Zerohedge

Elvis Chan, the FBI’s Assistant Special Agent in Charge in San Francisco, has reportedly been placed on “terminal leave” and has not accessed agency systems for over a month, according to independent journalist Breanna Morello.

Chan has faced scrutiny for his alleged role in coordinating with social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), to censor conservatives during the 2020 presidential election, which saw President Joe Biden defeat President Donald Trump. In September 2023, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) issued a subpoena compelling Chan to testify about the FBI’s interactions with tech companies, which Jordan described as potential “coercion and collusion” to censor speech, according to the New York Post.

Chan, who served as a liaison to companies like Facebook and Twitter through the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, did not attend a scheduled interview with the committee, prompting the subpoena, Jordan said, per the Post.

During a 2023 deposition with attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri, Chan denied having “internal knowledge” of efforts to suppress a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Morello notes:

The controversy surrounding Chan coincides with a 2023 ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the FBI, White House, U.S. Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA likely violated First Amendment rights by “coercing or significantly encouraging” social media platforms to censor content.

…

Chan, who identifies with “he/him” pronouns on his LinkedIn profile, still lists himself as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FBI’s San Francisco Bay office, where he has served for over 19 years.

The FBI has not commented on Morello’s report.

The allegations against Chan come amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to protect free speech. In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from labeling citizen speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Addressing the World Economic Forum, Trump said the order aimed to “safeguard free speech” and halt practices that “stifle the exchange of ideas.”

Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the closure of the Global Engagement Center, a State Department entity criticized for its role in monitoring online speech. In an op-ed published in The Federalist, Rubio cited a 2020 GEC report that flagged speculation about COVID-19’s origins, including theories about a Wuhan lab, as part of a “Russian disinformation” campaign.
“Finally, as we recommit this country to its core constitutional free speech principles at home, we will remain vigilant abroad — not just against threats from adversaries such as Communist China but also from less expected countries where authoritarian censorship is gradually strangling true freedom of speech,” Rubio added. “We are not afraid. At her birth, America was a lone beacon of freedom to the world. If necessary, we will happily be that lone beacon once again.“

Authored by Zoltan Vardai via CoinTelegraph.com,

The European Union is set to impose sweeping Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules that will ban privacy-preserving tokens and anonymous cryptocurrency accounts from 2027.

Under the new Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), credit institutions, financial institutions and crypto asset service providers (CASPs) will be prohibited from maintaining anonymous accounts or handling privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies, such as Monero and Zcash.

“Article 79 of the AMLR establishes strict prohibitions on anonymous accounts […]. Credit institutions, financial institutions, and crypto-asset service providers are prohibited from maintaining anonymous accounts,” according to the AML Handbook, published by European Crypto Initiative (EUCI).

The AML Handbook. Source: EUCI

The regulation is part of a broader AML framework that includes bank and payment accounts, passbooks and safe-deposit boxes, “crypto-asset accounts allowing anonymisation of transactions,” and “accounts using anonymity-enhancing coins.”

“The regulations (the AMLR, AMLD and AMLAR) are final, and what remains is the ‘fine print’ — aka the interpretation of some of the requirements through the so-called implementing and delegated acts,” according to Vyara Savova, senior policy lead at the EUCI.

She added that much of the implementation will come through so-called implementing and delegated acts, which are mostly handled by the European Banking Authority:

“This means that the EUCI is still actively working on these level two acts by providing feedback to the public consultations, as some of the implementation details are yet to be finalized.”

“However, the broader framework is final, so centralized crypto projects (CASPs under MiCA) need to keep it in mind when determining their internal processes and policies,” Savova said.

EU to increase oversight of crypto service providers

Under the new regulatory framework, CASPs operating in at least six member states will be under direct AML supervision.

In the initial stage, AMLA plans to select 40 entities, with at least one entity per member state, according to EUCI’s AML Handbook. The selection process is set to start on July 1, 2027.

AMLA will use “materiality thresholds” to ensure that only firms with “substantial operations presence in multiple jurisdictions are considered for direct supervision.”

The thresholds include a “minimum of 20,000 customers residing in the host member state,” or a total transaction volume of over 50 million euros ($56 million).

Other notable measures include mandatory customer due diligence on transactions above 1,000 euros ($1,100).

These updates come as the EU ramps up its regulatory oversight of the crypto industry, building on previous measures such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).

Global food prices surged to a two-year high in April, driven by U.S. tariff policy uncertainty that has injected turmoil across markets. The latest spike brings prices dangerously close to levels that helped fuel the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa between 2010 and 2012.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported on Friday that its Food Price Index—which tracks monthly changes in international prices of globally traded food commodities—averaged 128.3 points in April, up 1% from March and 7.6% from the same month last year.

The Food Price Index (FFPI) subcomponents, including cereals, meat, and dairy, mainly were up, while vegetable oils and sugar were down. 

Here’s a breakdown of how FFPI’s subcomponents performed in April:

• Cereals: Up 1.2% from March; wheat rose on tighter Russian exports, rice up on demand for fragrant varieties, maize higher due to low U.S. stocks.

• Meat: Up 3.2%; pig meat led gains, bovine prices firmed in Australia and Brazil on strong demand and limited supply.

• Dairy: Up 2.4%; butter hit an all-time high due to declining inventories in Europe, dairy index now 22.9% higher year-over-year.

• Vegetable Oils: Down 2.3%; palm oil fell with rising Southeast Asian output, soy and rapeseed oil up on strong demand, sunflower oil steady.

• Sugar: Down 3.5%; decline driven by fears of weakened demand from beverage and food sectors amid uncertain global economic outlook.

At 128.3, the FAO said FFPI moved to a two-year high on “currency fluctuations influencing price movements in world markets, while tariff policy adjustments raised market uncertainty.” 

Those prices are nearing 2010-12 Arab Spring levels…

Bloomberg quoted Monika Tothova, an economist at the FAO, as saying that short-term demand for some ag products has been visible amid the tariff war between President Trump and China.

The lingering question is whether the FFPI will continue rising amid tariff uncertainty—or if potential signaling around new trade talks between the U.S. and China suggests this price surge may be temporary. Still concerning is the level at which prices linger and how higher food prices can trigger social destabilization in weak countries.

Authored by Vincent Geloso via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

Last month, a video was trending on social media showing a Canadian woman explaining that she had a 13-month wait for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test to check for a brain tumor.

Canada healthcare is horrifying

“Today on how f*cked is Canadian healthcare: I need an MRI to see if I have a f*cking brain tumor. Go ahead guess when it is? Go ahead, guess. It’s in 2026”

“My MRI to see if I have a brain tumor is in 2026. It’s March 2025 right now”

“If you… pic.twitter.com/fX1S0MD9EP

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 23, 2025

On X, formerly known as Twitter, community notes popped up to say that the video was misleading. “Priority is decided by physicians, not the province,” wrote one commenter. Another noted that wait times did vary by province.

None of this, however, detracts from the core truths:

• Canadian health care is not free and it has two prices: 

  • the taxes Canadians pay for it

  • and the wait times that make Canadians pay in the form of service rationing.

Canada’s publicly provided health care system actually requires rationing in order to contain costs. Because services are offered at no monetary price, demand exceeds the available supply of doctors, equipment, and facilities. If the different provinces (which operate most health care services) wanted to meet the full demand, each would have to raise taxes significantly to fund services. To keep expenditures down (managing the imbalance from public provision) and thus taxes as well, the system relies on rationing through wait times rather than prices.

The rationing keeps many patients away from care facilities or encourages them to avoid dealing with minor but nevertheless problematic ailments. These costs are not visible in taxes paid for health care, but they are true costs that matter to people.

All this may sound like an economist forcing everything into the “econ box,” but the point has also been acknowledged by key architects of public health care systems themselves. Claude Castonguay, who served as Quebec’s Minister of Health during the expansion of publicly provided care, conceded as much in his self-laudatory autobiography. The reality, he explains, is that eliminating rationing would imply significantly higher costs—costs that politicians are generally unwilling to justify through the necessary tax increases. Multiple government reports also take this as an inseparable feature of public provision—even though they do not say it as candidly as I am saying it here.

To illustrate the magnitude of rationing (and the trend), one can examine the evolution of the median number of weeks between referral by a general practitioner and receipt of treatment from 1993 to 2024. In most provinces (except one), the median wait time in 1993 was less than 12 weeks. Today, all provinces are close or exceed 30 weeks. In two provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the median wait times exceed 69 weeks. For some procedures, such as neurosurgery, the wait time (for all provinces) exceeds 46 weeks.

Estimating the full cost of health care rationing is far from straightforward. The central challenge lies in balancing data reliability with the breadth of conditions considered. While some procedures and ailments are well documented, they represent only a subset of those subject to rationing. For many other conditions, data quality is limited or inconsistent, making comprehensive analysis difficult. As a result, most empirical studies focus narrowly on areas where measurement is more robust, leaving much of the total cost unaccounted for.

In 2008, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) released a study estimating the economic cost of wait times for four major procedures: total joint replacement, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and MRI scans. For the year 2007, the CMA estimated that the cost of waiting amounted to $14.8 billion (CAD). Relative to the size of the Canadian economy at the time, this represented approximately 1.3 percent of GDP. That study did not include, as one former president of the CMA noted, $4.4 billion in foregone government revenues resulting from reduced economic activity. It also does not include the cost of waiting times for new medications.

These procedures do not capture the full scope of delays in the system and only a few procedures—and the analysis focused only on an arbitrary definition of “excessive” wait times. In 2013, the Conference Board of Canada found that adding an extra two additional ailments boosted the cost from $14.8 billion to $20.1 billion.

Another study used a similar method, but considered the cost in terms of lost wages and leisure. It arrived at a figure, for 2023, of $10.6 billion or $8,730 per patient waiting.

One study attempted to estimate the cost of rationing in terms of lives lost. 

This may seem callous, but lives lost means lost productivity—a way to approximate the cost of wait times. One study found that one extra week of delay in the period between meeting with a GP and a surgical procedure increased death rates for female patients by 3 per 100,000 population. Given that the loss of a life is estimated at $6.5 million (CAD), this is not a negligible social cost in terms of mortality.

And all of this for what? One could argue that these wait times come with good care once obtained. That is not true either. 

Adjusting for the age of population, Canada ranks (out of 30):

• #28 in doctors

• #24 in care beds

• #25 in MRI units

• #26 in CT scanners

In one comparative study examining care outcomes—such as cancer treatment, patient safety, and procedural success—“Canada performed well on five indicators of clinical quality, but its results on the remaining six were rated as either average or poor.” This is despite, after again adjusting for population age structure, Canada ranking as the highest spender among a group of 30 comparable countries. The reality is that, whatever nuances one wishes to introduce—whether in good faith, pedantically, or simply to troll—the core message of the viral video remains accurate: Canadian health care works well for those who can afford to wait. To which I might add: wait very long.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has issued a dire warning to about Europe’s financial system, predicting that “many” of the continent’s banks are at risk of catastrophic collapse.

In an interview with the Less Noise More Signal podcast, Ardoino highlighted how stringent regulations and risky banking practices could precipitate a wave of failures, drawing parallels to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.

Ardoino’s concerns center on the European Union’s regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, which he argues exacerbates systemic risks rather than mitigating them. “The regulation was pushing us to keep 60% of our reserves in uninsured cash deposits in Europe,” the Tether CEO told host Pascal Hügli, describing a scenario where stablecoin issuers are forced to park billions in vulnerable bank accounts. “Imagine that you have 10 billion euros in market cap of your stablecoin in Europe. Then 60% needs to be kept in uninsured cash deposits in a bank. Uninsured cash deposit means that the bank insurance in Europe is only 100,000 euros. If you have 10 billion, 100,000 euros is like a spitting on a fire.”

Tether CEO @paoloardoino to @pahueg: “Many” European banks will “blow up” in the “next few years.” pic.twitter.com/HimWWYrbcU

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) May 1, 2025

The math, as Ardoino laid out, is grim. With 60% of a stablecoin’s reserves—equivalent to 6 billion euros in his example—held in uninsured deposits, banks’ fractional reserve practices amplify the risk. “They can lend out 90% of it to people that want to buy a house, that want to start a business, and all that,” he explained. “So 5.4 billion euros will be lent out by the bank and 600 million euros will be cut.” In the event of a 20% redemption demand, or 2 billion euros, Ardoino warned that banks would fall short of cash. “You go to the bank and you tell the bank, well, I want 2 billion euros. And the bank says, well, I only have 600 million euros.”

Ardoino predicts that the fallout would be catastrophic for stablecoin issuers. “As a stablecoin issuer, you go bankrupt. Not because of you, because of the bank,” the Tether CEO said. “So the bank goes bankrupt and you go—like, so is—I mean, and—and, oh, sure, the government will say, ah, told you so, stable coins are very dangerous.”

Ardoino’s critique extends to the broader European banking ecosystem, which he believes is ill-equipped to handle stablecoin operations. Major institutions like UBS, which he described as “systemic risk banks,” refuse to work with stablecoin issuers, forcing companies like Tether to rely on smaller, less stable financial institutions. “They need to use very small banks,” he said, warning that these institutions are particularly vulnerable. “Mark my words, as happened with Silicon Valley Bank that, by the way, almost killed them in 2033, they will face the same issues.”

“Four banks blew up last—in the last two years in the US,” he added. “Many banks will blow up in Europe in the many years—in the next few years.”

Ardoino’s comments come as Tether plans to launch a stablecoin product in the U.S. as soon as this year.

“We are just exporters of what we believe to be the best product the United States ever created — that is, the US dollar,” the Tether CEO said in an interview with CNBC.

As of April 25, Tether’s USDt solidifies its position as the leading stablecoin, securing a commanding 66% of the market, according to Cointelegraph. With a market capitalization hovering around $150 billion, per CoinGecko, USDt underscores its pivotal role in the crypto ecosystem. The Department of the Treasury’s Q1 2025 report projects a robust future for USD-pegged stablecoins, anticipating their combined market cap to soar to $2 trillion by 2028, signaling a transformative shift in digital finance, per the crypto-focus news outlet. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

That would greatly complicate Russia’s goal of demilitarizing Ukraine and thus imperil the peace talks…

The US and Ukraine finally signed their minerals deal after amending the draft agreement to remove a proposal for Ukraine to pay back past US military aid. A clause was added though whereby future US military aid, including technology and training, is considered part of the US’ contribution to their joint fund. More weapons packages will likely be in the cards since the US now has economic stakes in Ukraine and the value of the aid that it sends to defend them can be counted toward their joint fund.

Such an arrangement imbues the US with more policymaking flexibility than if it had conceded to Ukraine’s demand for concrete security guarantees. Authorizing another weapons package at this diplomatically delicate moment in the peace process could spook Russia and thus lead to the talks’ collapse. At the same time, however, this deal will likely lead to such packages being authorized after a ceasefire on the pretext of defending US investments and contributing to their joint fund.

What this means in practice is that Russia shouldn’t expect the US to fully dump Ukraine in any realistic scenario from here on out. Trump just rewarded Zelensky for this agreement by “inform[ing] Congress of [his] intention to green-light the export of defense-related products to Ukraine through direct commercial sales (DCS) of $50 million or more” according to the Kyiv Post citing unnamed diplomatic sources. This signals his newfound interest in resuming DCS in lieu of large-scale weapons packages.

Although this sum is insignificant compared to the over $1.6 billion in DCS authorized between 2015-2023 that the Kyiv Post reminded their audience about, and nowhere near what the US Government directly provided since 2022, it still importantly hints at his calculations. If Trump comes to believe that Zelensky is responsible for the peace talks’ collapse, then he might continue to withhold weapons packages as punishment, but he could still green-light more DCS deals.

Likewise, if he comes to believe that Putin is responsible for this, then he might authorize large-scale weapons packages as punishment. Either way, US arms will likely continue flowing into Ukraine due to their amended minerals deal, with the only variables being the quality, scale, pace, and terms of these weapons shipments. This greatly complicates Russia’s goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, especially seeing as how the US will struggle to stop Europe from arming Ukraine no matter how hard the US might try.

Accordingly, Russia might calculate that it’s better to concede to Ukraine’s partial demilitarization given the difficulty of achieving its full demilitarization, but the threat that this poses could be managed by demanding a demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region controlled by non-Western peacekeepers. Even if that proposal isn’t agreed to, Russia might still push for geographic limits on Ukraine’s deployment of certain weapons, which would require a UNSC-approved monitoring and enforcement mechanism to work.

So long as Trump is sincere about reaching a deal with Putin, then he should agree to this compromise or a variation thereof to keep the peace process alive, otherwise Putin might find it politically impossible to approve of any agreement that entails abandoning his goal to demilitarize Ukraine. That’s essentially what’s at stake now given that the amended terms of the US’ minerals deal with Ukraine greatly complicate Russia’s attainment of this objective that’s among the reasons for its special operation.

Via The Cradle

The Iranian Foreign Ministry affirmed on Friday that Tehran is committed to continuing the diplomatic process and negotiations regarding its nuclear program but that it “will not accept pressure and threats that violate international law and target the rights of the Iranian people.”

In a statement, the ministry condemned the continued illegal sanctions on Iran and the “pressure on its economic partners,” viewing them as “further evidence that the United States is not serious about adopting a diplomatic approach toward Iran.”

It also stressed that the continuation of these policies “will not change Iran’s firm positions in defending its legitimate rights,” and that “testing failed methods will only lead to a repetition of past failures.”

The Foreign Ministry went on to say that the Iranian negotiating delegation, during the first three rounds, attempted to “reach a fair agreement that guarantees the rights of the Iranian people, within the specified frameworks that allow Tehran to use peaceful nuclear energy.”

Tehran entered indirect negotiations with Washington following US President Donald Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to “resolve a fabricated crisis through diplomacy, based on good faith,” the statement added.

The Ministry’s statement came after Trump announced on Thursday that all purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemical products must stop, warning that any country or individual continuing such trade would face immediate secondary sanctions and be barred from doing business with the US.

“They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” he wrote on Truth Social on Thursday. Secondary sanctions are a powerful tool for the US because of the size of its economy.

Trump’s comments follow the postponement of the latest US talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that the fourth round of talks, which were due to take place in Rome on Saturday, had been rescheduled at the suggestion of the Sultanate of Oman for “logistical reasons.”

Sources speaking with Al Mayadeen explained that the postponement came “against the backdrop of the conflicting positions taken by the US administration regarding the talks, and Washington’s efforts to change the general framework for negotiations that had been previously agreed upon.”

In a related development, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted on Thursday that Iran must “walk away” from both uranium enrichment and the development of long-range missiles. 

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News. 

Iran has always been five years away from a nuclear weapon, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia https://t.co/ZSt8KzQ1iC

— Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) April 21, 2025

His comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome on Saturday, were postponed. 

An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.” Tehran has repeatedly affirmed that both its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable in the talks with the US.

A study by Gallup and Meta, “The Global State of Social Connections,” highlights just how prevalent loneliness is today. 

The survey, which interviewed people aged 15+ in 142 countries from June 2022 to February 2023, provides insight on the prevalence of loneliness in different age groups.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, globally, 25 percent of respondents between 15 and 18 years old feel “very lonely” or “fairly lonely.” 

This is even higher among those aged 19 to 29, with 27 percent of participants experiencing significant levels of loneliness. 

Respondents aged over 65 show a lower rate of loneliness, with only 17 percent reporting significant levels of isolation.

 

You will find more infographics at Statista

While the coronavirus pandemic increased the feeling of isolation for many people, this data suggests that loneliness continues to afflict a high number of people, even now lockdowns have passed. 

Loneliness can have serious health implications, with social isolation having been linked to an increased risk of several chronic diseases, such as diabetes and dementia, as well as mental health disorders including anxiety and depression.

Regarding the reasons why people may feel alone, the study clarifies that the data collected “contributes to explaining how people feel, but it is necessary to continue researching to find out why.”

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Reality is absolutely downstream from fiction. Did the creators of South Park predict the future in their 1999 comedy film? I think we’re all suddenly realizing that prognostication is easy – Simply imagine the most absurd scenario possible and eventually it’s going to come true because we’re living in clown world.

A war between Canada and the US opening up a portal to hell might be a bit of a stretch, but recent events lead me to believe that there are very real ingredients coming together that could trigger an active conflict with our neighbors to the north. Furthermore, these factors do NOT necessarily revolve around the trade war; the trade war is secondary.

There is something explosive going on under the surface of US/Canada relations and it could very well end with a US invasion to the north.

Most conservatives have viewed Trump’s rhetoric on Canada becoming the 51st state as a joke or a troll. At least, initially. Trump himself said it was a joke in the beginning, but now he thinks it might be a good idea. For today, lets imagine that this is a real agenda for the Trump Administration and consider the pros and cons.

The Cons

1) Trump looks like an “empire builder” which is widely considered poor form in the 21st Century. Most conservatives prefer that America stick to the American sphere and deal with American problems first before trying to change the geopolitical landscape.

2) An annexation of Canada would mean welcoming millions of Canadian leftists into the US as voting citizens. Who knows how this would affect the election demographics. It’s better to leave Canada as a steam valve so that leftist LEAVE the US and live there instead. America has been suffering under the weight of increasing progressive control, and now that we are finally turning the tide we don’t want to screw it up by importing a bunch of socialists from across the border.

3) On the global stage, the leftist establishment will claim that any US expansion is proof of a rising “fascist regime”. Not that most Americans really care what the rest of the world thinks, but we do still have to engage in diplomacy and alliances and trade to a point. The more the fascism narrative grows the harder it will be to engage with other countries on civil terms, fair or not fair.

The Pros

1) The US already pays for Canada’s defense anyway. Their proximity to us keeps them safe from invasion. Their defense budget is a tiny $27 billion, compared to America’s $997 billion. Their military is minuscule, with 63,000 active members and 22,000 reserve compared to America’s 2.86 million active duty troops and nearly 800,000 in reserve.

Canada has never needed an army because the US is their daddy. If Canada was annexed, the billions expended to keep the country safe would make more sense in our modern post-cold war era.

2) Though there is a risk of bringing millions of leftists into US citizenship if Canada became the 51st state, there is also a good chance most of those people would leave the country and move overseas. Frankly, the less leftists reside in North America, the better off we all will be, and taking Canada might run them all off to another part of the world.

3) Bringing Canada into the fold would make tariffs unnecessary, allow for more efficient resource development and help dig Canada out of the desperate economic slump they are currently trapped in. But an even more important factor is keeping Canada out of the hands of the globalists within the European Union, who have been courting the nation for years and seeking far closer political ties. In military strategy this is called “area denial”.

The War Scenario

This brings us to what I believe is a potential build-up to war between the US and our neighbor. The election of Mark Carney basically seals the deal.

The former central banker is a notorious high ranking member of the World Economic Forum and a devout globalist. He has called for a global digital currency system and supports the cashless society concept. He will no doubt increase tensions with the US on every front from trade to border controls and he WILL get friendly with governments that are hostile to America.

Upon his election win his first act was to attack the US and Trump, hinting at closer connections with the EU, not to mention refusing to negotiate on trade.

The EU issue, I believe, is a hot spark in a hay bale. As I’ve noted in recent articles, the EU is without any doubt going full blown authoritarian because they know they can. The vast majority of Europeans are disarmed making any rebellion much more difficult.

They are locking up political opponents and citizens that speak out. They are instituting a vast online censorship apparatus. They are importing millions of third world migrants that can be used as enforcers to keep the native population in line. They are openly talking about forced military conscription and are courting the idea of war with Russia.

European governments are the enemy of all free people. This can only lead to bloody conflict in the future.

By extension, Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020, has deep connections to the European elites and is loyal to the WEF. I would not be surprised if he immediately organizes a campaign for Canada to join the EU, or, creates policies which give the EU a geopolitical foothold in North America. The union’s treaty currently requires that a country be a geographical part of Europe before it can join. There are also a number of obstacles for inclusion, but as we have seen with Ukraine, the EU is happy to bend or change the rules if it suits them.

If membership is formed or a defense pact signed, the EU’s ongoing plan to create a “European Army” would then extend to Canada and put the US and Canada/Europe in a framework for escalation. Canada is working on such a defense deal with the EU right now.

It’s important to understand that this war would start out as economic and quickly become ideological. The progressives believe that populist, nationalist and conservative movements are a “threat to democracy” (which means they are a threat to the globalist order). They view American conservatives as the last obstacle to their “Great Reset” (an agenda which Carney avidly supports) and they will do everything in their power to remove that obstacle.

Carney WILL invite the EU to take a more active role in Canadian affairs and seek out their “protection”, economically as well as strategically. This would only exacerbate the diplomatic situation with the US and invite an American invasion.

The tariffs will become perpetual under Carney because it’s unlikely he will seek honest negotiations. Rather, he will seek to provoke. Around 76% of Canada’s exports are sold to the US and there is no realistic replacement for this market. Canada does not have the means to ship their goods overseas without raising prices exponentially. They would lose their competitive trade advantage. Around 30% of Canada’s GDP relies on export sales. Canada’s economy will be destroyed by long term tariffs.

This will inevitably lead to extra-economic retaliation; meaning, Canada will seek a means to hurt the US beyond reciprocal tariffs because tariffs will not help them. They will try to cut off oil exports to the US even though they have no alternative buyers. They will cut off the hydropower that they sell to states like New York, Minnesota and Michigan. They will try to interfere with US shipping lanes that cross into Canadian controlled waters (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway).

Again, this would elicit a war response from the US and victory would be swift. The existing Canadian government would have zero chance of staying in power.

For those that think a conflict with Canada sounds ridiculous, I would remind them that times are changing rapidly. What you might think of as the status quo for geopolitics today is over. As globalism breaks apart we are entering the wild west, so saddle up and sack up. There’s no room for normalcy bias anymore.

I predict that within the next two years there will be serious talk of portions of Canada (like Alberta) seceding over to the US as Carney crushes citizens with carbon taxation, increased censorship, continued mass immigration and gun bans. The new Primer Minister will make every effort to make Canada as draconian as Europe.

More progressive parts of Canada will pursue EU membership. And, the idea of war will not sound so crazy anymore. In fact, I suspect it will be a common debate around the average American and Canadian dinner table.

Again, with a globalist ghoul like Mark Carney in control of Canada the chances for heightened tensions are immense and unfortunately a large enough percentage of Canadians are gullible enough to follow his lead thinking they can win. Make no mistake, a war with the globalists is brewing and Canada is currently leaning globalist. This might very well mean a conflagration between Americans and Canadians in the near future.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

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

Thought leaders dubbed ChatGPT’s emergence – and subsequent generative AI proliferation – as the “fourth industrial age.”

Whether it will re-shape the economy entirely still remains to be seen. But there’s no denying that most people are familiar with, and are actively using AI.

What are they using it for?

This ranking tracks the most popular AI use cases as sourced from an analysis done by Marc Zao-Sanders for Harvard Business Review. He examined thousands of forum posts over the last year in a follow-up to his 2024 analysis.

The top 30 ranks from this report have been visualized in this graphic via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao. Labels have been edited lightly from the source for readability. 

This visualization is part of Visual Capitalist’s AI Week, sponsored by Terzo.

Here’s How Everyone is Using AI in 2025

People are using AI for support (both professional and personal) in 2025

In fact, the top three use cases (therapy, life organization, and finding purpose) all show that AI can assist humans in managing both emotions and their life.

2024	Use Case	Category	2025	Use Case	Category
1	Generate Ideas	Content Creation	1	Therapy & Companionship	Support
2	Therapy & Companionship	Support	2	Organize Life	Support
3	Specific Search	Research & Analysis	3	Find Purpose	Support
4	Edit text	Content Creation	4	Enhance Learning	Learning & Education
5	Explore Interests	Learning & Education	5	Generate Code	Technical Assistance
6	Fun & Nonsense	Creativity & Recreation	6	Generate Ideas	Content Creation
7	Troubleshoot	Technical Assistance	7	Fun & Nonsense	Creativity & Recreation
8	Enhance Learning	Learning & Education	8	Improve Code	Technical Assistance
9	Personalize Learning	Learning & Education	9	Creativity	Content Creation
10	General advice	Support	10	Healthy Living	Support
11	Draft emails	Content Creation	11	Interview Preparation	Learning & Education
12	Explainers	Learning & Education	12	Generate Images	Creativity & Recreation
13	Write & Edit Résumé	Support	13	Specific Search	Research & Analysis
14	Excel Formulas	Technical Assistance	14	Explainers	Learning & Education
15	Email Writing	Content Creation	15	Cooking Guidance	Creativity & Recreation
16	Evaluate Copy	Research & Analysis	16	Troubleshoot	Technical Assistance
17	Improve Decisions	Research & Analysis	17	Personalize Learning	Learning & Education
18	Translation	Technical Assistance	18	Boost Confidence	Support
19	Improve Code	Technical Assistance	19	Email Writing	Content Creation
20	Draft Document	Content Creation	20	Explain Legalese	Technical Assistance
21	Navigate Personal Disputes	Support	21	Child Entertainment	Creativity & Recreation
22	Summarize Content	Learning & Education	22	Corporate LLM	Support
23	Make a Complaint	Support	23	Student Essays	Learning & Education
24	Recommendations	Creativity & Recreation	24	Travel Itinerary	Support
25	Cooking Guidance	Creativity & Recreation	25	Childcare Help	Creativity & Recreation
26	Generate Appraisals	Content Creation	26	Medical Advice	Support
27	Creativity	Content Creation	27	Navigate Personal Disputes	Support
28	Medical Advice	Support	28	Generate Legal Document	Content Creation
29	Generate Legal Document	Content Creation	29	Conversations	Support
30	Fix Code	Technical Assistance	30	Anti-trolling	Content Creation

And aside from therapy, these were not the top uses in 2024: which revolved around idea generation and search.

Speaking of AI search, its popularity has fallen 10 spots. People are still interested in learning and making AI explain concepts or add context for them. But they’re not actively looking up information as much.

(This may also be because of Gemini’s integration in Google Search).

AI For Mental Health: Good or Bad?

With mental health support severely underfunded and the Loneliness Epidemic only continuing, it’s no surprise AI has emerged as a viable outlet for people to get some support in their life.

Experts say they can see its usefulness for teaching mindfulness or cognitive behavioral therapy to users.

However, the problem occurs when AI is used as a replacement for actual human relationships, preventing deeper human connections, in turn exacerbating loneliness.

Need More AI Insights? From our AI Week coverage, brought to you by Terzo, check out the Countries Accumulating the Most AI Patents and much more on the AI content hub and discover where the future of AI is going to emerge.