United States

CURRENT AFFAIRS: The Great Crypto For Gold Heist

| IZui0uMTe2

The Golden Cryptocurrency Caper: A Tale of Modern Alchemy

In which your correspondent discovers how America’s richest men plan to transform Fort Knox’s gold into digital fortune

Picture, if you will, the ultimate Monte Carlo card table game being played out in the Washington halls of power. The stakes? Merely the entire gold reserve of the United States. The players? A fascinating cast of characters that would make Ian Fleming envious: a maverick billionaire whose rockets link the stars, a disruptor president with a golden tower, and digital age ‘Tech Bro’ alchemists who’ve convinced themselves, and the president, they can transform base mathematics into pure profit.

The scene unfolds at Fort Knox, the imposing Kentucky fortress that has captured the imagination of many a crime writer. But unlike the unsophisticated schemes of yesteryear, this caper requires no guns, explosives, no tunneling, and no masks. Instead, our protagonists come armed with legislation, algorithms, and the kind of audacity that only billions in paper wealth can buy.

At the heart of this contemporary tale lies a simple scheme. Our casual looking crypto conspirators have discovered themselves in possession of vast digital fortunes; Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and their algorithmic kin yet find themselves unable to convert their mathematical wealth into the more traditional trappings. Their solution? Convince Uncle Sam to become the ultimate cryptocurrency whale.

The mechanics of the plan display the kind of elegant simplicity that would make a Philip Starck proud. First, manufacture a crisis, in this case, a suddenly urgent need to “verify” Fort Knox’s gold reserves, which have been resting quite comfortably these many decades. Then, through the convenient vehicle of the unwieldy entitled ‘Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide Act of 2024’ AKA the BITCOIN Act (a name that manages to be both simultaneously accurate and misleading), create a legal framework to revalue this gold dramatically upwards from its current modest $42 per ounce. 

Potentially a crowd silencing $400 billion in gold, transformed through legislative alchemy into $677 billion of crypto purchasing power, as per the act, to be directed toward the acquisition of Bitcoin at a pace calculated to keep the market buoyant while the currently hamstrung crypto-wealthy now out gracefully.

Consider the sophistication of the play: crypto interests have invested over $100 million in recent elections, to them an early play in thus high-stakes game. Elon Musk, a modern-day Howard Hughes, has contributed $29 million of his own funds, a trifling sum compared to the potential returns.

Most amusing is Donald Trump’s evolution from cryptocurrency skeptic to digital evangelist. DJT’s journey from declaring crypto a “scam” to embracing it as the future of finance has been both dramatic and already highly lucrative.

The true genius of the scheme lies in its solution to what one might call the cryptocurrency gentleman’s dilemma: how to convert theoretical wealth into the kind that can buy islands, yachts, or other necessities of the well-lived life. The largest holders of Bitcoin face a predicament worthy of a classical tragedy. They’re billionaires on paper, but attempting to sell would destroy the very market that makes them wealthy.

Their solution? Make the American taxpayer their buyer of last resort. Regular currency is backed by a lender of last resort; e.g. The Bank of England or the Federal Reserve. The now legally planned purchase of 200,000 Bitcoin yearly for five years isn’t just financial policy it’s an escape hatch for the digital lords, allowing them to quietly cash out their otherwise unsaleable positions while the public treasury takes their place in the crypto nobility.

One must admire the sheer panache of it all. No masks, no guns, no getaway car, just paperwork and pixels, transforming public gold into private fortune with the stroke of a pen or key. Robber barons with style. 

Where are the watchdogs? Perhaps they’re too busy admiring the technical brilliance of the plan to raise the alarm. Or perhaps, they’ve been generously encouraged to turn a blind eye.

The entire affair raises an interesting question for the modern political philosopher: When does financial innovation cross the line into grand larceny? Is there a meaningful difference between a digital heist and a legislative one? You could argue the Bush family and friends’ Gulf Wars were legitimised heists through the military industrial complex and their owners. These are the kinds of questions one might ponder over a bottle of mineral water, preferably while one’s cryptocurrency holdings are still worth something.

For now, the game continues. The players lecture the masses with the confidence of those accustomed to winning, while the rest of us watch with the kind of fascination normally reserved for high-wire acts performed without a net. One thing is certain: when the music stops, someone will be left without a chair, and it probably won’t be the gentlemen who wrote the rules. Excuse the mixing of metaphors. 

In the meantime, you can only admire the audacity, preferably from a safe distance, because they’re buying Bitcoin at a record high *cough* perhaps while enjoying a martini, shaken, not stirred as a modern day Ian Fleming may contemplate how the ancient art of the confidence trick has evolved so elegantly in our digital age. The villain elevated to the most powerful individual in the world. You couldn’t write it because in a short while, truth may be stranger than fiction. 

CURRENT AFFAIRS: USA Rogue State?

| IZui0uMTe2

What If The United States Became a Rogue State? Should Great Britain Be Worried?

Let me be clear: I’m not engaging in hyperbole when I pose this question. As we witness the unfolding transformation of American governance under the restored Trump presidency, the international community faces an unprecedented dilemma. The special relationship between Britain and America – long the cornerstone of global democratic stability – now presents us with profound challenges.

The Project 2025 blueprint, meticulously prepared during Trump’s hiatus from power, reads less like a traditional transition plan and more like a manifesto for institutional demolition. Its architects have made no secret of their intentions: the systematic dismantling of what they term the “deep state” – in reality, the very bureaucratic safeguards that have long prevented executive overreach.

Consider the appointments. The installation of loyalists across federal agencies isn’t merely standard political patronage; it represents a fundamental restructuring of American governance. Career civil servants, those repositories of institutional knowledge and regulatory expertise, are being replaced by individuals whose primary qualification appears to be unwavering personal fealty to the president.

The consequences for Britain’s defence and security infrastructure are particularly alarming. Our military doctrine, built upon decades of joint operations and shared intelligence, suddenly stands on unstable ground. The Five Eyes intelligence-sharing agreement – arguably the most sophisticated multilateral intelligence arrangement in history – faces unprecedented strain. American intelligence agencies, now under explicitly political leadership, have already begun restricting certain intelligence flows, citing “national security reorganisation priorities.”

Consider the implications for our armed forces. Joint military exercises, long the backbone of NATO interoperability, are being cancelled or dramatically scaled back. British commanders report increasing difficulty in coordinating with their American counterparts, many of whom have been replaced by political appointees with limited military experience. The integrated defence systems that protect our shores – many reliant on American technology and real-time data sharing – face potential compromises in their effectiveness.

The economic ramifications are equally concerning. The City of London, which has thrived on its role as a crucial hub for dollar-denominated transactions, faces new uncertainties. American financial regulators, now operating under a “America First” directive, have begun implementing measures that effectively discriminate against foreign financial institutions, including British ones. The pound sterling’s traditional correlation with the dollar has become a liability rather than a stability mechanism.

Our defence industry, deeply integrated with American suppliers and technologies, faces severe disruption. Critical components for everything from our nuclear deterrent to our cyber-defence systems rely on American cooperation. The new administration’s “domestic preference” policies threaten to sever supply chains that have taken decades to build. British defence manufacturers, who have invested heavily in joint projects with American partners, now face the prospect of being frozen out of key markets.

The foreign policy pivot is particularly alarming. The new administration’s embrace of what they call “pragmatic nationalism” has effectively translated into the abandonment of longstanding alliances. NATO, already weakened during Trump’s first term, now faces existential questions about its relevance. The president’s recent remarks about “letting Putin sort out Europe” sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, yet they barely raised eyebrows in Washington’s new political reality.

For Britain, this presents an excruciating dilemma. Our diplomatic corps, accustomed to navigating the special relationship’s occasional turbulence, now faces a fundamental question: How does one maintain a strategic partnership with a nation that increasingly rejects the very international order it helped create?

The impact on our cyber security is particularly worrying. The integrated nature of British-American cyber defence means that any degradation in cooperation immediately increases our vulnerability to state-sponsored attacks. The National Cyber Security Centre, which has relied heavily on real-time threat intelligence from American partners, reports a significant decrease in the quality and quantity of shared information.

The parallels with historical shifts in global power dynamics are unsettling. Like the decline of previous empires, America’s transition from global stabiliser to potential disruptor isn’t happening through military defeat or economic collapse, but through internal transformation. The machinery of state remains intact; it’s the operating system that’s being rewritten.

Critics might dismiss these concerns as catastrophising from the liberal establishment. But consider the concrete actions: the withdrawal from key international treaties, the deliberate undermining of multilateral institutions, the embrace of authoritarian leaders while democratic allies are publicly berated. These aren’t theoretical risks – they’re happening in real time.

The implications for Britain’s defence posture are stark. Our nuclear deterrent, while operationally independent, relies heavily on American technology and support. The new administration’s ambiguous stance on nuclear cooperation agreements has raised serious questions about long-term sustainability. The Royal Navy’s carrier strike groups, designed to operate in concert with American forces, may need to be reconceptualised for a world where such cooperation cannot be guaranteed.

Some in Whitehall advocate a “wait and see” approach, suggesting that institutional inertia will temper the administration’s more radical impulses. This misreads both the scope of the Project 2025 agenda and the determination of its implementers. The systematic placement of ideological allies throughout the federal bureaucracy creates a multiplication effect that could outlast the administration itself.

What’s required is a clear-eyed reassessment of Britain’s strategic position. This doesn’t mean abandoning the special relationship, but rather reconceptualising it for an era where American partnership comes with new risks and complications. Strengthening European security cooperation, diversifying intelligence partnerships, and building resilience against potential economic coercion should be immediate priorities.

The question isn’t whether America will remain powerful – it will. The question is how that power will be wielded, and whether the international community can adapt to an America that increasingly views global relationships through a transactional, zero-sum lens.

For Britain, this may mean making difficult choices. Our diplomatic tradition of constructive ambiguity – maintaining close ties with both Europe and America – may no longer be sustainable if those relationships pull us in fundamentally different directions.

The coming months will be crucial. As Project 2025’s implementations accelerate and the new administration’s foreign policy takes concrete form, Britain’s response will shape not just bilateral relations but our place in the emerging global order. The special relationship isn’t dead, but it’s entering uncharted territory. We must navigate with our eyes wide open to both the risks and the opportunities this presents.

This isn’t about abandoning our American allies – it’s about protecting our own interests in an era where those allies may be operating under a radically different set of priorities. The question in my headline isn’t merely provocative; it’s one that British policymakers must seriously consider as they plan for an increasingly uncertain future.