Month: March 2025

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Two Researchers from Italy and Scotland claim to have discovered a sprawling underground city beneath the pyramids in Egypt.

The Daily Mail reports that the researchers say they’ve found eight vertical cylinder-shaped structures extending more than 2,100 feet below the pyramid and more unknown structures 4,000 feet deeper.

Scientists say they’ve discovered ‘vast city’ UNDERNEATH Egypt’s Giza pyramids… but experts raise concerns https://t.co/SXcXAhmOa2

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) March 21, 2025

Corrado Malanga, from Italy’s University of Pisa, and Filippo Biondi with the University of Strathclyde in Scotland Say they used radar pulses to create high-resolution images deep into the ground beneath the three Pyramids and observed massive structures 10 times larger than the pyramids themselves.

To put this into perspective, the World Trade Center Freedom Tower is 541 meters high. These supposed shafts are 100m taller and there are eight of them.

They claim to have seen spiral structures on the sides of the shafts.

This more recent press release is from subsequent work by the same team – finding now that there are massive cylindrical wells beneath the pyramid claimed to extend 600 meters below the surface.

This is totally beyond anything conceived of as ‘engineering ability’ at the time pic.twitter.com/98TOLjlOQD

— Andrew Côté (@Andercot) March 20, 2025

Nicole Ciccolo, the project’s spokesperson stated that the cylinder structures were found underneath each of the three pyramids and appeared “to serve as access points to this underground system.”

The study has not been peer reviewed or published yet, and predictably already faces ridicule from archeologists and scientists who are, let’s say, less than open to the history of ancient world being turned upside down.

“The existence of vast chambers beneath the earth’s surface, comparable in size to the pyramids themselves, which have a remarkably strong correlation between the legendary Halls of Amenti,” Ciccolo further claimed.

“These new archaeological findings could redefine our understanding of the sacred topography of ancient Egypt, providing spatial coordinates for previously unknown and unexplored subterranean structures,” she added. 

2/ The scans reportedly reveal a series of interconnected, man-made formations that some believe could represent a lost urban complex beneath the Great Pyramid. (2/7) pic.twitter.com/BTq2ws5pvd

— Akili (@AkiliGoWild) March 22, 2025

4/ However, not everyone is convinced. Several experts are raising concerns over the interpretation of the data, cautioning that natural formations might be mistaken for man-made structures. (4/7) pic.twitter.com/4wbgvyBY4F

— Akili (@AkiliGoWild) March 22, 2025

Professor Lawrence Conyers, a radar expert at the University of Denver Asserts that it is not possible to scan that deep into the ground and while he concedes there may be tunnels and shafts under the pyramids dating back further than the ancient Egyptian civilisation, calling it a ‘city’ is a “huge exaggeration.”

Conyers further noted that the only way to prove the structures are really there would be “targeted excavations.”

“My take is that as long as authors are not making things up and that their basic methods are correct, their interpretations should be given a look by all who care about the site,” he explained.

“We can quibble about interpretations, and that is called science. But the basic methods need to be solid,” the professor added.

Another reason the claim has been rubbished is that Malanga is also a long time UFOlogist, studying sightings in Italy. 

He and Biondi previously published a separate peer-reviewed paper in October 2022 in the scientific journal Remote Sensing which claimed to have found hidden rooms and ramps inside Khafre, along with evidence of a thermal anomaly near the pyramid’s base.

The latest claims have fuelled more speculation that the pyramids were some sort of ancient power plants or giant energy transmitters.

Egypt is rising up getting our attention as the truth is coming to the surface. Massive structures under the Great Pyramids of Giza discovered in 2022 are just now being released publicly. Not tombs they are power plants. Egypt is Atlantis harnessing the energy and technology. pic.twitter.com/mRv69CsF5y

— Britt Lucid Life Vibes (@LucidLifeVibes) March 20, 2025

What if the Pyramids weren’t tombs at all… but geothermal power plants?

New data suggests structures 3 km beneath Khafre’s pyramid.

At that depth, Earth’s heat reaches over 100°C—hot enough to boil water into steam.

Now imagine:
•Twin vertical shafts.
•Ancient aquifers.… pic.twitter.com/USYKdm0UI9

— Duke Bissett (@DukeBissett) March 22, 2025

Chris Dunn theorized the pyramids were a power planthttps://t.co/VuiHvdf7Ai

— Patrick ✝️ (@patw3268) March 19, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has deployed a second Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer to support operations along the southern border as the Trump administration moves to strengthen hemispheric defense.

The US Navy wrote in a press release Saturday that USS Spruance, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, departed the Naval Base San Diego to support NORTHCOM’s “mission to restore territorial integrity at the U.S. southern border” and “reinforce the nation’s commitment to border security by enhancing maritime efforts and supporting interagency collaboration.” 

“USS Spruance’s deployment as part of NORTHCOM’s southern border mission brings additional capability and expands the geography of unique military capabilities working with the Department of Homeland Security,” Gen. Gregory Guillot, Commander of NORTHCOM, stated, adding, “With Spruance off the West Coast and USS Gravely in the Gulf of America, our maritime presence contributes to the all-domain, coordinated DOD response to the Presidential Executive Order and demonstrates our resolve to achieve operational control of the border.”

The move comes one week after NORTHCOM deployed the USS Gravely to the Gulf of America to operate its advanced radar and electronic warfare systems that allow the US military to track multiple drug cartels—now designated as foreign terrorist organizations—threats simultaneously, including aircraft, missiles, and surface vessels.

As we’ve been detailing, the US government has been conducting round after round of signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations near the US-Mexico border and over Mexico using spy planes and CIA drones… 

• USAF Spy Plane Runs SIGINT Operation Near Cabo As US Preps For Potential Cartel Fight

• USAF Spy Jet Flies Second SIGINT Operation On US Border With Focus On Narco Hub

• Border Czar “Expects” Kinetic Warfare Between US Troops & Mexican Drug Cartels

• US Designates Mexican Cartels As “Foreign Terrorists,” Signaling Financial Warfare Looms

• US P-3B Orion Spy Plane Spotted Over Mexico As SIGINT Ops Target Cartels

• CIA Reportedly Flying MQ-9 Spy Drones Over Mexico As Cartel Fight Nears

What you see above is part of the preliminary work to disrupt, dismantle, and eliminate the command and control structures of drug cartels that kill 100,000 American lives per year. 

Remember, the Chinese are heavily involved as well… 

Democrats have melted down over NORTHCOM’s move to ramp up hemispheric defense in the Trump era.

A broader theme for readers to understand: “Making Sense Of Hemispheric Defense In the Trump Era.”

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent study from researchers at the University of Kentucky has identified glycogen, a stored form of glucose, as a significant factor in the progression of lung adenocarcinoma, a particularly aggressive form of lung cancer.

High Fat and Sugar Diet Worsens Cancer

The findings, recently published in Nature Metabolism, suggest that heightened levels of glycogen are linked with increased lung adenocarcinoma tumor aggressiveness and poorer survival rates.

Researchers tested the effects of glycogen in mice and humans. Researchers increased glycogen levels in mice through dietary changes and gene modification. This dual approach allowed them to examine the effects of glycogen from different angles.

The mice were fed different types of diets to see how they affected their bodies. The diets included water (as a control), high-fructose corn syrup (a type of sugar), corn oil (a fat), and a mix of high-fructose corn syrup and corn oil.

While both corn oil and high-fructose corn syrup increased glycogen levels in the lungs, after two weeks, the mice receiving the mixed diet (high-fructose corn syrup + corn oil) had much higher glycogen levels and longer glycogen chains in their lungs. Both of which was linked to more aggressive lung tumors when the mice were induced to have lung adenocarcinoma.

These findings indicated that “higher glycogen promotes increased tumour progression,” the researchers wrote.

In parallel with the dietary models, the team also used genetic mouse models predisposed to accumulate glycogen in the lungs.

By disabling the enzyme responsible for glycogen production, they found that tumors grew much smaller and were less aggressive. This suggests that targeting glycogen production could be a potential strategy for treating lung adenocarcinoma.

“This integrated approach allows the discovery and validation of key metabolic drivers” necessary for improving treatments for lung adenocarcinoma, the researchers wrote. Through these experiments, they were able to demonstrate that disrupting glycogen production resulted in reduced tumor growth in these mice.

Glycogen Linked to Worse Prognosis in Humans

The study also involved a comprehensive cohort of 276 patients with lung adenocarcinoma, where spatial analysis revealed significant glycogen accumulation, particularly in tumor regions compared to surrounding healthy tissue and in other types of lung cancer.

The findings suggest that heightened levels of glycogen are linked with increased tumor aggressiveness and poorer survival rates among patients.

“These findings raise the possibilities of metabolic vulnerabilities associated with diet that should be intriguing avenues for future research, such as studying the impact of dietary patterns on lung cancer survival in human populations,” the study authors wrote.

High Glycemic Index Foods and Cancer Risk

People should be aware that regularly taking foods with a high glycemic index such as sugary drinks, white bread, processed snacks, and candies can do them more harm than just increasing blood sugar, food scientist Ken Tobby told The Epoch Times.

“Such foods usually bring about sharp increases in glucose and insulin levels,” he said. “This may, over time, result in hormonal imbalances and chronic inflammation in the body.” Chronic inflammation can contribute to cancer development by causing DNA damage, promoting cell growth and division, and creating an environment that favors tumor growth and metastasis.

When the body is constantly filled with insulin or insulin-like growth factors from intake of sugars, it will develop an environment where abnormal cell growth is more likely to happen, Tobby noted. “This is a major aspect of how cancers can develop.”

Tobby added that people should also be aware that blood sugar surges from eating these foods also contribute to oxidative stress. “This is a condition where harmful chemicals known as free radicals develop and attack healthy cells, triggering mutations which result in cancer.”

Limiting added sugar, if not avoiding it completely, is the best way to reduce cancer risk, Catherine Gervacio, registered dietitian and certified exercise nutrition coach, told The Epoch Times.

“We need more research to fully understand the relationship between high-GI foods and cancer,” she said. “So focus on a balanced diet to ensure you’re body is getting the right nutrients to reduce cancer risk.”

Chalk up another potential lowlight for “the science”…

While global population estimates sit around 8.2 billion, lead author Josias Láng-Ritter of Aalto University argues rural populations may be significantly undercounted, according to Yahoo News and Popular Mechanics.

“We were surprised to find that the actual population living in rural areas is much higher than the global population data indicates—depending on the dataset, rural populations have been underestimated by between 53 percent to 84 percent over the period studied,” he said in a press statement.

“The results are remarkable, as these datasets have been used in thousands of studies and extensively support decision-making, yet their accuracy has not been systematically evaluated.”

“When dams are built, large areas are flooded and people need to be relocated,” he continued.

“The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected. Unlike global population datasets, such local impact statements provide comprehensive, on-the-ground population counts that are not skewed by administrative boundaries. We then combined these with spatial information from satellite imagery.”

The article states that to test global population estimates, Láng-Ritter turned to his background in water management, analyzing data from 300 rural dam projects across 35 countries between 1975 and 2010. These figures offered a reliable benchmark to compare against estimates from groups like WorldPop, GRUMP, LandScan, and others included in the study.

The gap in population data likely comes from limited resources and the challenge of reaching remote rural areas, leading to undercounts that can affect how resources are distributed.

Still, not everyone is sold. Stuart Gietel-Basten of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology told New Scientist that while better rural data is welcome, the idea Earth holds billions more people is “extremely unlikely,” calling it a claim that defies decades of research.

Missing a few thousand is expected—but millions or billions would require far more proof to rewrite what we know about global population.

Authored by Martin Jay,

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think…

It used to be quite a common thing for people in polite society to say “imagine if women ran the world…we would certainly have less wars, right?”. Wrong. Women are running the world, well, at least the EU world. Three women to be precise. Ursula von der Leyen, EU commission boss, Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister and of course, last but not least, the EU’s own foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas. And what do all three of these women have in common, apart from having names which sound like sexually transmitted diseases? They all want war.

In line with spectacularly poor decision making right from the beginning of the Ukraine war, with probably Russian sanctions at the top of the list of stupid ideas, the EU has only one way forward in Ukraine. At whatever cost, it must come out at least not looking like it lost. The EU project is very much like an old man on a bike moving very slowly along a Dutch cyclists’ path. The fear from the elites in the EU is that if he falls off the bike, he will never get back on. The constant worry from top EU figures is that if the EU loses its momentum with press coverage and relevance in general, then a pause – any pause – could be devastating. This, you might be surprised to hear, is what EU officials themselves confided in me when I was based in the Belgian capital. Such an expression gives you an idea of how little confidence the EU has in itself as a worthy, stable long-term project.

And so the madness escalates now to such a point where we are actually looking at draining the wallets and purses of our own very poorest people to fund the ultimate EU sex toy going: an EU army.

The idea of an EU army is not new. As a notion, it’s as old as the hills as hard core federalists in Brussels have been arguing for the EU to have its own army for at least twenty years, but until now failed. The main reason for the idea not getting off the ground is that it created too many new, worrying political problems for the EU to wrangle with. In a nutshell, there was always a risk of a new political crisis that an EU army would create as member states argue over which country gets to run it, which nationality is its head, where it would be based and how politically would it be run, based on what decision making structure? (existing EU council, EU commission, member states themselves in a new set up via defence ministries). The concern was always that Germany would have too much power and then this would open an old wound about the country re-arming and rekindling memories of 1939. And we all know where that led.

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think. One of the reasons why it never got off the ground despite several serious attempts is that both the EU and member states are both confused and lack confidence about such a bold plan. They are literally concerned the idea could blow up in their faces. It’s what Americans call ‘blowback’. No, that’s nothing to do with the German foreign minister or even innuendo. It’s a military term for when a gun throws back energy in your face when it discharges and wounds whoever is holding the weapon.

For a long time the EU itself wanted the army to be very much controlled by Brussels but knew that the big guns would not wear that. And so, for them, like those in the European Commission it was about giving power away to a new body, a new layer of EU power, as though there aren’t enough institutions in Brussels which already sap away power from member states. The attitude was somewhat self-defeating. ‘If we (the commission) don’t create this entity, then Germany may well do it on their own anyway, and then we will lose the power’ is the mentality in Brussels. Indeed, Germany for at least a decade has been toying with the idea of having its own EU army, which creates a real headache for Brussels as it gives crucial power to one member state who many would argue already wields quite enough in the first place. The German parliament a few years ago leaked a document suggesting a new international army which Germany would run, which would be sent to troubled hotspots around the world and would be joined by a few allies who would play a supporting role. 

The problem with this is twofold.

One, a good number of Germans would be very unhappy about his and believe that Germany should never be allowed to return to its former military power of the 1930s. 

Secondly, under such a set-up, the EU would suffer considerably as it would throw a spotlight on its own weakness and underline how ineffective Brussels is, given that it has no military edge and that one member state has gone rogue with a geo-military policy. 

And so two scenarios present themselves: 

1. Germany being the main player in an EU army created and apparently run from Brussels – at least in appearance; or

2. Berlin running its own EU army which isn’t called an EU army but the rest of the world will consider it to be one. 

Neither of these scenarios really does the EU any favours.

But it would seem this is what these three ladies have their eye on.

Which is why they have put so much emphasis on 800 billion euros being found among EU member states contributions, so that it will have an EU badge and its centre of power would be Brussels. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK would be part of such a new, shiny EU pillar of NATO. And yet, it is Britain’s role, considered crucial, which will dilute the EU dream of it being entirely a Brussels wet dream project. In many ways, the reaction from these three women follows last year’s conference set up by Macron to create a coalition of EU member states, plus the UK, for big foreign policy ideas which would run parallel to the EU’s foreign thingy in Brussels. Defence spending and sending an EU army – which included the UK and Turkey – to places where the EU felt it could confidently flex its muscles was part of the whole plan.

For these three wicked witches to conjure up such a Macbethian plan to slay Macron and his big idea is worrying on a Shakespearian level, to say the least. It’s hard to say at the moment of writing whether it’s a real plan, as it’s already been blocked by the Netherlands, or it’s a plan on paper designed to impress Trump at a critical moment of negotiations. Does the EU believe that these talks could go on for months, perhaps even a year or more and so therefore to send a few hundred tanks to Kiev would only bolster both Zelenksy’s and the EU’s credibility as players when neither are actually even sitting on the reserves’ bench? Possibly. Have the tanks even been built? Nope.

One witty pundit for RT, a former anchor, opined quite amusingly about the role of the UK, suggesting that London’s ability to be a global military player is out of touch with reality.

“The British defense secretary claims that the need for a weapons shopping spree actually comes from a place of deep, inner hippie-ness” Rachel Marsden wrote. 

“The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace, John Healey said, probably itching to get back home to squeeze into some bell bottoms and smash the bongo drums”.

It reminded me of the 1980s satire puppet show in the UK called ‘Spitting Images’ which cruelly depicted Ronald Reagan muttering “We want peace…a piece of Nicaragua, a piece of El Salvador”.

And what’s wrong with bell bottoms?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

American soft power operations in this new era that’ll likely follow USAID and USAGM’s far-reaching reforms under Trump 2.0 will be more creative, appealing, and effective than all that came before.

Trump’s Executive Order last week eliminating the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the rationale of which was explained here as regards to stopping the state’s funding of ideologically radical propaganda, has been condemned by critics as a deathblow to American soft power. 

That body is responsible for Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, among several other foreign-focused outlets. 

It’s therefore understandable why some are concerned about the consequences.

The reality though is that their operations will probably resume after some time, albeit through what’ll likely be public-private partnerships abroad instead of purely state-run enterprises inside the US, and only with like-minded partners that share Trump 2.0’s populist-nationalist worldview. To elaborate, the $950 million that the USAGM requested for this year could be put to more effective use funding foreign experts, influencers, media, etc. who are from the places whose public the US wants to influence.

That was already happening through USAID, which is also being gutted and transformed as was explained here in early February, so it’ll either return to its original focus on physical development projects or divide information warfare responsibilities with whatever remains of USAGM. In any case, the point is that USAGM’s influence operations and USAID’s more direct meddling ones are expected to be less centralized than before and outsourced to a much greater degree as a result of Trump 2.0’s reforms.

They’ll also be optimized by replacing their ideologically radical agenda with his team’s much more pragmatic one, which resonates with a much wider audience, and relying a lot more on informed figures abroad who have a better sense of the local pulse than DC-based bureaucrats do. The end result is that American soft power will be less visibly connected to the US, more effectively fine-tuned for targeted audiences, and promoted by what can be described as many more “agents of influence” than before.

It’s this final point that captures the essence of Trump’s reforms. As a successful businessman, Trump appreciates the free market, ergo why he envisages liberating the so-called “marketplace of ideas” from what he considers to be USAID and USAGM’s overbearing influence. Instead of keeping that marketplace “unfree” by letting them continue dictating editorial preferences, he wants to reduce their roles mostly to funding and supervising like-minded foreign contractors who’ll then function as “agents of influence”.

The problem though is that their host countries could replicate the US’ FARA like Georgia recently did to identify which broadcasters, influencers, media, etc. are receiving foreign funding and then obligate them to inform their audience of this so that they can keep it in mind when consuming their content. Additional responsibilities could also be mandated to make such arrangements too onerous for many to agree to, such as regular and detailed reporting of their activities, thus hamstringing this plan.

It’s here where the Georgian precedent is one again relevant since this example shows how aggressively the US will push back against even friendly governments that use the US’ own FARA as the model for their respective foreign agents legislation. Of course, it goes without saying that such a reaction strongly suggests that America is indeed guilty of intending to clandestinely fund foreign figures for influencing their societies, but not all targeted governments are as strong as Georgia’s to resist this pressure.

Moreover, USAID and USAGM’s ties to the CIA can lead to their successors indirectly funneling money to these same figures to help them evade scrutiny if they live in countries that have their own version of FARA, which can occur via crowdfunding as well as ad revenue from US platforms like YouTube and X. Governments could legislate that crowdfunding sites restrict foreign donations for their nationals if they want to still operate in their jurisdiction, however, and produce the names of donors upon court order.

By contrast, cracking down on US funding that might be indirectly funneled to foreign figures by the CIA via YouTube and X ad revenue at USAID and/or USAGM’s behest is more difficult, with the only realistic option being to legally treat all influencers above a certain number of followers as foreign agents. Under those circumstances, the US might encourage its “agents of influence” to flee abroad on the pretext that this infringes on their freedoms, after which they’ll continue producing their content with impunity.

The aforesaid pretext might be sufficient for the targeted audience not to negatively judge the figures who leave to avoid complying with their government’s FARA-like legislation, thus ensuring that they still retain most of their supporters despite living abroad and therefore saving the influence operation. In that case, it wouldn’t matter if the authorities requested that YouTube or X ban those figures’ accounts from being accessed within their jurisdiction since their audience could then just use free VPNs instead.

By hook or by crook, the US’ “agents of influence” – some of whom might even operate as such without their knowledge if the CIA indirectly funnels funds to them via YouTube or X to financially incentivize them to continue creating their content – are expected to expand their audience and sway. American soft power operations in this new era that’ll likely follow USAID and USAGM’s far-reaching reforms under Trump 2.0 will therefore be more creative, appealing, and effective than all that came before.

A Bloomberg article dropped yesterday and it suggests that the new tariffs on April 2 are poised to be more targeted than originally feared; this is helping spark a risk on move across global markets, and push US futures about 0.7% higher late on Sunday. 

According to the report, “Trump is preparing a “Liberation Day” tariff announcement on April 2, unveiling so-called reciprocal tariffs he sees as retribution for tariffs and other barriers from other countries, including longtime US allies. While the announcement would remain a very significant expansion of US tariffs, it’s shaping up as more focused than the sprawling, fully global effort Trump has otherwise mused about, officials familiar with the matter say.

Trump will announce widespread reciprocal tariffs on nations or blocs but is set to exclude some, and — as of now — the administration is not planning separate, sectoral-specific tariffs to be unveiled at the same event, as Trump had once teased, officials said.”

So while we wait for more color about what Trump will unveil on Liberation Day, below we share the latest thoughts from Goldman trader John Flood on where we stand right now:

* * *

S&P clawed back 51bps last week for its first positive week since Valentine’s Day. After listening to Jay Powell on Wednesday I got the sense that the Fed Put is creeping back into the market. It is worth noting that we ended last week with Thursday (3/20) as the lightest trading volume session of the year (13.1b shares traded across all US exchanges) followed by Friday (3/21) as the highest (21.03b shares as a result of triple-witch). Friday’s MOC of +$8.1b to buy was outsized and hints at footprints of CTAs (short covers) and Pensions (+$30b Q end rebal getting started early).

I am watching for the S&P 500 to trend towards its 200dma of 5750 this week. It will be difficult to break significantly higher from the 200dma until we see longer duration investors step in as buyers (which is unlikely to happen before 4/2). Looking at aggregated 1-delta flow executed across our franchise last week the Long Only community finished with a net sell skew of -430bps (80th percentile of last 1 yr….AKA still not buyers).

This stat from our weekly PB data stood out to me: US-listed ETF shorts decreased -4%, the largest week/week covering in nearly 4 months, led by covering in Small Cap Equity, Large Cap Equity, Corporate Bond, and Sector ETFs.

Much has been made of US Fundamental L/S Gross Leverage remaining stubbornly high (204% …82rd percentile on 1 yr look back and 96th on 5 year). However, Net leverage has moved SHARPLY lower (49%….2yr low and 8th percentile on 5 yr look back). Aggregate Long/Short ratio – the ratio of longs over shorts held US Fundamental L/S (in MV terms) – has fallen to the lowest level in more than 5 years (see “Sentiment Will Swing Day-To-Day Until Investors Clear The April 2 Tariff Hurdle“)

Our PB data shows HFs as sellers of international equities: both European and Chinese equities saw risk unwinds in the past month, led by long sales, suggesting HFs have been taking profits after the sharp price outperformance in those markets. China (onshore and offshore combined) was the most notionally net bought market globally on the Prime book thru mid-February but is now modestly net sold YTD.

Last week HFs also net sold European equities for the 2nd consecutive week, driven entirely by short sales, primarily in Single Stocks. The region has now been net sold in 4 of the last 5 weeks and is net sold on a YTD basis. Gross/Net allocations to European equities now stand at 18.3% / 21.6% of total Prime book exposure, which ranks in the 66th / 75th percentiles vs. the past year and in the 93rd/94th percentiles vs. the past five years.

This chart caught my eye and I think we will see some meaningful reversion on both legs here. Per GSPB data Net allocations to North America and Europe are at their respective 5-year lows and highs…

Another great note from our portfolio strategy research team revisiting the role of foreign investors in the US equity market. Long-term data from the Fed show foreign ownership of US equities stands at an ATH. Foreign investors owned just 2% of US equities in 1960 and 7% in 2000 but 18% of US equities at the start of 2025. 49% of foreign holdings are from investors in Europe.

The sharp downgrade in the pricing of US economic growth and the underperformance of the S&P 500 (-3% YTD) relative to Europe’s STOXX 600 (+9%), China’s CSI 300 (+1%), and Japan’s TOPIX (flat) have prompted investors to inquire about the potential for foreign investor outflows.

We forecast foreign investors will remain buyers of US equities this year. The weaker USD and relative underperformance of US stocks lead us to forecast foreign investors will buy $300 billion of US equities in 2025 compared with $304 billion in 2024. In 2025, we forecast corporates will be the largest buyer of equities (+$675 billion) followed by households (+$425 billion). Mutual funds will be the largest seller of US equities (-$550 billion) followed by pension funds (-$250 billion).

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.

Police in Alexandria, Virginia are investigating after a top US attorney was found dead inside her home Saturday.

Police responded to reports of an unresponsive woman at 9:18 a.m., only to find former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Jessica Aber, dead at the age of 43. Aber was nominated to her post by former president Joe Biden in 2021 – and resigned one day before President Donald Trump was sworn in in January.

Abner’s cause of death is currently unknown, as the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia is currently conducting its own investigation.

“We are heartbroken beyond words to learn of the passing of our friend and former colleague, U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber,” said Erik Siebert, the current U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia. “She was unmatched as a leader, mentor, and prosecutor, and she is simply irreplaceable as a human being. We remain in awe of how much she accomplished in her all too brief time in this world. Her professionalism, grace, and legal acumen set the standard.

“Though we are devastated by this loss, each of us in the Eastern District of Virginia will look to her example and endeavor to live up to that standard. Jess was a proud Virginian from high school through college and throughout her career. She loved EDVA and EDVA loved her back. We remain committed to her life’s work, a commitment to seeking justice, as she would have wanted.”

Aber began her service for the EDVA in 2009. In 2015, she served on a detail assignment as counsel to the assistant AG for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice until 2016, after which she served as the deputy Chief of EDVA’s criminal division.

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

While Jeff Bezos is trying to rebrand the Washington Post as a more moderate rag – causing mass resignations last month at the thought of being less partisan – he might want to check in with the paper’s new Opinion editor after his last one rage-quit as part of the February freakout.

To wit, a transgender man wrote an op-ed with an absolutely retarded analogy, suggesting that  transgender individuals are like the bad guy at the end of “Scooby-Doo” that gets unmasked as his true self.

The terrible analogy continues…

The key word in this revelation is “really,” the adverb that means “what something is in actual fact, as opposed to what it might have been appearing, or pretending, to be.”

I’m willing to accept the fact that Mr. Withers was not who he had been pretending to be. But in other instances, “really” has (as the “Scooby-Doo” theme song goes) “some work to do now.” Is Clark Kent “really” Superman? Is Bob Dylan “really” Robert Zimmerman? Was Mark Twain “really” Samuel Clemens?

Is a butterfly “really” a caterpillar? -WaPo

The author of course then jumps into “the Trump administration’s attacks on us,” and insists “transgender women are not “really” men. We are women. We may have different histories than other women, but then, every woman has her own history.”

Make it stop…

Readers have had it…

At the bottom of the article, the comments section was absolutely lit up – as leftist WaPo readers made it clear that they’re over it, and this is exactly why they lost the election.

Let’s take a look…

“Left-of-Center Moderate” (in the 4th highest ‘recommended’ comment) writes:

Democrats are always accusing the Republicans of being the ones who “bring up trans issues”. But yet we get essays like this. And it’s not Republicans who created and regularly deploy such vocabulary as “gender assigned at birth”, “pregnant people” . . . or who put their pronouns in their email signatures. And it was at the DNC a couple of months ago that a big brouhaha developed around “adequate trans representation” on the committee.

The pendulum went way to far on this gender fluidity madness, and probably played a role in ushering in the craziness of “Trump: The Sequel”. So, like, hey, thanks trans activists and to Democratic operatives and leaders who refused to stand up to it.

“Professor Duh” writes:

The Pronoun Police cost Democrats vast numbers of votes in 2024, thanks to all their pointless preening and posturing.

They helped put Trumpolini back in office, god helps us all.

 “Mrs Sinkins” writes:

Well, here we are, straight back at the definition. What is a woman? The problem starts with the idea you present of “ a lifelong sense of myself as female”. But tellingly, you don’t say why you sense that you are female. What do you believe makes you feel female when you never inhabited a female form? I have never yet seen an explanation of this from any trans-identifying person.

Ask most natal women what makes them a woman and I would bet they would be hard pressed to tell you. Most of us never think about it, we just are. But as well as our “own history”, we share a world-wide commonality of body, of puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, motherhood, menopause, and because of those physical factors, vulnerability, which are an integral part of being a woman and which someone born male will never understand.

 “Philly Boston” writes:

In this instance, I would say it’s a matter of semantics. A woman is an adult female human just as a sow is an adult female pig and a hen is an adult female chicken. It’s a matter of biology, not identity. A person can ignore gender stereotypes about clothing and names, going so far to utilize medical intervention to make physical changes to the body, but that doesn’t change one’s biological sex.

I don’t mean any of the above to justify discriminating against anyone, simply looking to clarify the meaning of words. A biological male may be a trans woman, but that person is not actually a woman.

“Che Lastima” writes:

This has become so absurd. Let any Democratic politician take the position that “a trans man or woman is an actual man or woman” and watch them lose so badly.

Almost 80% of Americans (and 2/3 of Dems) are against trans athletes in women’s sports. This issue has been litigated to death.

“Relemtless75” writes:

This author does not understand the seriousness of the issue.

By capturing the Democratic Party, a small but powerful minority of closeted LGBTs, has managed to focus the Party’s attention to small percentage of American population, to the detriment of everything important to Average Americans, resulting in the devastating loss to Trump.

This has resulted in a severe backlash with devastating consequences to the LGBT movement from which recovery is nigh impossible.

 And the list goes on… But hey, at least they’ve identified a major problem with their party.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. In a rare move,  Judge Lawrence Van Dyke offered a video dissent to the majority opinion.The en banc panel previously upheld the state’s magazine ban, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case in light of the Bruen decision in 2022. The Ninth Circuit then returned the case to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.Benitez again ruled that the law was unconstitutional, a prior position that he viewed was strengthened by the Bruen decision.

The Ninth Circuit then, again, overruled the lower court.

In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that “a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.” She added:

“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the court further ruled that, even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

Three judges appointed by President Donald Trump wrote stinging dissents. 

Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”

Judge Lawrence VanDyke went further to include an actual video in which he handles guns and accessories to show why he believes the distinction between a gun and an accessory is illusory:

The judge emphasized that he was not offering the video as new factual evidence. However, it sounds much like the testimony that an expert witness would give at trial. That brought an objection from his colleague, Judge Berzon:

“True, the prejudice to the parties here is arguably minimal because Judge VanDyke has prepared his video in support of a dissent. But if a dissent can rely on a judge’s recorded factual presentation, nothing prevents a majority opinion from doing the same thing. I therefore write separately in the hope that in the future my colleagues, whether in the majority or dissent, will do exactly and only that: write. And, although I am surprised that it is necessary to do so, I write to reemphasize that as judges, we must decide cases as they are presented to us by the parties, leaving advocacy to the attorneys and testimony to the witnesses, expert and otherwise.”

The inclusion of the video is highly irregular and many judges would likely look dimly at the use of such demonstrative evidence in an appellate dissent.

The case offers another opportunity for the Court to address the outward limits of the Second Amendment. Blue states are moving to limit a variety of devices or components deemed “accessories.” If allowed to stand, it could prove a significant area of contraction for the protections for gun ownership.

The case can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, again. It will join another magazine ban case in Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be picked up by the Court.

Here is the opinion: Duncan v. Bonta