By Michael Every of Rabobank

The signal and “What’s that noise overhead?”

As discussions over who said what over Signal swirled among US politicians and journalists — on Signal — US consumer inflation expectations leaped to 6.2% y-o-y, which is hardly the anchored level the Fed keeps telling us is the signal they are receiving. Worse, prices paid in the Philly Fed services survey hit 36, the highest since November 2023, with a plunge in activity to -32.5, the lowest since May 2020 in Covid lockdown. In other words, sinking like an anchor. As is a lot else.

The US insists a Russia-Ukraine Black Sea ceasefire has been agreed, lifting restrictions on Russian agri and fertiliser exports in response, even as Russia says it first wants the full lifting of sanctions on its banks in SWIFT, which would require EU approval. If that’s forthcoming, where does it leave EU statecraft: buying Russian gas again, or –sarcasm– Russian weapons? If Europe says no, what if the US is even more incentivized to just leave and leave Europe the bill, as we saw from that Signal chat? Worse, reports also have US intel saying Russia and Ukraine may prefer a longer war to a quick settlement unsatisfying to either; the US also still sees a risk that Russia may resort to nuclear weapons. In which case, it’s on Europe again.

One point that didn’t get enough emphasis in the “make Europe pay for the Houthis” hoo-ha was that EU strategic autonomy is about more than just guns for Ukraine: it also needs a blue-water navy equal to its global trade ambitions. As we’d warned in our recent report on EU economic statecraft, even the 1.5% of GDP fiscal space for defence spending just agreed isn’t enough if geopolitics isn’t helpful, e.g., requiring an EU Army, Airforce, and Navy all at once.  

The US has this military statecraft power, and there’s been a bomber build-up in Diego Garcia, a base for past strikes on the Middle East, which looks more than needed for the Houthis. That doesn’t leave much to the imagination in terms of potential targets. What does is if this is the Ukraine-for-Iran ‘Noxin’ strategy or just a deliberate US signal to Tehran. Relatedly, local word is the US remains deadly serious about a Saudi-Israel peace deal, and soon, and has conveyed that re: time limits on new fighting in Gaza.

VP Vance is also going to visit a US military base in Greenland on Friday, following his wife’s tourism lead, which some local politicians call “aggressive.” Given Greenland’s small population and military, if enough White House staff visit, and stay, the power balance there would already be tipped. The signalling here should be clear too.  

In US economic statecraft, we are waiting to see if the 25% additional tariff on those who buy oil from Venezuela is implemented next week. It’s hard to prove this is happening given such oil is blended offshore to disguise its origins, but the customers are known. Indeed, the US can still choose to add 25% on China on top of the recent 10% + 10% and the pre-existing 25% in places because it says it’s buying Venezuelan oil – and the statecraft messages will be clear: 1) “China”; 2) Monroe Doctrine; 3) “Energy dominance.”

Meanwhile, more market attention is on US trade actions versus Canada and Mexico, despite our latest global strategy piece, “Fortress America”, arguing the headline-grabbing statements we are getting there could actually be about China if one thinks about strategically.

Also note the US just added around 70 Chinese entities to its export control blacklist to prevent them helping Chinese AI and military development.

Moreover, the White House nominated an ex-navy staunch advocate for rebuilding the US merchant marine to lead the US Maritime Administration MARAD, suggesting more impetus towards US shipbuilding despite industry complaints about the USTR’s proposed port fees on Chinese-built and operated ships, and quotas for carrying US exports on US-flagged, crewed, and built vessels. (More USTR feedback sessions will be held on that today.)

On things fiscal:

• President Trump signed an Executive Order enabling the Treasury to modernize its payments systems to reduce waste, fraud and abuse (and another making US election day just that). Naturally, both will end up in court.
• Australia’s budget has just seen pre-election tax cuts and populist spending increases, such as more energy rebates; and no sign of any economic statecraft telling us what its GDP is *for*, other than ‘trying to win an election’. Aussie monthly CPI today was slightly weaker than expected at 2.4% y-o-y headline and 2.7% trimmed mean, which despite being way above the Reserve Bank’s 2% target, and against an expansionary budget, and signs of rising global inflation, and looming tariffs, naturally had some cock-a-hoop at the idea of, you guessed it, “Rate cuts!”. After all, what is any national GDP for if not its property market?
• The UK will today have a gloomy Spring Budget Statement filled with austerity, because “the world has changed.” Yes – largely towards military Keynesianism elsewhere, if not in the UK for all the recent Churchillian narratives. (And, meanwhile, an apparently existential UK-EU defence agreement is being held by over French demands over fishing rights in UK waters. It smells fishy, but it’s apparently true.)

Summing things up, HSBC says “globalization as we knew it is over”, news to those thinking asset prices go as high as smoothly as they used.  Showing politics and markets as we knew them are certainly over too in some respects, the Trump family are offering a stablecoin backed by US Treasuries to go with their meme coins backed by their surname.

More seriously, the head of the US Council for Foreign Relations argues in Foreign Affairs that ‘China Has Already Remade the international System’:

“From 2009 to 2017, I served first as deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs and then as US trade representative. During that time, I consistently warned my Chinese counterparts that the benign international environment that had enabled China’s success would disappear unless Beijing modified its predatory economic policies. Instead, China largely maintained its course of action. If anything, it doubled down on its approach… Without any semblance of reciprocity, the relationship deteriorated… Washington may have forged the open, liberal rules-based order, but China has defined its next phase: protectionism, subsidization, restrictions on FDI, and industrial policy. To argue that the US must reassert its leadership to preserve the rules-based system it established is to miss the point. China’s nationalist state capitalism now dominates the international economic order. Washington is already living in Beijing’s world… Washington having failed to convince Beijing to change its predatory economic policies or to move forward with an alternative trading bloc to counterbalance China, was left with one option: the US had to become more like China.”

However, Branko Milanovic in this week’s ‘What comes after globalisation?’ qualifies as follows: in the US, the emerging statecraft pattern is domestic neoliberalism and external mercantilism, while in China the model is domestic mercantilism and external neoliberalism.

What is Europe’s proposed path then? So far, the signals aren’t clear even as the potential noises over its head are. Muddling through piecemeal style without a conceptual grand macro strategy, or a military one, is hardly ideal. Things may have to change much more than people think.

By Brandon Vigliarolo of The Register

After blowing deadlines and budgets for years, the Pentagon has finally pulled the plug on a troubled project to overhaul its outdated civilian HR IT systems.

Like many government projects before it, the US Defense Civilian Human Resources Management System (DCHRMS) promised big things when it was kicked off nearly a decade ago. According to a memo [PDF] signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth late last week, the program was intended to streamline a large portion of the DoD’s legacy HR IT systems, but it’s being axed after officials concluded pouring more funds into it would be “throwing more good taxpayer money after bad.”

DCHRMS started in 2018 with a planned development timeline of one year and a budget of $36 million, “but instead it’s taken eight years and is currently $280 million over budget – that’s 780 percent over budget,” Hegseth said in a video announcing the DCHRMS and other spending cuts. “We’re not doing that anymore.”

That’s not to say the DoD is giving up on modernizing its civilian HR systems – the memo noted that the Pentagon still wants a new solution, with Hegseth directing officials to develop a fresh plan within 60 days to achieve the project’s original goals.

While the headline item in the memo is the cancellation of DCHRMS, Hegseth ordered cuts to additional programs, contracts, and grants too.

The memo mentioned the cancellation of more than $360 million in grant programs “in areas of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and related social programs, climate change, social science, COVID-19 pandemic response” and the like, stating these efforts were not aligned with the DoD’s current priorities.

We’ve reached out to the Defense Department to get a more complete list of the programs being terminated, but Hegseth did single out a couple in the video. In particular, he pointed to a $6 million grant for decarbonizing the emissions from US Navy ships and a $9 million university grant to develop “equitable AI and machine learning models.”

“I need lethal machine learning models,” Hegseth said. “Not equitable machine learning models.” 

The memo also directed the cancellation of $30 million in contracts with Gartner and McKinsey for analysis products and what Hegseth described as “unused licenses” from “external consulting services.” The move echoes the ongoing scrutiny of federal consulting contracts, such as reviews of deals involving Accenture, IBM, and Deloitte.

In total, the memo states DoD is eliminating $580 million of government spending, though only $170 million will be able to be reallocated. 

Hegseth credited Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency for its ability to root out the canceled programs, which, in addition to the cuts announced at the end of last week, now totals $800 million “in wasteful spending canceled over the first few weeks” of the Pentagon’s DOGE review – but it won’t be the last. 

“Stay tuned,” Hegseth said. “We have a lot more coming.” 

Shortly after we published “23andMe Files for Bankruptcy, CEO Resigns — Fate of Americans’ DNA Data Now in Court-Supervised Sale,” the internet followed our lead on Monday morning and asked the same question. More importantly, 23andMe customers did too—frantically searching for how to delete their genetic data before a private equity firm scoops it up in a court-ordered sale.

Even MSM was forced to cover… 

New York’s Attorney General has urged 23andMe users to delete their data after the biotechnology testing company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, raising concerns about whether the company can protect customers. @AaronKatersky has more. https://t.co/lYieqb3Kuf pic.twitter.com/gfQI2LP7dK

— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) March 26, 2025

The popular DNA test kit company 23andMe has filed for bankruptcy and is looking for a buyer. And while the company has promised to continue protecting customer data amidst a possible sale, Wirecutter’s tech experts think you should delete your data now. https://t.co/0eGJya55fV pic.twitter.com/3VuoZfNpW2

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 25, 2025

23andMe has filed for bankruptcy and users are worried about the DNA data they gave to the company. WAPO tech journalist @geoffreyfowler came on TMZ Live to explain why you should delete your 23andMe accounts. pic.twitter.com/C7zrfmkDS5

— TMZ Live (@TMZLive) March 25, 2025

Bloomberg reported that a surge of 23andMe customers overwhelmed the genetic testing startup’s website on Monday, as many panicked and rushed to delete their genetic data profiles ahead of the court-ordered sale.

A 23andMe spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday that the website “experienced some issues and delays due to increased traffic” and that those problems have since been resolved.

Bloomberg spoke to one unfortunate 23andMe customer who could not delete her genetic data because of website disruptions: 

Ruthann Miller, 37, promptly received an email from 23andMe when she sought to reset her password to log in to her account, but didn’t receive a “verification code” from the company that would allow her to do so, she told Bloomberg News on Tuesday.

“I’ve been checking my email rather frequently,” Miller said. She’s checked her spam folder, too, but hasn’t received a code, she added.

The fear is that 23andMe’s Chapter 11 reorganization and court-ordered sale could place the gigantic pool of genetic data of millions of Americans into the hands of private equity firms that will figure out some way to monetize the data.

Abe Schwab, a philosophy professor at Purdue University Fort Wayne, who has studied US genomic privacy, told Bloomberg that federal laws prohibit companies from using genetic information for health insurance or employment.

Bloomberg noted that the Justice Department stated last year that the sale of genomic data “appears common and is currently virtually unregulated.”

On Monday, James O’Keefe of O’Keefe Media Group stoked maximum fears after releasing a video featuring an undercover journalist speaking with Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor at the US Department of the Treasury.

In the footage, Johnson suggests that 23andMe may have already sold off users’ genetic data: “Do not give your information to those people [23andMe]… they sell it to other people.”

Johnson explained: “There’s a clause in their contract, that basically says, like, we can give your information to our shareholders. So that they can do stuff. And all of their shareholders are, like pharmaceutical companies. But some of those pharmaceutical companies are based in other countries, and those pharmaceutical companies in other countries are like the property of, like the Ministry of Defense of Russia. Or, like, owned, by China.”

We have a U.S. Treasury Policy Advisor on tape telling us 23andMe has been sharing consumer data with “pharmaceutical companies,” including the “Ministry of Defense of Russia.”

Seems like they’ve got bigger issues than financial instability. https://t.co/WEHfnilncw pic.twitter.com/ROGQWCqvgW

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 24, 2025

Read the fine print. That’s the lesson of a lifetime.

California’s decline has grown so stark that even steadfast Democratic allies can no longer deny the truth: the state’s extreme left-wing policies have plunged it into chaos.

Aaron Levie, founder and CEO of Box, has joined the chorus of voices condemning the Democratic Party’s mismanagement of California, asserting that the party’s entire political apparatus demands a complete overhaul. Levie, who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, made the pointed remarks during an interview with co-founder and former Lattice CEO, Jack Altman.

“We live in California. It should be like the greatest place on Earth on every dimension. How do you beat this weather? You’ve completely created the atmosphere of every major tech company,” Levie explained. You have Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech. You have institutions and all the venture capital. You’re sitting on this incredible asset and then literally you can’t make it affordable to live here. That’s just insane.”

.@levie to @jaltma: Democrats Are To Blame For California’s ‘Insane’ Affordability Crisis

“We live in California. It should be like the greatest place on Earth on every dimension. How do you beat this weather? You’ve completely created the atmosphere of every major tech… pic.twitter.com/WYPgRAjCVt

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) March 25, 2025

“That’s totally insane and that is 100% due to the bureaucracy of our state. That’s basically a Democrat problem,” the Box CEO added. “Democrats can’t out message that with their policy views because their policy views are in many cases just the wrong policy views. You actually just have to build and you have to create an environment where you can build things.”

Levie concluded his critique by urging a “reset” for the Democrats.

California’s affordability crisis has reached a critical juncture, with soaring housing costs, stagnant wages, and rising living expenses pushing many residents to the brink.

In major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, median home prices have skyrocketed beyond $1 million—Redfin reports $1.35 million in San Francisco and $1.05 million in Los Angeles as of February 2025—far outpacing the national average of $371,200 according to Zillow, while rents consume a disproportionate share of income for working families, with the California Budget and Policy Center noting over 50% of renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing.

Coupled with high taxes (the Tax Foundation pegs California’s tax burden at 11.5% of income in 2025), steep utility rates (CPUC data shows electricity at 30 cents per kWh), and grocery prices outstripping inflation (a USDA report cites a 19% rise since 2020), the state has become a challenging place for all but the wealthiest to thrive.

This economic squeeze has fueled an exodus of middle- and low-income households—the U.S. Census Bureau recorded a net loss of 500,000 residents from 2020–2024—exacerbating labor shortages and straining local economies, as the Public Policy Institute of California highlights in its 2025 labor market analysis.

Levie’s sober talk about the Democrats aligns with growing voter dissatisfaction, as many within the party are unhappy with it’s direction since President Donald Trump’s reelection to the White House.

A plurality of voters (40%) believe the Democratic Party has no clear strategy for countering Trump, according to a survey by the liberal firm Blueprint, first reported by POLITICO. Another 24% said the party does have an ineffective plan.

If only Californians could convince their governor-turned-podcaster Gavin Newsom to do something about it. 

Authored by Sam Husseini via Substack,

Many thanks to Decensored News for this video of my questioning State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce yesterday, transcript below. Also just posted on X.

MUST SEE: Journalist @samhusseini presses US State Dept spokesperson Tammy Bruce about Israeli nukes, noting that JFK was pushing for inspections just before he was assassinated.

“Every president since has adopted Israel’s policy of refusing to acknowledge the existence of… pic.twitter.com/iLzy0az0Ev

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) March 25, 2025

This leads to many questions including: Was JFK killed, at least in part, over Israel’s nukes? If so, is the US government’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons effectively a continuation of the assassination plot?

Is Trump about America First? Or Israel First?

Doesn’t the pattern of imperial Israel getting its way regarding US government policy give additional evidence to the Israel aspect of the Kennedy assassinations?

See relevant pieces below.

Transcript:

BRUCE: And in the back, did I hear JFK? Because, interestingly, no one – we haven’t brought that up yet, so let’s give that a try here.

HUSSEINI: Here? Thank you.

BRUCE: Who was – who was – yeah.

HUSSEINI: Yeah.

BRUCE: JFK – so who keeps saying JFK?

HUSSEINI: Excellent, thank you.

BRUCE: In the back? All right, let’s do it.

HUSSEINI: JFK assassination’s obviously back in the news, and Jefferson Morley of JFK Facts was on Bill O’Reilly’s show analyzing some of the documents the Trump Administration has released. One of the revelations that he discussed was the fact that James Angleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief, had relied on Israelis as part of his intelligence-gathering operations, which included monitoring Oswald prior to the assassination.

As you may be aware, JFK in the summer of 1963 was deeply concerned with Israel acquiring nuclear weapons. He had sent a series of letters to Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, demanding that Israel allow inspectors. Ben Gurion resigned just when he was pressed on the issue by JFK. [JFK actually wrote the US’s “commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized.”]

BRUCE: All right, here – I’ve got something I can say to this. Do you want me to – do you want me to say something?

HUSSEINI: Yeah, yeah, I do – I do. I do. I’ve got a question for you.

BRUCE: All right.

HUSSEINI: Israel continued stalling inspections —

BRUCE: All right.

HUSSEINI: — and JFK was, of course, assassinated in November. Every president since has adopted Israel’s policy of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. My question to you is: Will this administration finally do so?

BRUCE: Boy, that was – we went from JFK from – and then to now Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

HUSSEINI: Will you acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons? [I wish I said “So you acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal?”]

BRUCE: No, I – I understand. I understand. What I – here’s what I will tell you about the JFK files, is —

HUSSEINI: I’m not asking about the JFK files.

BRUCE: There’s about 80 – excuse me, sir, I —

HUSSEINI: Please.

BRUCE: Thank you. About 80,000 pages of unredacted records related to the Kennedy assassination are currently being released – and I think they’ve finished at this point – by order of President Trump. We know that also, as I’ve been asked before, if there was any other material anywhere, this is it. This is all the material. It’s out and, again, unredacted. And so that’s good news. For my generation this is also good news. Certainly as you grow up with that kind of a dynamic that happened in this country, and now of course we’re happily – we happily can say that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is contributing to the nature of our nation and making a difference as well.

As far as the speculation and conspiracy theories about what was happening regarding that assassination and in the decades that followed, I have no comment for you, and nor am I going to speculate or comment on that.

HUSSEINI: So you will not acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons?

BRUCE: But I appreciate you being here and asking in that regard.

At the end, yes, sir, go ahead, please. Thank you.

HUSSEINI: No straight talk on Israel?

QUESTION: Thank you so much. On Bangladesh.

HUSSEINI: America First?!

BRUCE: Please – please. Let’s keep going. You’re —

Relevant pieces —

• The Ostrich Caucus
• Israel and the Kennedy Assassinations
• Is Israel the Deep State?
• State Dept: Israel in Charge of When We’ll Enforce US Bans on Foreign Aid Over Its Nuclear Weapons Program

Read the rest here…

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

China, the biggest buyer of oil from Venezuela, saw trade with Venezuela stall on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Monday 25% tariffs on the goods of any country buying Venezuelan oil.

Traders and refiners in China were caught off guard by Monday’s executive order and are waiting to see whether Beijing will have some direction on the matter, trading sources told Reuters.

China is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil and is estimated to be importing via various – often opaque – channels about 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil and fuel from Venezuela. A large share of the cargo is being rebranded as coming from Malaysia after trans-shipments in Asian waters.

Some Chinese buyers are now refraining from touching Venezuelan oil amid the latest uncertainty from the U.S. sanctions and trade policy.

“The worst thing in the oil market is uncertainty. We won’t dare touch the oil for now,” a senior executive at a regular Chinese trader of Venezuelan oil told Reuters.

On Monday, President Trump said in an executive order that “On or after April 2, 2025, a tariff of 25 percent may be imposed on all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties.”

The duties imposed by the order will be on top of all other tariffs currently in place.

The U.S. has a 20% tariff on Chinese imports.

“Any country that allows its companies to produce, extract, or export from Venezuela will be subject to new tariffs, and any companies will be subject to sanctions,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in comments on the executive order.

China appeared to dismiss the latest U.S. trade move.

Asked by a Reuters reporter at the regular press conference on Tuesday whether China would stop its oil purchases from Venezuela to comply with the order, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun said “The U.S. has long abused illegal unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction,” and grossly interfered in the internal affairs of other countries. China firmly opposes such actions.”

“Trade wars and tariff wars have no winners. Imposing additional tariffs will only inflict greater losses on American businesses and consumer,” Guo added.

Via Remix News,

The European Union could fine Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta (Facebook, Instagram) €1 billion or more for violating antitrust rules, in response to President Donald Trump’s sanctions against EU companies.

The European Commission (EC), the EU’s antitrust watchdog, is expected to conclude that Meta does not comply with the Digital Markets Act, sources close to the situation said.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) comes into force in 2023 and applies strict competition rules to Meta and six other internet moguls. The regulator’s focus is on data processing and business activity.

According to Post sources, the fines could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the minimum and as high as $1 billion after the EC’s decision. The EU investigation into the parent company of Facebook and Instagram is expected to be concluded this week, with the commission’s enforcement measures to be announced immediately, the people said.

According to the sources, EU officials are expected to call on Meta to comply with the rules and inform the company of what changes it needs to make to comply.

In addition, Apple is also in the EU commission’s crosshairs and could be fined this week or next week. Interestingly, earlier this month, Reuters reported that Apple and Meta were likely to get away with “modest fines” for violating the DMA. Theresa Ribera, the EU’s antitrust chief, had previously said that a decision on enforcement actions against both companies would be made in March. Now, that view appears to have changed.

In addition to Meta and Apple, the companies considered “gatekeepers” under the DMA include Google’s Alphabet, Amazon, Booking.com, TikTok’s ByteDance and Microsoft. These are the so-called Big Tech companies.

EU regulators and other supporters say the law prevents tech giants from using anti-competitive behavior, such as abusing their market power, to squeeze out smaller rivals.

The law allows Big Tech companies to be fined up to 10 percent of their global revenue for repeated violations, with the penalty going up to 20 percent of revenue.

The EU launched an investigation into Meta in June last year over its “pay or opt-in” model that restricted customers. In practice, this meant that users either paid to opt out of ads on Instagram and Facebook or were given them without asking. The problem was that those who didn’t pay also agreed to Meta using their data to target ads.

The EU commission said the company had failed to offer a third option. Meta argued that the EU commission had consistently used conditions to comply with the rule that went beyond the law.

In June of last year, Apple became the first company to be charged with violating the DMA, allegedly for preventing rival app developers from easily diverting customers to services outside the App Store. The EU last week again warned Apple that it must open up its iPhone operating system to app developers, just as it has done with Android. The problem with Google’s Alphabet is that it treats its in-house (i.e., its own) services “more favorably.”

Amidst sharp criticism from big tech, the law has increasingly drawn the ire of President Trump, who has vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs to level the playing field. Trump issued a memo last month warning that his administration would consider countermeasures.

President Trump will not allow foreign governments to siphon off America’s tax base for their own benefit, the White House said at the time.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has specifically asked EU officials for information on how the bloc plans to enforce the Digital Markets Act. Jordan noted that six of the seven “gatekeepers” covered by the law are American-owned.

“These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe,” Jordan said in his letter.

Read more here…

The idea of mining the Moon, once a concept of science fiction, is now approaching reality. According to Yury Borisov, head of Russia’s space agency Roscosmos, the race to explore and develop the Moon’s resources has begun.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, highlights the resources identified on the Moon’s surface, based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey as of 2022.

Key Resources on the Moon

The Moon is almost entirely covered by regolith, a layer of pulverized rock that could serve as a versatile construction material. It has potential applications in building bases, landing pads, and roads.

Additionally, NASA is developing technology to process at least 15 metric tons of ice from the lunar south pole by 2030, aiming to produce at least 10 metric tons of oxygen and 2 metric tons of hydrogen. Radar signals suggest the presence of ice in numerous polar craters and surrounding areas. These resources could be crucial for sustaining life and fueling rockets.

Hydrogen could also be used to generate water, though it is relatively scarce on the Moon. Extracting just one liter of water would require processing approximately 100 truckloads of regolith.

Among the Moon’s most abundant resources is solar energy. The technology to harness it is well-developed, with its first successful use on the lunar surface achieved in 1966 by the Soviet Union’s Luna 9 mission.

How Close Are We to Utilizing Lunar Resources?

While solar energy is readily available, technologies for extracting minerals and water from the Moon are still in development. However, progress is being made by various national space agencies, including NASA, Roscosmos, the European Space Agency, the China National Space Administration, the Israel Space Agency, and the Indian Space Research Organization. Several commercial ventures are also working to advance lunar resource extraction.

If you enjoyed this post, check out Visualized: Every Moon in the Solar System on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Swedish Ministry of Justice has introduced a new proposal to tighten citizenship requirements by raising the minimum income threshold for applicants.

Under the draft memorandum, individuals seeking Swedish citizenship would need to demonstrate an annual income equivalent to three income base amounts — translating to a gross monthly salary of approximately SEK 20,000 (approximately €1,830).

The government says the move is designed to reinforce the value of Swedish citizenship and ensure that applicants are firmly rooted in the labor market.

“Being granted Swedish citizenship is something you should feel proud of,” said Migration Minister Johan Forssell. 

“We are tightening the requirements to make it more meaningful and to ensure that those who become citizens have made an effort to become part of our society.”

This proposal is part of a broader integration strategy supported by the ruling coalition and the right-wing Sweden Democrats which keep the government in power, and aims to strengthen societal cohesion.

Forssell emphasized that the new requirement aligns with existing standards for self-sufficiency and is intended to motivate migrants to seek employment and settle in regions with better job opportunities.

The memorandum also outlines the government’s intention to exclude certain types of income from the annual calculation — though a final decision on that will follow a referral process. If passed, the new rules would take effect on June 1, 2026.

This development follows a series of tougher immigration and integration policies, including a sharp increase in the minimum wage requirement for work visas introduced in 2023. That policy was widely seen as a move to deter low-skilled migration while attracting highly qualified professionals.

Government data published in 2023 revealed that a disproportionate number of unemployed and benefit recipients in Sweden come from migrant backgrounds, leading to the government doubling down on policies aimed at reducing welfare dependency and promoting economic integration.

Figures provided in September of that year showed that 300,000 people in Sweden were registered as unemployed with the Swedish Public Employment Service.

“Just under half of those unemployed have non-European ancestry,” a government fact sheet stated, adding that “60 percent of all grant recipients in Sweden have foreign origins.”

Read more here…

Authored by Robert Aro via the MisesInstitute,

You wake up tomorrow, finding that in a vote you never thought possible, Ben Bernanke (D), former Chair of the Federal Reserve, has just been installed as President of the United States. Making matters worse, the election in 37 days will secure his position, possibly for the next five years. The other wrinkle, New York City, in addition to all swing states, needs to vote Republican in order to remove him.

…That’s basically what elections are like in Canada… 

Looking at the projections, which were highly inaccurate for the American election, Canada has 343 seats in Parliament to fill (electoral ridings).

CPC (Conservatives/blue) have 126 versus LPC (Liberals/red) having 185; it’s a First Past the Post (FPTP) system, so first to 172 votes takes all. Playing around with the numbers sheds light on the issue, i.e., it seems slanted towards one party. For example, even if the Conservatives win the four maritime provinces considered Liberal strongholds, and Manitoba (MB) in the middle, they’d still only have 162 votes and inevitably lose.

Testing various combinations, the election truly hinges on winning in at least one of the three biggest cities, Toronto, Montreal, and/or Vancouver. Toronto for example had 25 ridings last election.

Like the USA, major cities are notorious for voting “left,” as last election all votes in Toronto went to the Liberal Party.

Naturally, the riding lines rely on guesswork and the bias of its creators. Although the majority of Canadians couldn’t even tell you whose job this is, the calculation looks something like this:

The formula yields some interesting results. Looking at the voter results from 2021:

It’s not uncommon that the party who wins the popular vote manages to lose the election. In 2021 with almost 300,000 less votes than the Conservatives, the Liberals won, ruling over a country of 38 million people via 5.164 million voters.

The election process never seemed quite right in Canada. Through various X posts and the Joe Rogan interview where Elon Musk discusses his experience with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the election strategy becomes quite elucidating. In the interview, Elon says (1:05:30 min) that without massive entitlements to draw foreigners, Democrats would lose a massive number of voters. 

A recent headline from Reuters gives great context:

New York State’s top court on Thursday struck down a New York City law that would have permitted more than 800,000 legal non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.

Musk spoke of this again just last week to Ted Cruz, saying:

By using entitlements fraud, the Democrats have been able to attract and retain vast numbers of illegal immigrants.

Should humanity have a future, one can only imagine how this epoch in time is described, where elected officials happily flooded their countries with foreigners in an attempt to enshrine the vote in their favor.

The abstract from the 177-page UN report titled: Replacement Migration, from 2000, illustrates the idea. Based on predictions by the few, being an aging and declining population, requires:

… comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes [SIC], including those relating to international migration. Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States)…

Comparing population vs. GDP in Canada, this migration theory thus far has not proven itself accretive to the country’s GDP.

It’s actually worse when considering GDP includes government expenditures; the more money the government spends or wastes, the higher GDP becomes. 

So where does this leave the Conservatives? In 2025, they’d have to penetrate one of the largest three cities, like Toronto, since this small geographic area controls more voting power than several provinces combined.

See below for 2021 federal election result for Toronto and surrounding areas:

Importing voters is a costly endeavor, and on a long enough time-scale will unequivocally lead to cultural suicide as the native-born population is replaced. The First Nations of Canada have already been grossly displaced and culturally decimated over a few hundred years; we do not have to go through this process again in the 21st century.

One strategy to engage Torontonians could be direct honesty. Immigration is an economic issue among others. The reality is that resources are finite, and living in Canada is a privilege. This isn’t about singling out any group; it’s simply that unchecked mass immigration, exceeding our growth and GDP invariably leads to negative economic outcomes. It’s important to acknowledge that newcomers chose to leave their home country for a reason, and that our shared home in Canada is something we must work to protect.

While I typically focus on the Federal Reserve, this issue demands attention. Ultimately central banking plays a role in all government atrocities. In this regard, if governments relied solely on tax revenue, and couldn’t rely on a central bank, they’d be held to a higher standard. They wouldn’t be able to print money out of thin air to cover the cost of migration, especially if the purpose is to sway elections amidst a Government declared national housing crisis.