cropped up around the tremendous volumes of mineral-rich–and toxic–wastewater that comes up from oil wells.

“We can basically turn an oil well into a mini-mine,” said Jesse Evans, co-founder of a San Antonio-based startup, Maverick Metals. 

This year, Maverick began producing a proprietary chemical that is pumped at high pressure into new oil wells during fracking to dissolve metal-bearing rocks that rise to the surface in the brown frothy brine known as “produced water.” 

Maverick has processes, equipment and chemicals to extract metals from that wastewater. Most startups in this space focus on lithium, Evans said. But oilfield wastewater also contains trace amounts of other metals like platinum, palladium and gold that are profitable business, he said.

“What makes the lithium space really difficult is competing with China,” he said. 

Some Chinese companies are vertically integrated from mine to factory, including Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited, the world’s largest battery manufacturer. Chinese companies also face looser environmental restrictions, lower labor costs and little media scrutiny. Critically, China’s state-run economy can swiftly orchestrate production surges to lower prices and crush competition—and its state-backed companies can operate at a loss for months if not years. 

“We play by the rules of capitalism but a different set of rules applies to them,” said Marek Locmelis, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin who organizes an annual conference on critical minerals.

Lithium Hopes

Beyond the need for vast water supplies, the lithium pursuit also faces environmental and technical challenges. In Texas, the methods that companies plan to mine lithium haven’t yet been used commercially at scale anywhere in the world. 

While traditional hardrock mines require stone crushing and grinding, the Smackover Formation contains a metal-rich brine that allows for quicker extraction. 

“If you extract directly from a brine you basically skip the mineral processing step that is energy intensive,” Locmelis said.

Existing lithium brine operations—including Silver Peak in Nevada, the country’s only operating lithium mine—let fluids evaporate in ponds over 18 months to concentrate the minerals. But projects in Texas plan to use new methods that extract metals in several days. 

These methods require much less freshwater than hardrock or evaporation mines but will still draw significant volumes from shallow aquifers. While water in East Texas may seem abundant, the area affected by lithium production lacks groundwater conservation districts to manage or track withdrawals, said Vanessa Puig-Williams, Texas water program director at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. 

“There is no entity that is managing the production of the fresh groundwater,” she said. “That’s worrisome because there is no oversight.”

One Austin-based lithium startup, EnergyX, plans to use a process of “proprietary lithium-selective adsorbents, membranes, and extractants” which “enables faster, cleaner, and cost-efficient lithium extraction,” said founder Teague Egan.

The process uses about 6,600 gallons of freshwater per ton of lithium produced, Egan said, just a fraction of traditional evaporation methods.

In September, EnergyX announced a site in Texarkana for its demonstration plant, which it plans to operate early next year. The company, backed by automaker General Motors, owns 330 adjacent acres where it plans a commercial-scale refinery. Four units would come online by 2030 to achieve 50,000 tons per year of production. 

“Texas—and specifically the Smackover Region—is quickly emerging as one of the central hubs for the U.S. lithium sector,” Egan said. “In 10 years, we believe the Smackover Region will be the largest source of domestically produced lithium.” 

His vision hinges on high hopes for strong lithium prices although there is some uncertainty about that. 

A trade war with China could crush the American sector. Technical advancements are making smaller batteries with less lithium and could dampen demand. Rapid evolution of recycling technologies could also reduce the need for lithium production. Scientists are developing new designs for energy storage that could eventually see lithium batteries join CD players and USB sticks in the land of obsolescence. 

Egan is not dissuaded. He is betting on Northeast Texas “evolving into a full-fledged lithium hub, with upstream brine production integrated directly into downstream refining.”

“The region has the potential to become a global benchmark,” he said. “Just as the oil and gas industry shaped the region’s past, lithium can help define its future.”