admin

In Economy

The Old World’s Last Export

February 25, 2026 No Comments

It used to be said that the sun never set on the British Empire, so far-flung were its possessions. Britain has long since retreated from most of those territories, most recently, and controversially, in its attempt to relinquish control of the Chagos Islands. Yet even as it sheds physical dominion, Britain appears increasingly eager to export something else: its laws and regulations.

In that project, it is joined enthusiastically by its former partners in the European Union. If the Old World has one major export left, it is bureaucracy.

The most obvious current target is X, Elon Musk’s platform, and its Grok AI tool. Some users of questionable taste quickly discovered that Grok could be used to generate deepfake images of celebrities in revealing attire. More seriously, it was alleged that the technology had been used to generate sexualized images of children. In response, last month the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, citing potential failures to prevent illegal content. The possible penalties are severe, ranging from multi-million-pound fines, based on the company’s global revenue, to a complete ban on the platform in the UK.

Senior British officials were quick to escalate the rhetoric. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall publicly condemned X and emphasized that all options, including nationwide blocking, were on the table. The message was unmistakable; compliance would be enforced, one way or another.

Two days later, X announced new restrictions to prevent Grok from editing images of real people into revealing scenarios and to introduce geoblocking in jurisdictions where such content is illegal. Ofcom described these changes as “welcome” but insufficient, insisting its investigation would continue. Meanwhile, pressure spread outward. Other governments announced restrictions, and the European Commission expanded its own probes under the Digital Services Act. What began as a British enforcement action quickly morphed into coordinated global pressure, effectively pushing X toward worldwide policy changes.

This is the crucial point. British regulators were not merely seeking compliance for British users. They were pressing for changes to X’s global policies and technical architecture to govern speech and expression far beyond the UK’s borders. What might initially have been framed as a failure to impose sensible safeguards on a powerful new tool has become a test case for whether regulators in one jurisdiction can dictate technological limits everywhere else.

This pattern is not new. Ofcom has already attempted to extend its reach directly into the United States, brushing aside the constitutional protections afforded to Americans. Since the Online Safety Act came into force in 2025, Ofcom has adopted an aggressively expansive interpretation of its authority, asserting that any online service “with links to the UK,” meaning merely accessible to UK users and deemed to pose “risks” to them, must comply with detailed duties to assess, mitigate, and report on illegal harms. Services provided entirely from abroad are explicitly deemed “in scope” if they meet these criteria.

The flashpoints have been 4chan and Kiwi Farms, two US-based forums notorious for unmoderated speech and even harassment campaigns. In mid-2025, Ofcom initiated investigations into both for failing to respond to statutory information requests and for failing to complete the required risk assessments. It ultimately issued a confirmation decision against 4chan, imposing a £20,000 fine plus daily penalties for continued non-compliance, despite the site having no physical presence, staff, or infrastructure in the UK.

Rather than comply, the operators of both sites filed suit in US federal court, arguing that Ofcom’s actions violate the First Amendment and that the regulator lacks jurisdiction to enforce British law against American companies. The litigation frames the dispute starkly: whether a foreign regulator may, through regulatory pressure, compel changes to lawful American speech.

That question has now spilled into US politics. Senior American officials have criticized Ofcom’s posture as an extraterritorial threat to free speech, and at least one member of Congress has threatened retaliatory legislation. What Britain views as online safety increasingly appears, from across the Atlantic, to be regulatory imperialism.

Speech is merely the most visible example. Europe has long sought to impose its environmental priorities on both developed and developing countries alike, a phenomenon I once labeled “eco-imperialism.” The latest iteration is the EU’s deforestation regulation, scheduled to take effect later this year. Exporters of products such as timber and beef must now prove, to the EU’s satisfaction, that their supply chains have not contributed to deforestation.

For American producers, this is less about forests than paperwork. As the Farm Bureau has noted, the rule functions as a non-tariff barrier, particularly for producers without vertically integrated supply chains. Native American tribes reliant on timber exports have gone further, accusing Brussels of a renewed form of colonialism.

Financial regulation provides another illustration. Through a patchwork of directives and equivalence determinations, the EU increasingly conditions market access on conformity with its regulatory preferences. Non-EU jurisdictions are pressured to align their rules not through treaties, but through the sheer leverage of access to Europe’s markets, the so-called Brussels Effect.

Even Europe’s revived Blocking Statute, originally intended to counter US extraterritorial sanctions, underscores the contradiction. Europe insists on defending its own regulatory autonomy while simultaneously seeking to universalize its rules abroad.

None of this should be surprising. Administrative overreach is not generally a moral failure but an institutional one. Regulators operate under mandates that are deliberately broad, politically insulated, and difficult to measure. Their incentives are asymmetric; visible failure is punished, while over-caution and expansion rarely are (indeed, they are often rewarded). In such an environment, discretion naturally displaces rules. This, in turn, empowers the production of bulletins, circulars, and even blog posts that have the effect of law, something my colleague Wayne Crews calls “regulatory dark matter.”

When regulators move beyond enforcing clear, predictable rules and instead attempt to manage outcomes like “safety,” “harm,” and “fairness,” they substitute their own judgment for dispersed social knowledge. The claim that complex systems can be centrally overseen within a nation, let alone across borders, rests on an exaggerated confidence in regulatory omniscience and a systematic undervaluation of unintended consequences.

As this tendency is reinforced rather than checked, agencies gravitate toward peer approval rather than public accountability, and therefore toward international coordination rather than domestic consent. Jurisdiction follows the reach of the system instead of democratic legitimacy. Borders become inconveniences, and constitutional limits become parochial relics. Trial by jury, the crown jewel of common law? An inconvenience.

These developments also reflect a deeper shift in governance. In Britain, Parliament has not merely delegated power to regulators; it has largely abandoned meaningful oversight of them. Ministers disclaim responsibility in the name of independence, while courts typically review only whether regulators followed proper procedure, not whether their decisions were wise or proportionate. In the EU, this technocratic design was largely intentional from the start, with the Commission enjoying extraordinary agenda-setting power and steadily expanding its reach since Maastricht.

The result is an administrative order increasingly detached from democratic constraint. As Britain and Europe struggle economically, particularly in comparison to the United States, the temptation is not to reform inward, but to regulate outward. If growth cannot be revived at home, regulation can at least be exported abroad.

Yet Europe’s recent clash with America over Greenland has exposed much of the continent’s weakness. While the Commission may seek to demand subservience from American tech companies, those companies have the capability to turn off the lights — literally. The smothering of Europe’s technological innovation under its regulatory blanket means it has nothing with which to replace American know-how. Britain’s failure to break fully from the European regulatory mindset after Brexit means it is stuck in the mid-Atlantic, regulating Americans while still attempting to stay on America’s good side. That game may soon be up.

The British Empire once projected power by force. Today, the Old World tries to extend its reach not with arms, but compliance. But bureaucracy, like the empire, cannot resist the setting sun.

In Economy

The Atlantic’s Critique of Homeschooling Ignores the Real Education Crisis

February 25, 2026 No Comments

The Atlantic recently ran a story headlined “He Was Homeschooled for Years, and Fell So Far Behind.” It profiles Stefan Merrill Block, who was homeschooled in his early years and later struggled to catch up once he entered traditional schooling. But one rough experience doesn’t invalidate an entire movement that is delivering superior results for millions of families across the country.

Homeschool students are outperforming kids in government schools by a wide margin. Brian Ray’s peer-reviewed systematic review in the Journal of School Choice examined dozens of studies on the topic. Seventy-eight percent of those studies found homeschoolers scoring significantly higher academically than their public school peers. They beat traditional school kids by 15 to 25 percentile points on standardized tests. These solid results hold up regardless of family background, income level, and whether the parents ever held a teaching certificate.

*Image Credit: Meta-analysis by National Home Education Research Institute*

Government schools deliver exactly the opposite outcome. In Chicago alone, there are 55 public schools where not a single kid tests proficient in math. They spend about $30,000 per student each year and still fail to produce basic proficiency. The Nation’s Report Card shows nearly 80 percent of US kids aren’t proficient in math. That’s the real crisis staring us in the face, and it demands accountability from the system that claims to serve our children.

The critics who demand tighter rules on homeschooling never mention these disasters in public education. They won’t even consider shutting down the failing public schools that waste billions of taxpayer dollars and fail thousands of kids every year. But when families opt out and choose something better for their kids? Suddenly it’s time for government oversight and heavy-handed regulations. This double standard exposes the true agenda at play.

Teachers’ unions watch the collapse of academic achievement and never push for less funding. Every bad score just becomes another excuse for more cash grabs from the public. If they really thought homeschool was underperforming, they’d be calling for gobs of taxpayer money to fix it.

This logical inconsistency gives away the game: these groups are laser-focused on defending the government school monopoly at all costs. They want to keep other people’s kids locked in their failure factories so they can siphon as much money as possible away from families and into the system.

Census Bureau numbers confirm just how much the tide is turning. Homeschooling enrollment has at least doubled since 2019, and the growth shows no signs of slowing. COVID laid bare the dysfunction in government schools, from useless remote learning to radical ideologies in the classroom, and parents decided they had seen enough.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, even wants to take things a step further by officially partnering her union with the World Economic Forum to shape a national curriculum. That’s the future they envision — handing control of education to elites in Davos instead of trusting parents.

Even if the evidence showed homeschooling only matching the factory-model school system on average, the state would still have no legitimate authority to interfere. Kids don’t belong to the government. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear back in 1925 with Pierce v. Society of Sisters, ruling that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.” Oregon had tried to force every child into public schools, but the justices struck it down and affirmed parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s education.

The Court reinforced this principle in Meyer v. Nebraska in 1923, protecting parents’ liberty to direct their children’s education, including striking down laws that banned foreign language instruction in private schools. Then, in Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972, the justices sided with Amish parents who wanted to pull their children from high school to preserve their faith and community way of life. These landmark decisions enshrine parental rights as bedrock constitutional protections that no bureaucrat can simply override.

The state has the burden of proof when it comes to intervening in family life. Parents shouldn’t be forced to prove their innocence upfront just to educate their own children at home. Government should only step in with clear evidence of real abuse, and even then, the intervention must be narrow and targeted.

Envision government officials sitting at every family’s dinner table each week, inspecting meals “just in case” some parents aren’t feeding their kids right. That scenario would represent an obvious violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches, and no one would stand for it. Yet that’s the invasive logic behind calls to regulate homeschooling as if every parent is a suspect.

History shows exactly where this path of centralized control leads. The Nazi regime banned homeschooling in 1938 with criminal penalties attached, all to create a monopoly on thought and ensure their authoritarian ideology took root in every young mind. America’s own compulsory government school system didn’t emerge from some noble tradition of freedom — it was imported from Prussia, modern-day Germany, and aggressively promoted here in Massachusetts by Horace Mann. The whole model was engineered to produce obedient soldiers and compliant factory workers, not independent thinkers who question authority.

Homeschoolers sidestep the school system’s ugliest realities altogether. They avoid the gangs, the drugs, the mindless conformity, the left-wing indoctrination, the social promotion, and the constant threat of violence that plague too many government institutions. An FBI report from 2025 documented 1.3 million crimes committed in schools over just a few recent years.

And let’s not forget the subject of The Atlantic’s own story. They concede that Stefan Merrill Block grew up to become a successful and educated author, complete with New York Times bestsellers to his name. Their highlighted “failure” case actually produced someone thriving in the real world. That undercuts the panic they’re trying to stoke.

Regulations have failed to fix the problems in public schools — they have often entrenched mediocrity and waste. Importing the same model into homeschooling would risk spreading those shortcomings rather than solving them. Many on the left are uncomfortable with the fact that they lack the same direct control over parents that they exercise over most school districts. That gap in authority has led some to push for sidelining families in favor of greater state oversight.

Parents know their children better than any distant bureaucrat ever could. Homeschooling delivers measurable results, saves taxpayers money, and upholds the core American value of freedom.

The Atlantic can publish as many cautionary stories as it likes, but the data, the Supreme Court precedents, and basic common sense remain firmly on the side of parental authority. It’s time to end the double standards and attack narratives and let families lead the way in educating the next generation.

In Investing

Board Changes

February 25, 2026 No Comments

Piche Resources (PR2:AU) has announced Board Changes

Download the PDF here.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Investing

Blackstone Minerals

February 25, 2026 No Comments

Investor Insights

Blackstone Minerals, through its subsidiary Crescent Mining and Development Corporation (CMDC) is focused on the Mankayan copper-gold project, an advanced exploration project in the Philippines. Mankayan is one of Southeast Asia’s largest undeveloped copper-gold porphyry, offering leveraged exposure to tightening global copper supply and increased copper demand.

Overview

Global decarbonization and electrification are driving sustained growth in copper demand, while new, large-scale copper discoveries remain scarce and development timelines lengthen. Long-life, high-quality copper projects with scale, grade, and infrastructure access are increasingly strategic and required to meet this future demand.

Copper and gold section diagrams of Mankayan Project by Blackstone Minerals.

Historical Drilling Results at Mankayan

Blackstone Minerals (ASX:BSX), through CMDC, is advancing the Mankayan Copper-Gold Project in the Philippines following its merger with IDM International.

Mankayan stands out for its size, grade, and geological continuity, supported by extensive historical drilling and proximity to existing infrastructure. These attributes underpin a flexible development pathway and potential for long-life production.

As part of a strategic move, Blackstone has streamlined its asset base to prioritize Mankayan. A previously advanced nickel project in Vietnam is now subject to a binding strategic agreement with a local partner, materially reducing holding costs while allowing management and capital to be focused on the Company’s copper-gold strategy.

Company Highlights

Flagship Copper-Gold Asset: Mankayan is a globally significant copper-gold porphyry system with a large 793 million tonne JORC-compliant resource.
Indigenous Approval – The Mankayan Project holds a 25-year Mineral Production Sharing Agreement and has completed the social license with an FPIC finalized and a MoA in place.
Scale and Development Optionality: A large, continuous mineral system supporting both staged, higher-grade development and long-life bulk mining scenarios.
Established Mining District: Located in Northern Luzon, Philippines, near existing mining operations and infrastructure.
2026 Clear and focused roadmap: to derisk the Mankayan Project by advancing its Pre-Feasibility Study.
Strengthened Leadership: Strong in-country team along with recent Board and management appointments enhance technical, operational, and regional capability.
Strong Copper Leverage: Copper is a critical metal for electrification, renewable energy, and grid infrastructure, with long-term supply constraints supporting project optionality.

Key Project

Mankayan Copper-Gold Project – Philippines

Map of mining projects in Luzon, Philippines, highlighting Blackstone Minerals

The project is located in the prolific mineral belt of Northern Luzon, approximately 340 km north of Manila by road and around 2.5 km from the operating Lepanto gold mine and the Far Southeast project area.

Mankayan is one of the largest undeveloped copper-gold porphyry systems in Asia, extending over approximately 1,100 metres of strike and 600 metres of width, with mineralisation open along strike and at depth.

More than 56,000 metres of historical diamond drilling support a JORC compliant (2012) mineral resource estimate of 793 million tonnes at 0.35 percent copper and 0.38 grams per ton (g/t) gold, equivalent to 0.65 percent copper equivalent (CuEq*) at a 0.25% CuEq cut-off. Within this, a high-grade core of 170 million tonnes at 0.48 percent copper and 0.58 g/t gold, 0.93 percent (CuEq*) at a 0.8 percent cutoff provides potential for staged development scenarios.

Notable historical intercepts include:

911 m at 1.00 percent CuEq, including 253 m at 1.43 percent CuEq
543 m at 1.08 percent CuEq, including 277 m at 1.43 percent CuEq
1,119 m at 0.86 percent CuEq, including 352 m at 1.15 percent CuEq
754 m at 1.03 percent CuEq, including 430 m at 1.21 percent CuEq

Recent field activities have identified additional surface copper-gold mineralisation proximal to the main deposit, with rock-chip samples returning up to 6 g/t gold and 1.9 percent copper, highlighting further exploration upside across the broader project area.

CMDC is in the process of commencing a pre-feasibility study encompassing various mining scenarios and environmental studies.

Management Team

Geoff Gilmour – Executive Chairman

Appointed following Blackstone’s merger with IDM, Geoff Gilmour brings more than 30 years of distinguished leadership in the junior resources sector, with a proven track record of value creation. His career includes senior executive roles as Managing Director of Amex Resources, Brightstar, and Rift Valley Resources, and is highlighted by the successful creation of Andean Resources.

Gilmour has also served as chairman of IDM, where he played a pivotal role in advancing the Mankayan Project and leading the company through its merger with Blackstone Minerals. He currently serves as a director of Blackstone Minerals Ltd, continuing to drive strategic growth and development.

Oliver Cairns –Non-executive Director

Oliver Cairns brings key, hands-on experience to the company’s flagship Mankayan project in the Philippines and was part of the IDM International team that was responsible for the acquisition and management of the Mankayan project before the merger with

Blackstone in June 2025. He has deep familiarity with the Mankayan asset, including four years of actively working with the in-country team. In addition, Cairns offers more than 25 years of strategic corporate, IR and commercial experience.

Greg Cunnold – Non-executive Director

Greg Cunnold is a geologist with over 30 years of experience in the evaluation, exploration, and development of mineral deposits. Cunnold has worked on base and precious metals deposits, bulk commodities, rare earth elements, industrial minerals, and critical mineral projects. His assignments have spanned the globe, including Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America.

Over the years, Cunnold has played a pivotal role in numerous projects, contributing to the discovery, delineation, and development of valuable mineral deposits. His expertise ranges from grassroots exploration through to definitive feasibility studies. Cunnold is a Competent Person as defined by the JORC and NI 43-101 codes and has served corporately as a board member of private, public unlisted, and listed companies.

Mark Williams – Non-executive Director

Mark Williams’ career in the mining industry spans more than three decades and includes operational experience across a diverse range of assets in both mature and emerging global markets, with extensive in-country experience in the Philippines.

Most recently, Williams led mid-tier Australian gold producer Red 5 Limited (ASX: RED) for 10 years, overseeing an operational turnaround of its foundational asset in the Philippines, the Siana Gold Project, before initiating a transformational pivot to the West Australian goldfields through the acquisition, financing, development, construction and operation of the King of the Hills Gold Mine growing Red 5 to a $1.5 billion company in 2024 prior to its merger with Silver Lake Resources.

James Bahen – Company Secretary

James Bahen is a director and equity partner of SmallCap Corporate. He commenced his career in audit and assurance with an international chartered accounting firm. He is currently a non-executive director and company secretary to a number of ASX-listed companies and has a broad range of corporate governance and capital markets experience. Bahen is a member of the Governance Institute of Australia and holds a Graduate Diploma of Applied Finance and a Bachelor of Commerce degree majoring in accounting and finance.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Investing

Copper Quest Exploration

February 25, 2026 No Comments

Investor Insight

Copper Quest Exploration controls more than 40,000 hectares of copper porphyry projects across tier one jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, offering investors diversified exposure to drill ready targets and multiple near term discovery catalysts.