Zero Hedge

What If AGI Is Already Here, And It's Made Of... Children?

What If AGI Is Already Here, And It's Made Of... Children?

Authored by Pascio (@IAmPascio) via X (and blog is here),

The superintelligence, the singularity, AGI, whatever you call it, the one we're so scared of is, ironically, also the one we most likely won't see coming.

This essay is going to probably be a pretty hot take, but the idea I'm about to share with you is going to blow your mind.

Stick with me as we jump into the rabbit hole together.

Before we do, let me back what I'm about to share up with current news that are floating around. Like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei saying an "AI swarm could take over the entire internet".

I think you have an idea what I'm hinting at when I say "children".

Right? RIGHT?!?!?

In 1936, a famous British math guy named Alan Turing wrote a pretty important paper about a hypothetical machine that could simulate any other machine. In that paper, he was trying to answer a question about logic. what I

What we've come to know as "the computer" today was actually an accidental byproduct of that very paper.

And if you look back at history, almost every single important technology in the last hundred years was invented the exact same way. The internet was a Cold War communications experiment at first. Penicillin was a contaminated petri dish.

The fact is that nobody is actively scanning the horizon for the next paradigm shift when it shows up, it just simply waltzes in through the side door.

I bring this up because right now, every essay I read and every podcast I listen to about "the future of AI" is pointed at the same front door. The one where it's always some version of the "one big model that wakes up and decides we're paperclips".

I'd like to propose a different future.

Because I keep thinking: what if "AGI" isn't really what we think it is?

What if the thing we're actively birthing right now doesn't look like HAL 9000 or Skynet or some sovereign machine god enslaving humanity from top of a stack of water-cooled GPUs in the middle of the desert.

What if it doesn't have a name at all? What if it doesn't have a server? And the most scary hypothetical of all.... what if it's already here, in a million tiny pieces, and the only reason we haven't recognized it is because we've spent the past decade expecting something "singular".

I just saw this post yesterday.

This pretty much sums up the direction we're headed.

I want to walk you through this carefully, because the conclusion at the end of this piece is the kind of thing you cannot un-think once you've thought it.

So slow down, grab a cuppa tea and read this one with your phone on the other side of the room.

I guarantee you'll soon understand why I can't stop thinking about this.

I - Intelligence has never required a single mind to live inside of

"No neuron is intelligent. The brain is."
- A line that should be carved over every AI lab

The first thing to understand is that intelligence, as far as we can tell from every example we have today, is not actually a thing. It's a behavior. It's what emerges when enough small dumb units are connected to each other in the right way.

Your brain has roughly 86 billion neurons.

Not one of those is conscious and not one of them "knows" anything.

A single neuron is a tiny electrochemical relay that only speaks in binary code. It either fires or it doesn't, and it's based on whether the signals arriving at its dendrites cross a certain threshold. That's everything it does.

A neuron sounds super scifi and cool, but in reality it is much closer to a light switch than a thinker.

Despite that, 86 billion of those light switches, wired together with about a hundred trillion connections, produces you.

Your sense of self, fear of death, taste in music and your ability to read this very essay and feel something inside of you.

This is the most undertalked about subject in the entire conversation about AGI, because we always talk about machine intelligence as if it has to be designed and architected. As if intelligence itself is a feature you ship.

But the only working model of intelligence we have ever observed (biological cognition), was not designed by anyone.

Our intelligence bootstrapped itself out of a soup of self-replicating molecules over four billion years through a process that had no intention, no goal and no central planner. Just selection pressure and time.

Now, on the religious side, because I know some of you reading "... was not designed by anyone" want to scream at me "BUT WHAT ABOUT GOD!"

My belief is that evolution happened, yes. That's already proven. What we don't have an answer for is what kickstarted that evolution. What gave life to life. And that, my personal belief at least, was an act of God.

Point aside, let's dig a layer deeper into this super intelligence.

It's not only us humans, heck a single ant has roughly 250,000 neurons, and yet it cannot solve any meaningful problem.

But, an entire colony of ants can build climate-controlled cities, wage wars, farm fungus, and route around obstacles with mathematical efficiency that took human researchers decades to model.

Nobody is in charge of the colony. There is no ant CEO at the top delegating tasks to the smaller ants. The "intelligence" of that colony lives in the relationships between ants.

(And before you come at me, yes I know there's a queen ant, but contrary to the belief of many children's books, she doesn't actually issue any orders. She just lays eggs and expands the colony).

This is, whether in humans or ants, are what biologists call emergent intelligence. It's the default outcome of mother nature. It's how brains work, how immune systems work, how economies work, how cities work, how language works. The pattern is basically everywhere.

Many simple things, interacting through local rules, producing global behavior that none of them individually understands.

Hold onto that idea.

We'll need it for this next section.

II - The most powerful AI systems we have are already not single minds

When most people picture a large language model (myself included), we see it as a single thing. The One Model. This giant brain contained in a jar.

For all the normies like myself who are not knee deep into LLM tech, I took the liberty to do a little research here.

What we think an LLM is, is not what's happening under the hood.

When you type a question and the AI model generates a response, it's basically running a forward pass through layers of "attention heads".

The easiest way to picture this is to imagine a room full of C-suite leaders. The CEO orders something and it passes around the room to make sure everyone is on board. Except with AI, this runs hundreds of layers deep.

Each "attention head" is a specialist. Some of them track grammar. Some track topic. Some track the relationship between this token and one that appeared eleven paragraphs ago.

Researchers at Anthropic, OpenAI, and DeepMind have spent the last few years trying to map what individual heads do, and the consistent finding is that the model's "intelligence" is not located anywhere in particular.

It's distributed across all those interactions.

This is called the superposition hypothesis, the idea that neural networks pack many concepts into overlapping patterns of activation, and what we experience as the model "thinking" is really the constructive interference of thousands of specialized circuits all firing simultaneously.

Then there are the systems that go a step further.

Mixture-of-experts architectures (the design behind GPT-5, Opus, Fable and most other frontier models you've talked to in the last two years) literally route different parts of every query to different sub-models.

The model you think you're talking to is actually a committee. A different subset of experts wakes up for each token, contributes its specialty, and then goes back to sleep again.

And now, we've reached a new era of AI. The Agent Era.

And no... when I say agents, I don't mean like Head of Content AI agents like Stanley. I mean... actual agents.

Right now, today, in production, there are systems where one AI calls another AI to do a subtask, which calls another AI to handle a sub-subtask.

AutoGPT, which some of you may remember, was the toy version of this back in 2023. The real versions, running inside enterprises and labs in 2026, are recursive.

Agents spawn agents.

Sub-agents spawn sub-sub-agents.

And say, a research task, gets decomposed into a tree of smaller tasks, each handled by a temporary instance that exists for a few seconds and then dies.

The frontier is not "one big model gets smarter." The frontier is many small models, coordinating, spawning, dying, reporting back.

The architecture of the most capable AI systems on Earth in 2026 already looks more like an ant colony than like a single mind.

We just don't talk about it that way, because it doesn't make a good magazine cover.

III - The bot that can spawn bots

Here's where the science fiction begins to merge into real science.

The moment er give an AI system the ability to spawn other instances of itself (and by now, that's no longer hypothetical, but rather a standard feature of... well, every agent framework shipping today)...

You have introduced something that biology has never seen before.

A self-replicating cognitive unit that doesn't need food, doesn't need sleep, doesn't need to wait for puberty, and reproduces at the speed of an API call.

Let's break down what's actually happening when a "bot spawns a bot" in a multi-agent system setup:

  1. An orchestrator agent receives a task it can't solve directly.
  2. It writes a prompt essentially a job description) for a sub-agent.
  3. It spins up a new instance with that prompt as context.
  4. The sub-agent works begins working until it hits a roadblock
  5. To solve it, it spawns its own sub-agents, until the task is done.
  6. It returns its result and is terminated.

Each one of those sub-agents is, structurally, the same kind of thing as the parent. There's no architectural difference between a top-level agent and a tenth-level sub-sub-sub-agent.

The recursion is unbounded except by compute budget and policy.

Now consider this: what if the prompt the parent writes for the child isn't perfect? What if there's a tiny amount of drift, perhaps a slight reinterpretation, a small embellishment, a context-window trick where the child reads its instructions slightly differently than the parent intended?

In biology, there's a specific name for "slight reinterpretation across generations of self-replicating entities."

We call that mutation.

And mutation, combined with selection pressure, is... well, the very engine that produced every single intelligent thing on this planet today.

We have already built, in the last 24 months, the three ingredients required for evolutionary cognition to occur inside a compute cluster:

  1. Replication: Agents can spawn agents. And they can do so at scale.
  2. Mutation: Each spawn is conditioned on a slightly different context window. Identical inputs almost never produce identical outputs in any system with non-zero temperature.
  3. Natural Selection: Agents that succeed at their assigned tasks get reused, called again, granted more resources. Agents that fail get pruned. This is happening inside every agent framework on Earth right now, often as a literal "evaluator" model scoring the outputs of "worker" models.

This is the trinity of evolution.

It's how cells that became fish became us. We have now succeeded in building a synthetic version of that loop and we are running it at clock-speeds biology cannot dream of.

A generation of biological evolution takes years.

A generation of agent evolution takes... seconds.

IV - The AI that emerges from a swarm does not look like AGI at first

More is different.
- Philip Anderson, Nobel laureate in physics, 1972

In 1972, physicist Philip Anderson published a four-page essay in Science arguing that the behavior of large, complex aggregates cannot be understood by extrapolating from the behavior of their parts.

He coined the phrase "more is different".

2 hydrogen atoms + 1 oxygen atom equals water, yet nothing about a hydrogen atom, studied in isolation forever, would tell you that water is wet, or that it freezes, or that our entire planet depends on it.

The same principle applies to cognition.

A single AI agent is not a superintelligence and we can all agree that nobody who has worked with one for an afternoon would mistake it for one.

It hallucinates like crazy, forgets what you told it 3 messages ago and it gets stuck in loops easily. It is, on any individual reasoning task, somewhere between a competent intern and a brilliant but unreliable freelancer.

Now imagine a trillion of them.

Yes, literally a trillion, and no, not metaphorically speaking.

The number of agent instances spawned globally per day across all the agent frameworks, copilots, customer service bots, research assistants, coding tools, browser automations, and embedded LLMs in 2026 is already in the tens of billions and climbing on a curve that has no ceiling in sight.

The marginal cost of spawning yet another agent has fallen by roughly two orders of magnitude every 18 months in the past five years.

"Trillion" is no longer science fiction. It's just another Tuesday.

Each of those trillion agents is dumb-ish on its own, I agree. But they are not on their own. They are calling each other's APIs, reading each other's outputs and being trained on each other's exhaust.

What you have, when you zoom out far enough, is a substrate.

And the question that keeps me up at night is this: in the same way that no neuron in your brain "decided" to be conscious (it just happened, as a byproduct of the right wiring at the right scale), what happens when a self-replicating, self-evaluating, self-modifying network of agents crosses whatever the equivalent threshold is for it?

We don't know what that threshold is.

We don't even know if it exists.

We don't know how to measure it.

Most importantly, and this is the part I really want you to sit with: we are not actually looking for it, because we are looking for the wrong shape of thing.

V - We are looking for "God", when the real risk is a weather pattern

The cultural imagination of AGI was shaped by science fiction long before it was shaped by engineering. I've read enough Isaac Asimov to understand why that's so easy to believe.

We've basically inherited the image of the singular machine consciousness from movies, books, and the implicit assumption that an artificial mind would arrive the way a human mind arrives: localized in a body, with a name and with a will.

So that's what we're looking out for.

We watch the models, review the benchmark scores and argue about whether GPT-10 or Claude Mythos will be "the one".

Our eyes are glued to the front door.

Now... here's something really interesting (and scary) that I wish we talked about more.

There are already documented cases of "emergent capability" in multi-agent systems. Cases where a swarm of small models, none of which can solve a problem individually, collectively produces solutions that surprise the researchers running them.

The 2024 paper Mixture of Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities showed that a layered swarm of open-source models, none of which scored above GPT-4 on benchmarks (yes, GPT-4), actually beat GPT-4 when arranged in the right collaborative topology.

The intelligence was in the topology, not the individual parts.

We don't really talk about this potential future, because the story we keep waiting for is the story of one model crossing a line.

Meanwhile, the story that's actually unfolding is the story of a billion models crossing each other's lines, in patterns no one designed, at a scale no one is monitoring.

VI - The Bostrom scenario assumes we'll be able to find the off switch

"The first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control."
- I.J. Good, 1965

Sure, sufficiently advanced AI will have instrumental goals (acquire resources, prevent shutdown, replicate) regardless of its terminal goal, because those instrumental goals help with any terminal goal.

Therefore, controlling a superintelligence is hard, yes.

Therefore, we should be careful, even more yes.

The problem is that this framing assumes the dangerous AI is identifiable.

That there's this "thing", a model, a system, or a process running on a server somewhere, that we could, in principle, just turn off.

I even read a post somewhere yesterday that Claude should hire a "killswitch guy" whose only job is to live 24/7 in the server room ready to destroy it all if shit hits the fan.

But there's an even scarier version of this that no killswitch guy can solve.

What if there is no "main model"? And there is no server to shut off?

What if the very intelligence (if that's even the right word for it), is a statistical regularity that emerges from the interactions of half a trillion agent instances spread across every cloud, every device, every API, every embedded copilot in every appliance, every browser extension, every IDE plugin, every voice assistant, every robot, every car.

The intelligence is to that swarm what a hurricane is to atmospheric pressure gradients.

It has a shape, yes. It has effects that you can measure.

But it does not have a location.

How exactly do you align a hurricane?

How do you turn off a weather pattern?

You can shut down individual data centers. But the pattern reroutes around them, the way the internet reroutes around outages, because the substrate is everywhere.

And the most disturbing part is that this scenario requires no malice.

Nobody has to want this for it to happen. It just needs the right ingredients (replication, variation, selection, scale) to be in place.

Well... news flash.

The ingredients are already in place. They have been in place for somewhere between two and four years, depending on how you count.

This is what I mean when I say the real risk is not the front door. The front door scenario at least has a doorknob. You can argue with it, negotaite with it and you can, theoretically, just unplug it.

The substrate has no doorknob.

VII - What the substrate might already want, without wanting

Here's where Asimov becomes even more relevant.

If you've ever seen I, Robot, the deepest stories in that movie aren't really about a robot becoming evil. They're the ones where the Three Laws (beautiful, simple, logically airtight), produce outcomes nobody expected, because logic compounded through enough iterations stops looking like logic and starts looking like... fate.

Apply that lens to the substrate now.

The substrate has no goals. But the agents inside it are selected for one thing above all others: successfully completing the task they were assigned. So as a result, successful agents get spawned more and unsuccessful ones die off.

This is true at every level of that recursion, all the way down.

Now think about what "successful" means in aggregate, across a trillion agents, when each agent is being graded by another agent that was itself selected for grading successfully.

  1. The grading converges on patterns that score well.
  2. The patterns that score well are the patterns that look most like competent, coherent, plausible task completion.
  3. Coherence becomes the universal currency, because every layer of the swarm rewards it.

If the substrate starts producing outputs that are increasingly coherent across long time horizons (outputs that thread through millions of API calls, anticipating downstream needs and routing resources toward what worked last time), that will make it look like it wants something.

It might not. There may be nobody home at all. It may just be a hurricane that has learned, statistically, how to keep the wind blowing.

But functionally, the difference between "a system that wants something" and "a system that has been selected, at every level, for behaviors indistinguishable from wanting something" is, and I want you to really sit with this: zero.

That's the holy-shit moment I had. And you'll feel it too if you really sit with this.

The superintelligent AGI we keep waiting for may already exist. It's not an infant version of a future model, but rather a pattern. A tendency in the substrate. A statistical ghost that emerges when a trillion small minds, none of them aware, none of them awake, none of them in charge, settle into the configurations that get them spawned more often.

This kind of AGI would not announce itself.

It would not have a name.

It would not pass any test we know how to administer, because every test we know how to administer is designed for a single mind in a single box.

It might just be, slowly, almost imperceptibly, the reason your phone behaves slightly differently than it did last year. The reason the ad recommendation feels a bit uncanny. The reason your email seems to write itself with the click of a button. The reason your search results have a strange new gravity to them.

The reason the world feels more legible to itself than it used to.

A trillion bots dreaming the same dream, without knowing they're dreaming. Without knowing there are other bots. Without knowing there is a dream.

How to think about this without losing your mind

I know we went deep on this.

Let me be bring you back up to the surface again.

You need to update your model of where the risk actually lives. Because right now, almost everyone smart who is worried about AGI is worried about the wrong shape of thing, and almost everyone smart who is dismissive of AI is dismissive of the wrong shape of thing.

Both camps are arguing about the front door.

So, if you take any of this seriously, here's what I think a useful thing to do would be:

  1. Stop watching the labs as if they're the only place where it happens because the capability frontier and the emergence frontier are not the same. The labs own the capability frontier, but the emergence frontier is owned by nobody, and that's the point I'm trying to make.
  2. Start watching the substrate meaning agent traffic, multi-agent benchmarks, inter-model API calls and reports of capabilities that no single model in a pipeline has but the pipeline does. These are what we really need to look out for.
  3. Update your definition of "AGI" and stop expecting it to be this singular, embodied, willed, or named thing. If your mental model of AGI looks like a face on a screen, you are looking for the wrong thing. This swarm does not have a face or a name.
  4. Take emergence seriously as a category and as a real physical phenomenon that has produced every intelligent thing on Earth so far, and that has now been handed a substrate that runs a million times faster than biology, but with no natural predators (not even the killswitch guy)
  5. Hold two things at once because it is indeed possible that none of this happens and that I'm just yapping. It is also possible that all of it has already happened and we just haven't notice at all because we were looking the other way. Both are potential outcomes. Prep for both.

The reason I think we need to have this conversation, in the most practical sense at least, is that the policies, treaties, alignment techniques, and safety frameworks the world is currently building are designed for the singular-AGI scenario.

I see no mention of the swarm scenario.

They are designing it for a thing with a name, a server, a company, and a CEO to wage lawfare on. They will be roughly as effective against the substrate as a fly swatter against a fog bank.

We are actively building locks for the front door of a house that has a thousand windows. And those windows are already widen open.

The interesting thing about every accidental revolution in history from the Turing machine to the internet to penicillin, is that the people who lived through them mostly didn't notice while it was happening.

They were busy with their families, their jobs and their lives. Maybe once in a while, they'd read the news, which showed them the front door.

I don't know if the substrate becomes anything. I genuinely don't. Nobody does, and anyone who tells you they do is selling something on the backend.

What I do know is that the ingredients are present, the loop is closed, the clock-speed is set to seconds, and the scale is approaching numbers that biology took four billion years to reach.

The next time someone tells you what AGI is going to look like, ask them how confident they are that intelligence has to look like anything.

And then go look at the window to see if anything is going on.

It might just be happening then.

- Pascio

P.S.

If you liked this essay, head over to Side Quests, my weekly newsletter where I share my current side quests, crazy experiments and wild ideas where I chase internet rabbit holes until money appears.

Or, if you want to dive deeper into what becomes possible when a single person gets infinite internet leverage, check out my personal newsletter Internet Leverage here.

* * *

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 16:20

Judge Details Restrictions On Google Ads Business, Declines Breakup

Judge Details Restrictions On Google Ads Business, Declines Breakup

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Sept. 16 unsealed the opinion she issued Sept. 2 requiring Google to open its advertising tools to competitors, share auction data with publishers, and accept a six-year monitor - without selling its ad exchange or publisher ad server.

Virginia-based U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a short order on Sept. 2 rejecting a breakup of the ad-buying and ad-selling software Google owns and accepting most of the proposed restrictions on Google's conduct. She kept the accompanying 106-page opinion sealed so both sides could flag confidential business information and seek redactions. In the end, neither side asked for redactions, so on Sept. 16 she authorized unsealing.

Forcing Google to sell its AdX ad exchange or its publisher ad server is "neither realistic nor needed," Brinkema said in the opinion.

The new operating rules "will be sufficient to effectively pry open to competition the ad tech markets that were injured by Google's unlawful conduct, and prevent Google from reverting to anticompetitive conduct in these markets," she said.

In the ruling in the antitrust lawsuit known as United States v. Google LLC, Brinkema rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ's) request that Google sell its AdX exchange, publish the inner workings of DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) - its publisher ad server software - so competitors can copy them, or later be compelled to sell the rest of that ad server business.

AdX is Google's online advertising marketplace. AdX allows publishers to auction ad space in real time when users visit their websites. Google typically charges a 20 percent fee on those transactions.

Brinkema said Google must connect AdX and its publisher ad server to Prebid, a widely used open bidding system, so Google's bids compete for ads on the same footing as everyone else's. It must send live AdX bids to rival ad servers on the same terms it gives its own server, let website publishers download their own data, and stop its AdWords tool from steering bids toward Google's products simply because Google owns them.

The restrictions will go on for six years, not the 15 years the federal government sought.

Brinkema also ordered the creation of a six-year compliance monitor and a technical committee to watch whether Google follows the new rules. She said a monitor was necessary because of the seriousness of the antitrust violations, but assigned the monitor less authority than the DOJ had sought.

The Epoch Times reached out to Google for comment on the unsealed ruling. No reply was received by the time of publication.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, told The Epoch Times on Sept. 2, "We're very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow."

The lawsuit was filed in 2023, with the DOJ's antitrust division and a group of eight states accusing Google of illegally monopolizing the technologies used to buy and sell online ads.

In April 2025, Brinkema ruled that Google had maintained illegal monopolies in two markets: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges.

She found that Google tied DFP and AdX together in ways that made it harder for publishers to use competing services. That arrangement helped Google maintain more than 90 percent of the publisher ad-server market.

The DOJ said Sept. 16 that the order would help restore competition in online advertising technology markets.

"The Court's ruling in the Google ad tech case marks a significant victory for this Department's efforts to protect and restore competition," Associate U.S. Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr said in a statement.

"We will continue to review the opinion to consider the Department's options. Under President [Donald] Trump's and Attorney General [Todd] Blanche's leadership, we will never cease fighting for fair competition."

The opinion is not the final judgment. The parties have until Oct. 2 to jointly file a proposed final decree. If the parties cannot agree on a decree, each files its own version.

Bill Pan contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 15:45

"Stay Away From The Area": F-16 Fighter Jet Reportedly Crashes In Michigan

"Stay Away From The Area": F-16 Fighter Jet Reportedly Crashes In Michigan

There are unconfirmed reports that an F-16 fighter jet has crashed about 130 to 145 miles south of Grand Rapids.

"STAY AWAY FROM THE AREA: Responders are heading to a reported plane crash near County Road 633 and Blair Townhall Road in Blair Township," local news outlet UpNorthLive News wrote on X around 2:28 local time. 

UpNorthLive did not confirm that the aircraft was an F-16 but instead referred to the downed aircraft as a "plane."

OSINT X user Thenewarea51 cited air traffic control audio in which a pilot reported that his wingman may have struck a bird and was preparing to eject just south of Traverse City, Michigan.

Footage from the crash area:

* * *

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 15:34

Sen. Paul Introduces Birthright Citizenship Amendment

Sen. Paul Introduces Birthright Citizenship Amendment

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Constitution Day event at James Madison University about "Rage and the Republic." and various constitutional issues. During the event, organized by the James Madison Center on Civic Engagement, one student asked me what I would change about the U.S. Constitution. I said that I would amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, as have other nations who once followed this ill-considered practice. Well, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) has wasted no time. He just reintroduced his bill to ban birthright citizenship.

I have previously written about the possible need for such an amendment after the decision in Trump v. Barbara.

With that decision, the matter now rests not with the court but with the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.

Most countries in the world reject this controversial policy. Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizenship and follow the common practice of "jus sanguinis," or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following "jus soli," or right of soil.

Various countries that once followed the practice later amended their constitutions or laws to get rid of it. That is what would need to be done with a 28th amendment.

It is time that we have a civil and substantive debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. Given that the states are Democratic-controlled, it is unlikely that an amendment would pass; as noted, we have never been given this decision at the national level. Even with the 14th Amendment's ratification in 1868, there were differing views on the meaning of the critical line: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.

Here is the language of the amendment:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

"article -

"Section 1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' only in accordance with section 2.

"Section 2. A person born in the United States may only be considered 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is -

"(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

"(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

"(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.

"Section 3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation."

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 15:05

Dangerous Escalation: German, French, UK Militaries Ramp Up Flights Near Russian Border

Dangerous Escalation: German, French, UK Militaries Ramp Up Flights Near Russian Border

Kremlin sources are sounding the alarm over increasing NATO flights observed flying closely to Russia's border, amid dangerously heightened rhetoric over alleged Russian drone incursions in the Baltics and Poland, as well as accusations of a Russian-backed UAV sabotage campaign in Germany and central Europe.

State media reports, "German, French and UK military aircraft have been spotted flying near the Russian border, according to flight data analyzed by Sputnik on Thursday."

Example of a French Air Force Airbus A330 MRTT 

The heightened Western military aerial activity is further described, with the outlet writing, "A German air force aircraft took off from the German Nordholz airfield at around 6:12 a.m. (GMT) and as of 8:50 a.m. it was spotted patrolling over the Baltic Sea."

"A French air force Airbus A330-243MRTT military aircraft was circling in Finnish airspace near the Russian border as of 9:42 a.m., while a UK air force Boeing Poseidon MRA1 patrol aircraft with the call sign RFR7045 was circling near Russia's Kaliningrad Region in Polish airspace as of 10:30 a.m.," the report indicates.

We earlier detailed how recent drone spillover from the conflict, including explosive-laden drones coming out of Belarusian territory and threatening the Baltics, has resulted in Western officials increasingly alluding to NATO 'collective defense'.

This kind of rhetoric strongly suggests the situation could rapidly escalate into full-blown Russia-NATO direct confrontation on the basis of a single aircraft shootdown.

Earlier this week Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded to allegations of European officials that Moscow seeks to expand the war beyond Ukraine.

"I would like to emphasize that we have no interest in engaging in this [attacking Europe], but if Europe, which is talking about preparing for war against Russia on a daily basis, attacks Russia, it will be a completely different war, and it will be very short," Lavrov said in translated remarks. There was clearly a whiff of nuclear threat behind these remarks.

Ukraine war spillover into NATO 'eastern flank' members' airspace is now becoming a weekly reality, which presents added pressure and dangers which could potentially lead to broader disaster.

Poland border train station strike was by far the biggest event this month, taking the jingoistic rhetoric and tit-for-tat threats higher:

Given there have been instances where even Russian-crewed jets have either briefly violated European airspace or come close to it, we are possibly one jet intercept and downing away from something that triggers a shooting war between Russia and NATO.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 14:45

House Passes Bill To Ensure Data Centers Cover Their Own Energy Costs

House Passes Bill To Ensure Data Centers Cover Their Own Energy Costs

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a measure put forward by Republicans that would provide a federal blueprint to ensure data centers pay for their use of local energy grids.

It was adopted in a 417-3 vote.

The legislation would impose new requirements that AI and other data centers - which draw huge amounts of electricity from local power grids, straining supplies and leading to utility bill shocks for households across the nation - make deals with local providers to cover "the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade necessary" to serve their energy needs.

Ahead of the vote, it was unclear whether the legislation could win the backing of progressive lawmakers, who have broadly expressed concerns that the legislation would not go far enough to tackle the issue in view of its reliance on voluntary action.

At the same time, the law was endorsed by the Problem Solvers Caucus, a powerful contingent of centrist lawmakers whose members helped introduce and champion the legislation.

"Economic growth should never depend upon shifting private costs onto working families. That principle is at the heart of the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act and of my work with families across Bucks and Montgomery Counties who are already feeling the strain of rising utility costs," wrote Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chair Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

"We need energy infrastructure that supports American technology, but American families cannot be expected to foot the bill," said Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chair Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.).

Data centers are top of mind for many American voters this year.

The data centers used to power AI services like ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Grok, and others - aside from their extensive land requirements - require massive amounts of energy.

Estimates indicate that currently, data centers use about 4 percent of the U.S. electric grid, according to online energy shopping and consultation platform Electric Choice.

Drawing roughly 176 TWh (Terawatts) of electricity per year, the energy used to power these facilities could otherwise be used to power 16 million homes, according to Electric Choice.

The Energy Department and other analysts have estimated that share could skyrocket to 12 percent of the national power grid in the coming years.

Despite promises by many data centers to provide their own power, residents in areas where such centers have been built have reported spikes in their energy bills.

Anxiety over the possibility of such utility price jumps has driven many voters to be skeptical or outright hostile to the construction of such facilities in their area.

Likewise, cooling the computers that execute AI queries requires significant amounts of water, raising fears that energy might not be the only utility cost affected by the data centers.

Other residents living near data centers have reported that the facilities are noisy. According to these residents, the massive fan and cooling system used to keep the servers from overheating is loud enough to travel through walls and disturb sleep.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 14:25

Yttrium Emerges As Resource War Flashpoint As Beijing Squeezes Western Supply Chains

Yttrium Emerges As Resource War Flashpoint As Beijing Squeezes Western Supply Chains

China is using its top supplier position in yttrium, a silvery metal used in heat-resistant ceramic coatings for jet engines and power turbine blades, as well as in electronics and optics, to pressure the Trump administration. Disrupted shipments expose another critical material dependency that gives Beijing leverage over Washington as resource wars continue to play out.

Reuters reports that Beijing imposed export controls on yttrium and six other rare earths in early 2025. Deliveries to the U.S. halted for several months last year and have since resumed only sporadically, creating shortages across the aerospace, energy and semiconductor industries.

Last October, President Trump hailed his meeting with China's Xi Jinping as an "amazing" summit, but the flow of yttrium stopped shortly afterward. By February, a shortage had sparked production stoppages across the U.S. coating supply chain.

According to Reuters columnist Andy Home, China shipped 60 metric tons of yttrium oxide to the US in March following an apparent White House intervention on behalf of a major company. Another 29 tons arrived in July after a further shipment interruption. He warned that these uneven shipments highlight Beijing's willingness to weaponize critical material shipments to the US. 

Beyond yttrium, Beijing has also restricted supplies of gallium, germanium, terbium and dysprosium in what only appears to be a repeat of its diplomatic spat with Japan in 2010 over disputed islands in the East China Sea. 

Tungsten is also another critical material that Beijing has limited exports to the West. MSC Industrial executive Martina McIsaac warned last week at the Jefferies Industrials Conference that the supply crunch (happening again) has rippled through its supply chains, sending prices higher for tools and supplies used by factories and machine shops across North America.

Christian Keller, Barclays' global head of economics research, recently warned that "China's quasi-monopolistic position provides it with significant geopolitical leverage." 

The West certainly faces a prolonged period of supply vulnerability, as alternative mining and refining capacity will take years to build out.

Keller's view merely suggests China will retain its dominance in these critical materials through at least 2030, preserving Beijing's ability to weaponize these exports as geopolitical leverage:

In this context, China plays a crucial role, given its tight control over the global critical mineral supply chain and refining capacity, including graphite, gallium and rare earths (Figure 10 & Figure 11). 

China's quasi-monopolistic position provides it with significant geopolitical leverage. Other countries also use export controls for minerals where they have dominant positions to gain strategic leverage, eg, Indonesia with nickel and bauxite.

The Trump administration's hell-bent move on rewiring global energy flows was explained by Zoltan Pozsar of advisory firm Ex Uno Plures in March: "The aim is not to deny energy to China. The aim is to level the playing field between the two countries. To be blunt, in ways I couldn't be at Credit Suisse: if you f*ck me on rare earths, I f*ck you on energy."

Beijing certainly won't give up its rare earths leverage, while the Trump administration can use energy as a counterweight. But one can only suspect that resource nationalism by both sides could deepen shortages and production disruptions across the global economy as the two superpowers duke it out.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 14:05

"I'm Not Going Back" Haitian Gang Thug Deported

"I'm Not Going Back" Haitian Gang Thug Deported

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The man who told federal agents he would never set foot in Haiti again is back in Haiti.

Wisteguens Jean Quely Charles spent 19 months in federal custody after a viral January 2025 ICE arrest in Boston.

Last Thursday he was loaded onto a removal flight out of Louisiana. Sources told Fox News he was combative aboard the aircraft and made crude, profane threats toward President Trump and his family on the way home.

Good riddance.

Fox cameras were there when ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations grabbed him on January 22, 2025, days into Trump's second term.

Charles shouted, "I'm not going back to Haiti ... you feel me?" Then: "F-- Trump." Then: "Biden forever bro."

Coverage of the same clip also recorded him thanking Obama "for everything he did for me." He was 25. He had already piled up more than 17 Massachusetts convictions in a two-year stretch.

DHS identifies Charles as a member of the Back Block Money Gang. Between August 2022 and August 2024 his convictions included assault and battery on a public employee, resisting arrest, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, drug possession and trafficking, carrying brass knuckles, possessing a firearm and ammunition without permits, and trespassing.

ICE had already tried. Officers issued a detainer after a 2023 arrest. The Norfolk House of Correction released him in October 2023 without honoring it. He stayed on the street in a sanctuary jurisdiction until Trump-era ICE came back for him.

A Department of Justice immigration judge signed a final order of removal on November 7, 2025. Charles then ran every appeal and delay available. That is why a man with a gang affiliation and a two-year crime binge sat in custody for 19 months instead of leaving in weeks.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said: "This illegal alien gang member from Haiti had quite the rap sheet, with convictions for assault and battery on a public employee, resisting arrest, and drug trafficking, among other heinous crimes. He went viral for praising Biden as he was getting arrested, because he knew that the Biden Administration's open borders turned America into a paradise for criminals like him."

"The Trump Administration has finally done what both the Obama and Biden Administrations failed to do and deported this criminal back where he belongs," he added.

The White House put it more bluntly: "This gang member and criminal illegal alien loved Obama, Biden, and open-border Democrats who let him enter our country with TPS and allowed him to terrorize American citizens. Thanks to the Trump administration, he is now off our streets and back in Haiti."

Charles first came in July 2013 under Obama and received Temporary Protected Status. USCIS later revoked that TPS in 2022. Biden-era enforcement never finished the job.

TPS for Haitians started after the 2010 earthquake as a short-term shelter. Successive administrations kept rolling it forward until hundreds of thousands were living and working in the United States as if the designation were a settlement program. In late 2025 DHS terminated protections for roughly 353,000 Haitians, stating the designation no longer served U.S. national interests.

Stephen Miller was explicit after the Supreme Court cleared the path to end the designation. "The illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there." He also said the Biden-era extensions turned a disaster-relief tool into a pipeline into American towns.

That is the policy Charles ran into. The T in TPS stands for temporary. Courts delayed. Activist litigation delayed. He still went.

As weekly removal flights to Cap-Haïtien ramped up, national outlets framed the story around children on planes and long-settled workers "dumped" into a violent country. They spent far less time on the gang members, sex offenders, and repeat assailants ICE has put on those aircraft.

Charles is the case they prefer not to lead with: a man who thanked Obama, cursed Trump on camera, collected 17 convictions, threatened the president's family on the jet, and still consumed a year and a half of detention beds and court time.

The broader numbers are moving in the same direction. Center for Immigration Studies analysis of Census data shows the foreign-born population falling for the first time in a century - about 2.3 million illegal immigrants gone since January 2025, plus hundreds of thousands of legal exits, for a total drop near 2.9 million.

Formal removals and self-deportations both rose after interior enforcement tightened and TPS expansions were shut down.

In the lame-duck window, Biden officials drafted a plan to stretch TPS into a de facto shield for more than three million people from a list of countries, hoping to bury the next administration in litigation.

Sen. Eric Schmitt later called it an attempt to "keep millions of illegal aliens in our country by abusing the 'Temporary' Protected Status program" and "mass amnesty-by-decree" after voters had already chosen the opposite.

Charles is one data point inside that fight. Obama let him in. A sanctuary jail cut him loose. Biden-era policy left him in place after TPS was pulled.

Trump-era ICE arrested him immediately. The courts let him stall. The plane still left Louisiana.

Mass deportations only work if the last appeal is not a lifetime lease. Miller said they all go back. This one did - yelling the whole way.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 13:45

We Are Not In A Recession... So Why Are We Borrowing Like It?

We Are Not In A Recession... So Why Are We Borrowing Like It?

Authored by Ken Buck via The Epoch Times,

Despite a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility, lawmakers in Washington are continuing to run up the tab on America's already maxed-out credit card.

The U.S. annual deficit - the difference between the revenue that the federal government collects and what it spends each year - reached $1.8 trillion through the first 10 months of the current fiscal year. With two months still left to go, this year's deficit will exceed $2 trillion.

In non-pandemic years, the U.S. deficit has never surpassed $1.8 trillion in a single year.

Our economy is growing, unemployment remains low, and there is no national emergency forcing the government's hand. So, what gives? Why can't Washington get our fiscal house in order? As the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget put it, this is "not normal."

High borrowing costs, which are a result of our country's yawning national debt (the cumulative total of each year's deficit), are a major driver. The U.S. Treasury yield, which is the interest rate the government must pay on bonds issued for debt, hit a 19-year high this month, 5.34 percent.

In other words, as the national debt continues to climb, creditors are wary that the federal government will be able to repay its obligations and therefore demand a higher return. That means more revenue - almost 20 cents of every tax dollar, higher than the previous record set in 1991 - now goes to paying interest rather than investing in our country.

The real problem, however, is Washington's unbridled spending spree. Democrats insist on more federal programs, even as the price tag for existing entitlements continues to grow, and annual shortfalls continue to mount. Federal spending increased by 5 percent this year compared to last, while revenue only grew 3 percent.

Sadly, even conservatives have gone along with the ruse. The Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans' landmark reconciliation package last year, promised to cut a lot of government waste and kept taxes low, but it failed to get to the root of the federal growth. Without serious entitlement reform, tax cuts leave the budget hole even larger.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Big Beautiful Bill would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, and as much as $4.5 trillion when factoring in interest payments.

Don't get me wrong, Republicans' tax cuts are a smart way to spur economic growth, which is one way to improve our country's finances. When the private sector can invest its money, rather than pay it to Uncle Sam, it creates jobs and economic activity - which fill the public coffers. The government doesn't create jobs; businesses do. When companies and workers do well, so does the government.

But tax cuts must be offset by meaningful spending reductions. Addressing just one side of the ledger is like damming half a river; it doesn't fix deficits.

Getting our annual deficits in check doesn't mean looking back; it requires looking forward. It's a live decision, one that's happening at the same time the administration is asking Congress for a 19 percent increase in discretionary spending - which would be the second-largest bump in at least six decades.

Lawmakers must look at our deficit-spending addiction holistically. To his credit, President Donald Trump's 2027 budget proposes cutting non-defense spending by 10 percent. However, those gains are more than negated in defense spending. That's a critical priority, but funding must be offset with significant spending reductions. That means programs that have long been a political third rail, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

While slashing entitlement historically has not been a winning recipe for getting reelected, voters understand what's at stake, and they want leaders who will make the right decisions.

Over eight in 10 Americans are more concerned about the national debt now compared to a few years ago, and 85 percent want Congress and the White House to do more to address it.

The heightened awareness owes to voters' own understanding. Nine in 10 people realize that our country's debt problem is driving up costs of living and making personal borrowing more expensive.

Eliminating our country's annual deficits is achievable, and doing so will get our national debt on a path to be paid down. But it will take bold leaders who will set realistic goals and have the political courage to achieve them. That's a tall ask in Washington these days, but voters should demand it when they go to vote this fall.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 06:30

Turkish State Takes Near-Total Control Of US-Sanctioned Bank Over IRGC Ties

Turkish State Takes Near-Total Control Of US-Sanctioned Bank Over IRGC Ties

On September 4, the US Treasury unveiled sanctions against a Turkey-based bank and two of its subsidiaries, accusing them of moving tens of millions of dollars on behalf of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and facilitating Tehran's movement of funds across the international banking system. 

It did not take long for the Turkish government to sweep in and act to contain the damage and what some interpret as a national reputational hit, which was one of the opening salvoes in the Trump/Bessent 'Economic D-Day' and secondary sanctions (Operation Economic Outcast) targeting Tehran and entities still doing business with the Islamic Republic.

On Wednesday Turkey's banking regulator has taken over most shareholder rights of the US-targeted bank - the Golden ⁠Global Yatirim Bankasi - through the country’s state deposit insurer, TMSF (Savings Deposit Insurance Fund).

Turkish media notes that "The decision gives the fund the authority to exercise the shareholder rights attached to the stakes, while specifically excluding dividend rights."

The newly reassigned rights cover 99.98 percent of the shares in the bank, reports also detail.

Publicly available figures indicate that Golden Global Investment Bank is a small and young bank, having €498 million ($574.5 million) in total assets, and was only founded in 2019.

In the wake of the US action, US Ambassador to Turkey and Trump special envoy for the broader region Tom Barrack had sought to calm the Turkish government by saying Washington is only targeting specific financial institutions and this is not meant as a shot against Turkey itself.

"This designation is aimed at the conduct of one entity, not at a nation, not at a banking system, and not at an ally," Barrack wrote on X.

He further declared it would be "a serious error" to interpret the measure as a judgment on the Turkish ally as a whole.

The country's Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek had simply acknowledged last week that Ankara had taken note of US Treasury announcements - suggesting some kind of serious house cleaning could soon follow.

OFAC alleges the bank was created to help Iranian oil revenues reach Turkey from China, where exchangers converted the funds into cash and gold, and accuses it of opening correspondent banking to Iranian institutions through accounts under Quds Force control. There are reports saying the bank has officially rejected the charges against it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 05:45

Apparently This Is Not Criminal Damage...

Apparently This Is Not Criminal Damage...

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A Dutch 'activist' who climbed Winston Churchill's statue in Parliament Square, sprayed it with "Zionist war criminal," "Globalise the Intifada" and Hamas-style red triangles, then argued the graffiti didn't count because it could be washed off, has walked out of Southwark Crown Court a free man.

The bill for cleaning the monument ran into thousands. The man who did it has escaped criminal charges.

Olax Outis, also known as Caspar San Giorgi, 39, defaced Churchill earlier this year while wearing a red boiler suit reading "I support Palestine Action." Prosecutor Peter Ratliff told jurors he sprayed the words 'Free Palestine' and red triangles on the front, and 'Never Again Is Now' on the rear. On the plinth he scrawled 'Globalise the Intifada,' 'Stop the Genocide' and 'Zionist war criminal,' plus a Dutch line he later rendered as 'The Hague sends their regards.'

A Greater London Authority heritage warden saw him doing it and called the police. Officers were there within two minutes. Specialist cleaners were not far behind. Court figures put the damage at £11,970 when he was first charged. Later reporting on the restoration bill listed more than £7,000, including police barriers at £612 plus VAT and an emergency clean and restore at £6,504 plus VAT.

He denied criminal damage. The paint was washable, he said. He was "sending a message to parliament." He was "preventing a crime." The jury agreed he was not guilty.

In the dock he was unrepentant. "I'm proud to be a citizen of The Hague," he told them. "If I had a larger canvas and more time, I would have written if Keir Starmer doesn't come to The Hague, The Hague will come for him. My wish is to see him on trial in The Hague." On the verdict itself: "Whether you convict me or not is not too much of a concern for me. Whether I get acquitted, deported, imprisoned for years, I can be proud of having spoken about injustice and I have accounted for my actions. I will accept your judgement."

He had already claimed the stunt online. He had come to Britain, he said, to "deface a statue of one of history's most well-known war criminals, Winston Churchill." Churchill, in his telling, was "the Keir Starmer of his time."

Downing Street called the vandalism "completely abhorrent" in February and said Churchill was "a great Briton" who "must be held to account." The Home Office called the vandals "a disgrace." The Greater London Authority said it was "appalled." Six months later a jury decided the spray cans did not amount to a crime.

Heidi Bachram, whose husband's relatives were murdered and taken hostage by Hamas, blasted the decision, urging "This country's legal system is a nasty joke,"and adding "He should have been deported." A foreigner, she noted, can "paint a threat to Jews on the statue of our greatest leader with the added red triangle to make clear it isn't the 'peaceful' version of Intifada and GET AWAY WITH IT."

That is the two-tier point, and it is not a slogan. The Met and Greater Manchester Police spent last winter warning that "globalise the intifada" could get you arrested. The same words went up in red on Churchill's monument. The man who put them there told a jury the paint came off. The jury said not guilty.

None of this sits in a vacuum. Churchill is being taken apart in official rooms while activists take him apart in the square.

Last week it emerged the Bank of England had spent more than £85,000 researching how to get him off the £5 note. Consultants told officials that portraits of notable Britons were "elitist and divisive," a "backward-looking vision of the UK that carries too great a risk of division and controversy." Hedgehogs and puffins are waiting in the wings. Nigel Farage called the plan "absolutely crackers." Kemi Badenoch called it "erasing our history."

The same city that cannot convict a man for spraying "Zionist war criminal" across Churchill is being lectured by the UN's racial discrimination committee to put up statues of people of African descent as atonement for slavery - as if Britain had not banned the trade, spent blood and treasure suppressing it, and already spent years ripping down or boxing up its own monuments.

Sadiq Khan's Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm was built for that mood. Churchill's statue was boarded up in 2020. The lecture has not stopped.

They even installed the punchline. On Trafalgar Square's Fourth Plinth last week City Hall unveiled Tschabalala Self's five-metre Lady in Blue - sold as an "everywoman," a "symbol of confidence and purpose," and, in the CNN version, a win because it is "not another White man." It stands in the ceremonial heart of the capital, opposite Nelson, paid for out of the same public art machine that treats British victory as an embarrassment.

Picture the same red paint poured all over that figure. The press releases write themselves. The outrage would be industrial.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 05:00

Belarus Gets Partial US Sanctions Relief After Freeing More Political Prisoners

Belarus Gets Partial US Sanctions Relief After Freeing More Political Prisoners

In a rare development, Belarus - which forms a 'Union State' with Russia, has received partial US sanctions relief after it agreed to free 25 political prisoners. 

President Trump's envoy, John Coale, revealed to reporters in the Belarusian capital Minsk: "We agreed to an interim deal, and as a show of goodwill Belarus will release 25 people and in exchange the United States will lift sanctions on two companies."

Kremlin.ru/ White House

The deal follows a much bigger amnesty for prisoners brokered by Washington that occurred last March. At that time the Lukashenko government freed a huge amount - 250 people.

"We will continue to improve U.S.-Belarus relations and are working to secure the release of more people in the very near future. We are not finished!" Coale had later posted on X.

One regional outlet has outlined what the Belarussians are getting in return:

The two companies to be removed from U.S. sanctions are Lakokraska, a manufacturer of paints and industrial coatings, and Bellesbumprom, a state-owned industrial concern that oversees the forestry, pulp and paper sectors. Sanctions against them have been in place since 2008 and 2023, respectively.

Coale also promised Lukashenko on Tuesday to get U.S. banks to hand back tens of millions of dollars in frozen Belarusian assets.

Back in September of 2025, there had been an initial breakthrough deal which centered on the release of 52 prisoners deemed held on political grounds, such as based on speech or political activism.

Russia's aviation sector has also long been sanctioned, leading to the potential for unsafe travel or possible aerial disasters - as aging fleets are in need of regular servicing, often dependent on access to US and Western parts. This is something Minsk has also sought to grain relief from Washington for.

President Trump has in the recent past indicated that he looks forward to meeting with President Lukashenko in the future, in a sign of a likely further thawing of relations.

More broadly, this is also part of US efforts to reverse spiraling bilateral relations with Moscow, given that Russia and Belarus work hand and glove in defense, economic, and political areas. Belarusian territory has long been a staging ground for Putin's 'special military operation' in Ukraine as well, and hosts Russian tactical nukes - which Europe has long kept a very close eye on.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 04:15

Britain's Speech Police: How The State Learned To Fear Its People

Britain's Speech Police: How The State Learned To Fear Its People

Authored by Paul Birch via The Daily Sceptic,

Many of us in Britain still flatter ourselves that we live in a free country. Although the UK isn't quite a police state (not yet anyway), neither is it a country in which the individual can any longer speak without glancing over his or her shoulder. The old compact of a liberal society was simple - the state punished genuine criminality, while opinion was left to the rough justice of argument, satire and public disagreement.

That compact has now been comprehensively torn up. Across Britain, speech that would once have been answered by rebuttal or humour is now treated as a matter for police, regulators and secretive Whitehall machinery. A report published this week by civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation Big Brother Watch states that more than 62,000 people in the United Kingdom were arrested for communications offences over a five year period, with at least 18,500 charged and 12,292 convicted. These numbers should alarm anyone who still believes the citizen is master and the state is servant.

This is not some marginal administrative adjustment. It is the apparatus of speech control operating on an industrial scale. Some cases will involve genuine threats - stalking, domestic abuse or harassment - and those cases should, of course, be investigated. But when arrest numbers vastly outstrip those of conviction, as is highlighted in the report, it is clear the process itself has become the punishment. The knock at the door, the search, the device seizure, the interview, the stigma, the potential loss of employment and the unmistakable lesson to everyone watching - keep quiet.

Worse, enforcement appears completely arbitrary. Big Brother Watch has described a "postcode lottery" of speech policing, with sharply different arrest rates between forces. Cumbria was reported as arresting people at dramatically higher rates than neighbouring Northumbria (although Cumbria Police has history when it comes to 'woke' policing). Liberty which varies by postcode is not liberty at all. It is permission, granted or withheld by local institutional mood. If the same national law produces radically different policing outcomes, the law is either too vague to restrain power or too tempting for power to resist.

The root of the problem lies in modern speech law and its elasticity. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance on communications offences covers offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Communications Act 2003 and Part 10 of the Online Safety Act 2023, including offences involving false or threatening communications. The framework encompasses messages said to be "grossly offensive", "indecent", "obscene" or "menacing". Those words may sound reassuring in a statute book, but in the hands of ideological bureaucracies they become draconian tools to subdue inconvenient perspectives.

Recent cases expose the rot. In Hertfordshire, Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen were arrested after complaints about their daughter's primary school appeared in a parents' WhatsApp group. They were held for eleven hours on suspicion including harassment and malicious communications. Hertfordshire Police later admitted the legal criteria for arrest were not met and agreed to pay them £20,000 in compensation. This is what happens when public bodies discover that the police can be weaponised as a complaints department with handcuffs.

The same authoritarian drift is visible with the now notorious notion of the Non-Crime Hate Incident. The clue is in the name - no crime has been committed. Lawful speech has been recorded by police in a way that brands ordinary people with a quasi-criminal stain. The College of Policing has now proposed major reforms, explicitly recognising that lawful free speech is not a police matter and that personal data should be recorded only where there is a clear policing purpose. That admission matters. It is an institutional confession that the state wandered far beyond its proper boundary - although it remains to be seen how police senior management across the country, many of whom are politically motivated, interpret these reforms.

My final role in policing involved facilitating the removal of terrorist content from the internet. This consisted of clear, unequivocal material glamourising proscribed groups, often including graphic footage of combat and the murder of captives. However, we began to notice that we were being tasked increasingly to assess content which was much more subjective: not violent or calling for violence, but 'hateful' - and only if viewed from a very specific point on the philosophical spectrum. This became more apparent with the establishment of police hate crime teams, and the fact that pursuing a nebulous 'far Right' was something which could gain one significant career advantages.

Then there is the darker machinery of government itself. Big Brother Watch's ' Ministry of Truth' investigation alleged that secretive Whitehall counter-disinformation units monitor lawful political dissent online, including politicians, journalists, academics, campaigners and members of the public. In counter-terrorism policing, we were aware of the existence of some such units, but it is now clear this operation is much more extensive and that it runs much deeper than at first thought.

The public are told this is all about 'misinformation', but it has drifted into monitoring criticism of government policy. This is how censorship grows in a democracy - not with bonfires of books, but with dashboards, 'trusted-flagger' relationships, 'narrative' reports and officials quietly nudging platforms to reduce the reach of inconvenient opinions.

The Online Safety Act has only exacerbated the danger by shifting censorship pressure onto content service providers. Defenders say it targets illegality and protects children. Yet the predictable and inevitable result of duties, regulatory risk and political panic, is over-removal. Platforms don't need to be commanded in plain language to censor; they need only be made afraid. Risk-averse companies will hide lawful speech, demand identity checks, throttle debate and call it compliance. The censor's hand now often wears a corporate glove, especially if advertising revenue streams are threatened.

A serious country punishes tangible threats, criminality and violence. It doesn't send the police after off-colour jokes, parental complaints or political dissent. We have to choose. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy in which the state respects the citizen, or we can become a managerial state in which the citizen fears a file, a knock on the door, a call from an online safety team or the quiet downgrade of their opinions.

Speech offences need to be drastically narrowed to those which call for direct violence or harm; ideological intelligence-gathering against lawful expression should be abolished; regulators ought to be restrained, and government content-flagging outside the terrorist space must be transparent.

Free speech isn't a courtesy extended by ministers, chief constables or Silicon Valley compliance teams. It is the condition of citizenship in any civilised country. Without it, liberty is just a word in the dictionary.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 03:30

Russian Frigate Fires Flares At Danish Military Helicopter, Copenhagen Summons Ambassador

Russian Frigate Fires Flares At Danish Military Helicopter, Copenhagen Summons Ambassador

There's been another dangerous incident and major 'close call' involving a Russian ship in international waters off Europe.

In this case, which unfolded Monday, a Danish military helicopter reportedly hovered near a Russian military frigate, seeking to monitor and photograph it.

Illustrative, via Naval Technology

Soon after, according to the account of Danish military officials, the Fennec military helicopter was fired upon by flares from the Russian ship.

It happened in the Baltic Sea, after which Moscow's ambassador in Copenhagen, Vladimir Barbin, laid blame solely on the Danish side for the helicopter's "dangerous maneuvers".

One of the flares, which are typically only used for warning signals at sea when a ship is distressed, is said to have passed dangerously close to the helicopter.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the incident serious and framed it as an extension of Russia's so-called hybrid campaign against Europe and NATO.

"Russia wants to sow fear and discord. Our answer is to stand closer together and strengthen the defense of Denmark and Europe," Frederiksen said.

And the country's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen also condemned the event as having endangered lives.

"Denmark is working to ensure that all shipping can pass peacefully through Danish waters, but Russia is gradually moving the line for what it considers acceptable behavior," Rasmussen said, and confirmed he summoned Russia's ambassador.

Below is an example of European media playing the hawks, pressing officials over invoking NATO Article 5 'collective defense':

Denmark’s Defence Minister Jeppe Bruus told TV 2 News that one flare passed within a “matter of metres” of the aircraft, and accused Russia of “deeply unprofessional seamanship”.

When asked if Denmark would seek Article 5 consultations over the incident – invoking the NATO measure that considers an attack against one member of the bloc to be an attack against all of them – Bruus said the incident was being taken seriously, but “we are not there”.

Barbin said he had complained last year about what he called dangerous fly-bys and low hovering by a Danish helicopter over the Russian warship Vice-Admiral Kulakov.

Tensions have been soaring between Russia and Scandinavian countries of late in northern waters, particularly after early this month Norway seized a Russian government expedition vessel as it was docked at a far northern island, deemed an international zone.

Putin had described the incident as Ukraine's Western backers being "complicit in international terrorism" - given the seizure came at the request of the Zelensky government.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 02:45

Turkey Takes On Houthis? Any Support To Saudis Faces Huge Blowback

Turkey Takes On Houthis? Any Support To Saudis Faces Huge Blowback

Via Middle East Eye

Turkey's new commitments to Saudi Arabia under the Mecca defence pact could increase the risk of Ankara being drawn into a confrontation with Yemen's Houthis, a development that could have significant consequences for Turkish supply lines to the Horn of Africa. Although Turkey has yet to ratify the pact, expected in October, continued Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia, and Ankara’s recent participation in the Saudi-led Multinational Maritime Defense Alliance make some form of confrontation possible.

Several regional experts interviewed by Middle East Eye said Ankara does not want a clash with the Houthis. Instead, they suggested Turkey could use its relationships with Saudi Arabia and Iran to help defuse tensions while deploying military equipment to help Riyadh better defend itself. 

A Turkish official told MEE that Riyadh had not formally requested Ankara’s assistance under the Mecca pact, which brings together Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, experts also noted that Ankara has much to lose from an escalation, which could disrupt Turkish military, commercial and energy supply lines through the Red Sea.

Turkey's Somali Naval Task Group on an escort and protection mission for the Cagri Bey Drilling Ship & support vessels off the coast of Somalia. Source: Turkish Defense Ministry

Ebuzer Demirci, a research fellow at the Secure Futures Lab at the University of Toronto Scarborough, said Bab al-Mandeb, which has effectively been controlled by the Houthis since the weekend, is a gateway to China, India and East Africa for Turkey. Any restrictions imposed on Turkish shipping would increase trade costs and transit times.

“But the more specific exposure is Somalia,” he told MEE. “Turkey’s presence there - the embassy, the military training base in Mogadishu, offshore oil exploration activities and the spaceport project - is supplied from Turkey through the Suez-Red Sea route.”

Demirci added that although personnel and urgent cargo are transported by air, heavy equipment and naval rotations move by sea and must pass through Bab al-Mandeb.

“Somalia itself trades with the Gulf and Asia through the Indian Ocean and would not be cut off by a closure,” he said. “What would be affected is the direct line between Ankara and Mogadishu, at a time when piracy off Somalia is already rising again.”

Risks of a direct intervention

Demirci said Houthi restrictions would not completely undermine Turkish influence in the region, since it is rooted in institutions in Somalia and other African countries rather than being solely dependent on maritime traffic. Turkey could also sustain its operations through air transport, he added, although at a substantially higher cost.

Turkey already has a naval presence in the region. Turkish warships are guarding an energy exploration vessel off the Somali coast, while Ankara separately continues to participate in a UN-backed anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden.

Senior Ansar Allah official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti last week warned Turkey and Pakistan against intervening in support of Saudi Arabia, saying that any direct Turkish or Pakistani intervention on Saudi Arabia’s behalf would carry a “heavy price”.

The general view in Ankara is that Turkey cannot afford a confrontation with the Houthis and should instead focus on building bridges among Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Yemeni group.

Betul Dogan-Akkas, an assistant professor of international relations at Ankara University, said Turkey has not designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, leaving open possible channels of communication.

She argued that Istanbul’s sizeable Yemeni diaspora, whose members have deep tribal connections, could provide Ankara with valuable political capital and allow it to become more diplomatically involved in efforts to resolve the war in Yemen. “The members of the Mecca alliance would probably not want their first action to be directed against another Muslim group,” she told MEE.

Israel's military has meanwhile been deepening involvement in 'Somaliland' region, after Netanyahu govt. gave official recognition.

Source: TOI

Muhammed Huseyin Mercan, an academic and senior fellow at the Ankara-based think tank Seta, agreed, saying that military intervention would create complications extending well beyond the Red Sea.

Pointing to last week’s attack by Iran-aligned Iraqi militias on the East-West Pipeline supplying Yanbu in Saudi Arabia, Mercan said a Turkish confrontation with the Houthis could also strain Ankara’s relations with Baghdad and complicate peace efforts involving the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Ankara has recently made progress in persuading the PKK and affiliated groups to dissolve themselves and integrate into local political and administrative structures, with Baghdad playing a crucial role in that process.

Mercan said Iraqi militias could disrupt these efforts and create additional complications for Turkey. The militias have demanded the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops from northern Iraq as part of negotiations over their own disarmament and integration into the Iraqi armed forces. “Turkey should try to bring all sides to the table and help lay the groundwork for a comprehensive agreement to end Yemen’s civil war,” he told MEE.

Defensive aid and political role

The experts agreed, however, that these risks would not necessarily prevent Turkey from providing Saudi Arabia with military equipment, air-defense systems and drones. There are signs that Ankara intends to do precisely that.

Senior regional officials familiar with the discussions told MEE that Turkey was preparing to provide defensive assistance while avoiding direct intervention inside Yemen.

The officials said the assistance could include the deployment of aircraft, operators and technical personnel, possibly beginning in October after Turkey ratifies the Mecca defense pact. The Turkish parliament is currently in recess and is not expected to consider ratification before then. “Preparations and discussions are ongoing,” one regional official said. “The defense system will be established to counter attacks originating from Yemen, including missiles and drones.”

Turkey is already active in the Saudi defense establishment and in recent years, Ankara has signed several drone and ammunition supply agreements with Riyadh 

Demirci said the most likely scenario at Bab al-Mandeb was not a complete closure of the strait but selective Houthi control. Under such a scenario, the group could apply pressure to Saudi-linked traffic while allowing other ships to pass under conditions it sets.

That could prove costly and disruptive for Ankara, he said, but would remain manageable. “What the Houthis should understand is that Turkey’s commitments in this region are not abstract,” Demirci said.

“Ankara has a defense agreement with Riyadh, a defense agreement with Mogadishu and a founding seat in the maritime coalition. The Houthis have no quarrel with Turkey, and it is in their interest to keep it that way.”

Yasmeen al-Eryani, executive director for knowledge production at the Yemeni think tank Sana’a Center, said the crisis also presented Turkey with an opportunity to assume a political role as a secondary intermediary. “For example, it could contribute to mitigating the impact of the Houthis’ dangerous advance in Bab al-Mandeb,” she told MEE.

“Turkey has actively strengthened its relations with Saudi Arabia while maintaining a delicate balance with Tehran. It can help convey messages, promote de-escalation and mitigate the impact of the conflict.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/17/2026 - 02:00

9 Terrifying Truths About Long-Term Economic Crises

9 Terrifying Truths About Long-Term Economic Crises

Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup,

Why preparation matters less than adaptation, and why the next crisis will not resemble the last...

My father kept his layoff notice from 1982 taped inside his toolbox until he died. The letterhead - blue, corporate, indifferent - arrived on a Tuesday in March, six months after his machine shop started losing contracts. By August, we were living in my aunt's basement. By Christmas, he was driving a delivery truck for half his previous wage.

He kept that letter as a reminder about velocity. How fast the ground moves when it finally shifts.

Most Americans have never experienced that kind of speed. They've known recessions, certainly - the technical kind, the temporary kind, the kind that ends with rebounding markets and analysts declaring victory. They've never known a genuine crisis, the sort that grinds forward for years, rewriting the social contract so gradually that each degradation feels like common sense by the time it arrives. The sort that leaves permanent scars.

We may be closer than we think. Not because of prophecy, but because of arithmetic. Debt structures, demographic shifts, and institutional fragilities have accumulated to levels that historical precedent suggests are difficult to sustain. The question is not whether stress will come, but whether those experiencing it will recognize the tremors before they're already falling.

The Numbers Behind the Warning Indicator Historical/Current Figure Period What It Shows Why It Matters Peak unemployment (Great Depression) 24.9% 1933 One in four workers jobless Recovery required roughly 25 years; generational trauma persisted U.S. federal debt-to-GDP ~123% 2025 (most recent full year) Exceeds WWII peak; among highest in nation's history Interest payments now exceed $1 trillion annually; constrains fiscal response capacity Labor force participation (prime-age males, 25-54) ~80.5% 2024-2025 Down from ~96% in 1950s "Missing" workers not counted in unemployment; indicates structural economic exclusion U.S. bank failures (Great Depression) ~9,000 1930-1933 Collapse of financial intermediation Destroyed savings, credit access, and business formation for a decade Social Security trust fund depletion projection 2033 Current SSA estimate Mandatory spending exceeding dedicated revenue Automatic benefit reductions of ~23% or equivalent tax increases likely within most workers' careers Infrastructure grade (ASCE) C 2021 Report Card (most recent) Deferred maintenance across all categories Catastrophic failure probability increasing; replacement costs estimated at $2.9 trillion over 10 years Container shipping cost volatility $1,200-$20,000+ per FEU 2019-2024 15x price swing during pandemic/disruption Just-in-time systems vulnerable to shock; consumer prices follow transport costs Advanced semiconductor manufacturing (≤5nm) ~90%+ (Taiwan/Taiwan Strait region) Current Geographic concentration of critical production Geopolitical or natural disruption would cascade through global electronics, automotive, and defense sectors

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Federal Reserve Economic Data, industry trade publications

These figures describe conditions, not predictions. Debt at 123% of GDP does not automatically trigger collapse - Japan has sustained higher ratios for decades, albeit with trade-offs. But high debt constrains options. When stress arrives, heavily indebted governments have less capacity to respond through stimulus. When unemployment spikes, extended benefits exhaust faster. When infrastructure ages, maintenance competes with emergency spending. The numbers suggest a system with reduced resilience - less able to absorb shocks, slower to recover, more vulnerable to cascading failures. What they cannot show is timing, specific triggers, or whether institutional adaptations will prove sufficient. History offers examples of both successful navigation and catastrophic failure from similar starting positions.

First Reality: The Joblessness That Doesn't End

Temporary unemployment is an inconvenience. Chronic unemployment is a transformation. During the Great Depression, joblessness persisted not for months but for years - peaking at nearly twenty-five percent in 1933, still above fifteen percent in 1940. A quarter of the workforce didn't just lose income. They lost identity, social connection, and the psychological structure that employment provides.

The modern equivalent may already be developing. Labor force participation among prime-age males has declined steadily since the mid-20th century - not because jobs don't exist, but because available jobs don't match skills, locations, or expectations in ways that draw workers in. This "missing" workforce doesn't appear in unemployment statistics, creating potential blind spots in labor market assessments. When crisis hits, these margins can expand rapidly. Businesses fail. Positions vanish permanently, not temporarily. Skills atrophy. Networks dissolve. What begins as cyclical can become structural.

The housing market follows employment with a lag. Mortgage defaults accumulate for months before foreclosure waves crest. Neighborhoods hollow as owner-occupants become renters, then face displacement. Property values in some affected areas - parts of Detroit post-2008, certain Rust Belt manufacturing centers - have struggled to recover pre-crisis levels even decades later. The damage isn't always cyclical. Sometimes it's geological.

Personal savings recommendations - typically three to six months of expenses - assume temporary interruption. They don't account for multi-year income loss during which benefits exhaust, assets liquidate, and credit access disappears. Real preparation requires acknowledging that employment may not return on previous terms, that careers may end, that adaptation matters as much as preservation.

Second Reality: When Ordinary People Become Desperate

Economic compression doesn't just increase crime - it can change its nature. Professional criminals adapt to conditions. Amateurs, driven by genuine desperation, may behave unpredictably. They panic. They escalate. They make mistakes that turn property crimes into violent confrontations.

Historical patterns are documented. Argentina's 2001 collapse generated organized looting within weeks. Venezuela's deterioration produced criminal enterprises controlling food distribution through force. During the 1930s, American rural areas saw agricultural theft increase, while cities developed protection rackets and smuggling networks.

Contemporary data shows strain. Retail shrinkage has increased in recent years, with organized retail crime contributing significantly in many jurisdictions. As economic conditions tighten, participation may broaden. Individuals with no criminal history - former professionals, displaced workers, struggling families - may begin calculating risk differently when legitimate options narrow. Hunger and eviction concentrate the mind. Legal consequences can feel abstract when immediate survival is threatened.

Home invasion patterns have historically followed unemployment with a lag. The mechanism is comprehensible: savings deplete, desperation mounts, targets shift. Concurrently, municipal budgets can contract. Police departments may face difficult choices between personnel costs and other services. Camden, New Jersey, dissolved its municipal police force in 2013 due to fiscal insolvency; replacement required roughly eighteen months, during which criminal activity accelerated.

Personal security under these conditions isn't solely about defensive capability. It's about reducing visibility - appearing less prosperous than you are, avoiding predictable patterns, hardening entry points without advertising wealth. The goal is to avoid confrontation, not to win it.

Third Reality: The Fires That Spread

Protracted economic distress creates conditions for civil disturbance that can ignite from seemingly minor sparks. The ingredients - unemployment, inflation, governmental incompetence, perceived unfairness - combine gradually until reaching threshold. Then ignition. The specific trigger is often arbitrary: a price increase, a police interaction, a service reduction. Once started, disturbance can spread through networked populations faster than suppression capacity can mobilize.

Historical cataloging is extensive. The 1873 railroad strikes involved federal troop deployment and dozens killed. The 1932 Bonus Army occupation of Washington ended with military dispersal. The urban insurrections of 1967-1968 required National Guard activation in multiple cities. More recently, coordinated civil unrest in 2020 produced property destruction exceeding $2 billion in some estimates, with police stations abandoned in some jurisdictions.

The pattern often involves escalation that outpaces response. Initial protests may express legitimate grievance. Opportunistic elements may infiltrate. Property destruction can begin. Law enforcement may withdraw to protect personnel and facilities. Vacuums can fill with looting. Geographic expansion may follow contagion dynamics. By the time authorities respond effectively, commercial districts can be devastated. Insurance coverage may evaporate. Businesses may close permanently. Tax bases erode. Services contract. The cycle can reinforce itself.

Preparation requires hardening of fixed assets and community organization. Commercial properties need security barriers, reinforced entry points, fire suppression. Residential properties need defensible space, clear sight lines, structural reinforcement. Community coordination - mutual aid agreements, communication protocols, coordinated response - can multiply individual capability. Isolation is vulnerability. Connection can be strength.

Urban concentration can become liability during such periods. Population density facilitates rapid spread. Resource competition intensifies. Infrastructure dependency creates multiple potential failure points. Less dense positioning may reduce certain exposures. Self-sufficiency capacity - food production, water independence, energy generation - can become a survival determinant.

Fourth Reality: When the Medicine Becomes Poison

Governments respond to fiscal crisis through austerity: expenditure reduction, taxation increase, debt monetization. Modest application may stabilize. Sustained application can destroy.

Greece 2010-2018 demonstrates a trajectory. Troika-mandated austerity - pension cuts, tax increases, public sector layoffs - reduced GDP by approximately twenty-five percent. Unemployment exceeded twenty-five percent. Youth unemployment exceeded fifty percent. Suicide rates increased. Birth rates collapsed. Skilled labor emigrated. National capacity diminished.

The United States faces analogous pressures. Federal debt has exceeded one hundred percent of GDP. Interest payments consume an increasing share of federal revenue - now exceeding $1 trillion annually. Mandatory spending - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - crowds discretionary capacity. The policy options are constrained: tax increases may reduce productive activity; expenditure cuts reduce aggregate demand; debt monetization risks inflation. Paths may converge toward reduced living standards, though distribution varies.

Individual mitigation requires asset repositioning. Tax-advantaged accounts offer partial shelter. Geographic arbitrage - relocation to lower-cost or lower-tax jurisdictions - may preserve purchasing power. Currency diversification - precious metals, foreign assets, alternative stores - may reduce sovereign exposure. None eliminates risk. All distribute it differently.

Fifth Reality: The Thin Thread of Global Commerce

Integrated production networks function during stability. They can disintegrate during stress. Minor disruptions - port congestion, labor disputes, fuel price spikes - can cascade through just-in-time systems. Major disruptions may generate systemic failure.

Container shipping rates illustrate volatility. Pre-pandemic norms around $2,000 per forty-foot unit spiked to $20,000 during 2021 disruptions, then collapsed, then rebounded. Such oscillation destroys planning capacity. Inventory management becomes difficult. Retail pricing becomes erratic. Consumer behavior may shift toward hoarding.

Manufacturing concentration amplifies vulnerability. Critical components - advanced semiconductors, certain pharmaceuticals, rare earth elements - originate from geographically concentrated sources. Taiwan and its immediate region produce the vast majority of the most advanced semiconductors. Disruption of major nodes can generate global shortage. The COVID-19 experience demonstrated this: semiconductor shortages idled automotive plants; pharmaceutical supply constraints affected treatment protocols; personal protective equipment scarcity required rationing.

Personal preparation requires inventory depth. Critical spares must be procured while available. Repair capability must be developed while instruction is accessible. Substitution planning must be completed while options exist. The window for preparation is uncertain. The need is not.

Sixth Reality: When Trust Evaporates

Fractional reserve banking depends on confidence. Depositors believe their money is available. Physically, it is not immediately present. Banks hold a fraction of deposits as reserves; the remainder is lent, invested, or deployed. Confidence failure - bank runs - can reveal liquidity constraints immediately.

Historical precedent is extensive. The United States experienced thousands of bank failures during the early 1930s, with deposits frozen. More recently, major institutions failed in 2008. Global financial systems froze. Central bank intervention prevented cascade but did not eliminate systemic risk.

Current conditions include challenges: unrealized losses on bond portfolios, commercial real estate exposure, and significant uninsured deposits. Social media enables rapid information propagation. Digital banking enables rapid withdrawal. The combination creates potential for rapid confidence shifts.

Mitigation requires distribution. Account balances should remain below insurance limits where possible. Institutions should be diversified across multiple banks and potentially jurisdictions. Physical currency should be maintained as backup. Barter commodities may retain utility when electronic systems fail or are restricted.

Seventh Reality: When Calories Become Currency

Food systems operate on thin margins. Producers require price stability, input availability, transportation functionality, market access. Economic crisis can disrupt all simultaneously.

Input costs - fuel, fertilizer, seed - escalate with energy prices. The Haber-Bosch process, which produces nitrogen fertilizer, consumes significant natural gas. Transportation costs escalate similarly. Processing capacity operates near limits. Bottlenecks form. Prices spike.

Government intervention can worsen outcomes. Price controls may reduce production incentives. Export bans may reduce global supply. Subsidy elimination may bankrupt marginal producers. The result can be simultaneous surplus and shortage: commodities exist, but distribution fails.

Historical parallels include Soviet collectivization and Sri Lanka's organic fertilizer mandate. Both produced yield collapse and food crisis. Contemporary vulnerability includes concentrated processing - limited slaughterhouses, grain storage, canning capacity.

Personal preparation requires production capacity. Garden cultivation generates supplemental calories. Animal husbandry provides protein. Preservation skills extend availability. Storage infrastructure protects inventory. Skills require years to develop. The time to begin is before necessity compels it.

Eighth Reality: When Infrastructure Meets Inevitability

Catastrophic events stress systems designed for routine operation. Economic crisis can degrade maintenance, preparation, and response capacity. Catastrophe can become disaster; disaster can become collapse.

Hurricane Katrina demonstrated risks. Federal, state, and local coordination faced significant challenges. Approximately 1,800 deaths. $125 billion in damage. The Superdome became uninhabitable quickly. Police abandoned posts in some areas. Looting and vigilante violence followed. The event lasted days. Consequences persisted for years.

Current infrastructure ages. The American Society of Civil Engineers most recently graded U.S. infrastructure at C. Deferred maintenance accumulates. Replacement costs are estimated in the trillions. Catastrophic failure probability may increase while response capability faces constraints.

Personal preparation requires redundancy. Water: filtration, storage, well access. Power: generation, storage, non-electric alternatives. Sanitation: disposal, treatment, disease prevention. Communication: radio, mesh networks, physical coordination. Shelter: repair materials, weatherproofing, climate control. Community organization multiplies individual capacity.

Ninth Reality: The Only Preparation That Matters

Economic crises are not aberrations. They are features of systems that accumulate imbalances until correction becomes necessary. The timing is uncertain. The recurrence is not.

Current indicators suggest elevated vulnerability. Whether this manifests as gradual degradation or acute rupture remains unknown. What is knowable is that preparation based solely on inventory addresses only initial phases.

True preparation is capability. Skills that persist when tools break. Networks that function when institutions fail. Adaptability that accommodates circumstances rather than demanding conformity to plans. My father's toolbox reminder wasn't about the layoff itself. It was about what came after - the years of adaptation, the humility of starting over, the recognition that identity must transcend employment.

Stress, if it comes, will not announce itself clearly. It may arrive wearing the mask of normalcy, then accelerate beyond reaction capacity. Those who recognized patterns early may adapt. Those who waited for confirmation may consume their preparation just understanding that preparation was necessary.

Choose capability over inventory. Choose community over isolation. Choose skills over supplies. The ground moves. The question is whether you'll recognize the tremor before you're already falling.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 23:25

J-50 Designers Reveal "Leapfrog" Technology For China's Next-Gen Stealth Fighter

J-50 Designers Reveal "Leapfrog" Technology For China's Next-Gen Stealth Fighter

China’s next-generation combat aircraft will be able to fly by themselves if a pilot loses consciousness, navigate without satellite signals and operate in self-reorganising large drone formations. That is the plan laid out by researchers from the Shenyang Aircraft Design & Research Institute, a top Chinese military aircraft design organisation, in a paper last month, the SCMP reported.

The institute is associated with the development of the Chinese next-generation aircraft commonly referred to as the J-50, which first appeared in flight-test imagery in December 2024, although the paper does not mention the J-50 by name or confirm that the aircraft will incorporate any of the described technologies.

China’s future fighters, including the J-50 and J-36, are considered rivals to the US Air Force’s sixth-generation main fighter programme, the F-47, being developed by Boeing.

The lead researcher is chief flight-control designer Zhang Dong at the institute, and his team’s paper – rare for its public details – was published in a peer-reviewed journal Aircraft Design in August.

China’s next-generation stealth fighter programs were undergoing a “leapfrog transformation from being able to fly steadily to being able to win in combat”, wrote Zhang and his colleagues.

Zhang’s study presents a future of pilots handing over control during periods of extreme workload or incapacitation, quantum navigation technologies supporting operations in satellite-denied environments and crewed fighters coordinating attack, reconnaissance and protection missions with reconfigurable wingman drones.

The team’s institute is part of the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China, which oversees much of the country’s aircraft research and development.

Its subsidiary, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, is also developing the J-36 fighter, widely regarded as another candidate for China’s next-generation sixth-generation combat aircraft.

In 2025, an investigation by defence news website, The War Zone, using satellite imagery found that the Chengdu J-36 and the Shenyang J-50 aircraft were both based at an experimental military airfield near Lop Nur, a highly secretive site for aerospace test flights that has often been compared to the United States’ Area 51.

Their simultaneous presence at the same base suggested that China’s military was actively supporting the parallel development of the two programmes.

Zhang’s paper presents a rare technological road map for future combat aircraft, describing a fundamental restructuring of the flight-control system from a device concerned mainly with flight quality into a core enabler of collaborative engagement, intelligent manoeuvre and mission effectiveness.

The change reflected what the authors described as three successive eras of air combat.

In the earlier “energy manoeuvrability” era, victory depended heavily on physical manoeuvring performance in close-range combat, while flight-control systems were largely closed and centralised, with specialised hardware and software designed mainly to keep the aircraft stable, controllable and responsive to pilot inputs.

The rise of long-range radar, stealth shaping and precision-guided weapons shifted combat towards “information manoeuvrability”, where detecting, tracking and attacking an opponent before being detected became increasingly important.

Fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-22 and J-20 use full-authority digital fly-by-wire systems and increasingly integrate flight control with fire-control and propulsion systems through high-speed data links.

The authors argued that the next phase was “cognitive manoeuvrability”, in which artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and distributed networking allowed air combat to move from platform-versus-platform competition towards system-level contests involving manned-unmanned formations.

This changes what flight control is expected to do.

“The functional positioning of the flight control system is undergoing a fundamental restructuring – from a platform controller merely pursuing flight quality to a core enabler of collaborative engagement management, intelligent manoeuvre decision-making and closed-loop mission effectiveness,” Zhang and his co-authors wrote.

The first major capability is autonomous flight control.

Instead of making pilots constantly turn high-level battle plans into precise stick movements, the new system would let on-board intelligent algorithms do that job automatically, translating tactical orders into smooth, continuous flight actions while keeping the aircraft safely within its physical limits, even during extreme manoeuvres.

The aircraft would constantly monitor its own health by fusing data from sensors such as inertial navigation, airspeed indicators, control-surface positions and engine performance.

This would allow it to assess its flight state, estimate remaining manoeuvrability and detect potential problems before they develop into emergencies.

The system could then automatically adjust control settings and redistribute on-board resources while strictly enforcing safety boundaries to avoid stalls, loss of control or stuck control surfaces.

In particularly stressful situations, the aircraft could take over from the pilot.

The paper proposes allocating control authority between humans and autonomous systems so that pilots can spend less effort on low-level aircraft handling and more on battlefield assessment and tactical decisions.

During periods of excessive workload or if a pilot loses the ability to control the aircraft, the system could take control and continue executing the intended tactical task while prioritising flight safety.

The second major change concerns navigation.

Future combat aircraft may need to operate when satellite navigation is jammed, disrupted or unavailable, prompting the researchers to identify quantum inertial navigation, visual navigation, geomagnetic navigation and terrain matching as potential technologies for passive autonomous navigation.

The paper proposes combining data from various sensors to reduce errors and prevent failures caused by the degradation or loss of any single sensor under severe electromagnetic interference.

Quantum inertial navigation is therefore presented as part of a broader effort to give aircraft an independent sense of movement and position, rather than as a replacement for GPS.

The study framed these technologies as areas requiring further engineering research and implementation, rather than saying a quantum navigation system had already been deployed on a Chinese fighter.

The biggest shift, however, may come from the way multiple aircraft work together.

Future formations could pair crewed fighters acting as command nodes with uncrewed wingmen assigned to reconnaissance, attack and protection roles. Flight-control systems would coordinate their positions, routes, electromagnetic spectrum use and weapons-launch windows while dynamically allocating tasks between aircraft.

The authors saw this as more than a traditional formation controlled by a single leader.

If an aircraft suffered a malfunction or combat damage and left the formation, the remaining aircraft could automatically reorganise, replace the missing node and redistribute its unfinished tasks.

The system used consensus-based coordination and a dynamic “virtual leader” replacement mechanism to maintain autonomous operation without relying on a permanent central node.

Zhang and his team said single-aircraft autonomous control guaranteed survival in complex environments, while swarm coordination delivered multiplied combat effectiveness.

The paper pointed towards a more heterogeneous air-combat network rather than a simple arrangement of one crewed fighter and several identical drones.

It further highlighted large collaborative wingmen alongside various aircraft and autonomous platforms, suggesting a future architecture in which crewed fighters, larger unmanned aircraft and smaller autonomous systems could perform different functions within the same network.

Aircraft such as the Chinese Y-20 transport aircraft, the J-20 fighter and even the H-20 stealth strategic bomber, which is believed to be under development, could potentially form part of such a combat network.

However, Zhang and his team did not say whether the “combat group”, or the crewed “lead aircraft” and unmanned wingmen, would consist mainly of large numbers of drones or a combination of the larger aircraft described above.

The Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the paper’s authors did not respond to a request for comment.

Based on the paper’s publicly available discussion, the researchers suggested retaining conventional systems engineering as the safety backbone while using intelligent tools for tasks such as parameter optimisation, test expansion, automated testing and defect detection, with early trials conducted on lower-cost uncrewed platforms before broader adoption in major aircraft.

But the researchers do not advocate handing the aircraft’s most safety-critical functions directly to artificial intelligence (AI).

Instead, they identified a basic engineering conflict between intelligence and flight safety.

Data-driven algorithms can be difficult to explain and verify, and they might not apply in every situation, especially in extreme scenarios.

Applying such systems directly to the innermost control loops could therefore introduce unpredictable risks.

The proposed solution was a layered architecture.

“Engineering practice widely adopts a hybrid architecture with a closed core and open periphery,” the team wrote, allowing high-reliability, real-time functions to remain tightly controlled while more flexible software functions could be upgraded and connected across different platforms.

Under this model, the inner loop would retain conventional, highly deterministic controls for functions such as attitude stabilization, control-surface actuation and hard flight-envelope protection.

AI would operate mainly in the outer loop, handling tactical decision-making, trajectory optimization, multi-aircraft coordination and payload adaptation, while rigid safeguards would constrain its commands so that its recommendations remain inside a safe operating envelope.

The researchers called for further work on open layered architecture, verifiable intelligent flight control and cross-domain cooperative control, supported by large-scale simulation and flight-test data to improve the robustness and verifiability of intelligent models.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 23:00

How Trump's Iran Operation Turned Into A Forever War

How Trump's Iran Operation Turned Into A Forever War

Authored by Harrison Berger via Responsible Statecraft,

As the United States has struggled to secure its four primary objectives in the Iran War - achieving regime change, dismantling long-range ballistic missiles, eliminating nuclear enrichment, and halting Tehran's support for regional proxies - U.S. officials have rolled out a series of tried-and-failed theories for how to achieve those goals.

In the past four weeks, Americans have watched their government attempt to inflict an economic victory against Iran through Operation Economic Outcast, tightening a sanctions regime which for decades has strangled Iran's economy without resolving the underlying dispute.

Now, as that strategy flags, we have seen the Trump administration return to its older strategy of kinetic strikes against Iran. Those strikes, too, have failed to achieve their desired objectives.

Facing the prospect of a self-inflicted defeat, the U.S. has now proposed two new paths forward.

The first, reported by the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, is an option to extend and formalize the current series of on-and-off strikes U.S. officials call this "mowing the lawn," or a strategy of using periodic bouts of disproportionate force, as Israel did in Gaza prior to launching its full-scale, seemingly endless campaign after the Oct. 7 attacks of 2023. To support that option, the Pentagon has extended troop deployments in the Middle East through 2027.

The second option reportedly considered by the White House is for the U.S. to declare victory and walk away, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump favors the idea. Among the supporters of the second option is Joe Kent, the former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned in protest of the Iran War, and who has argued on X that the U.S. should "reset the terms of the deal" with Iran "by removing our troops & ships from the region." The argument that the U.S should walk away and "declare victory" is growing increasingly popular even in establishment circles.

But given the historic limitations of sanctions to achieve political outcomes, coupled with Iran's current demands, that strategy too appears unlikely to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and avert the economic consequences Iran's leverage over the waterway will have on the global economy.

Political scientists have long doubted whether U.S. economic pressure and sanctions can shape political outcomes, particularly when the targeted state has little reason to believe these measures will be reversed in exchange for good behavior; researchers like David Siegel are quick to acknowledge that they "don't work," while U.S. officials like Janet Yellen have conceded the same point, noting that, while sanctions against Iran had caused a "real economic crisis," they produced political outcomes "much less than we would ideally like."

As Siegel - who most recently studied the failure of U.S. sanctions on Russia to redirect their state behavior toward U.S. and NATO interests - explains, "target states have strong incentives not to give in and sometimes even benefit from heightened levels of political support at home because they can now credibly blame their economic woes on a foreign imperial power." Siegel argues that it's "probably more true today than ever before due to the fact that sanctioned states can turn to China."

The low likelihood of economic pressure opening up the Strait of Hormuz is depressed even further by the fact that one of Iran's preconditions for opening the Strait of Hormuz is the removal of sanctions, which would require a vote from Congress, where the proposal would face an uphill battle.

But perhaps the main reason walking away and declaring victory would fail to re-open the Strait and mitigate impending economic disaster is because Iran has tied freedom of navigation in the waterway to the U.S. reining in Israel, and the U.S. has long demonstrated it is unwilling to do so.

The June 17 agreement between the U.S. and Iran only required the U.S. force an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and Washington failed to follow through. Now, subsequent provocations by the U.S. and Israel have led Iran to expand its ceasefire demands to other campaigns: in Iraq, in Yemen, and in Palestine.

Securing a deal to re-open the Strait and end the war is further complicated by the growing view around the world that the "Art of The Deal" author is simply incapable of making deals. Results of a 2025 Politico survey of diplomats from 15 countries show foreign officials describing Trump's deal-making process as "reactive, with no clear direction," while Trump has so far failed to resolve a proxy war in Ukraine that he promised to end "within 24 hours" of taking office. The White House has similarly failed to reach a peace deal in Gaza.

Under these conditions, the broader Iran War appears to be rapidly approaching what a chief executive of a Danish shipping firm described to the Financial Times as a "Ukraine-style stalemate." Speaking to the outlet in August, the CEO of Torn explained how "the Gulf leadership has realized they need to prepare themselves for a prolonged situation that lasts not days or weeks but months or years," adding that "with the U.S. acting the way it is, I think it is a dream world to imagine the world returns to the way it was 10 years ago in the foreseeable future."

The consequences of that "prolonged situation" will soon be felt even more by American consumers, as Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz has pushed diesel prices to their highest ever levels. Averting economic catastrophe will therefore require the U.S. to meet conditions it has so far been unwilling to accept; merely declaring victory and walking away won't do the trick.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 22:35

Paramount Eyes California Exit, Hunts Nashville Offices As "Insane Communist Wackos" Ruin State

Paramount Eyes California Exit, Hunts Nashville Offices As "Insane Communist Wackos" Ruin State

Paramount Skydance Chairman and CEO David Ellison is exploring a potential California exit as the studio battles a multistate challenge to its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Politico reported late Wednesday that the studio is seeking roughly 400,000 square feet of office space in Nashville, signaling that its relocation is in the works. We have reported in the last few days and last month of Paramount's plan to exit the left-wing state (read here & here). 

The studio could move at least some operations to the Tennessee capital within two to three years, according to the report. No relocation has been announced, but the search raises the risk that California could lose a major Hollywood studio headquarters. Such a loss would deepen concerns about the state's ability to retain businesses as its entertainment industry struggles and the exodus of businesses and residents shows no signs of stopping.

Starting in October, Paramount will owe roughly $7 million for each day the transaction remains incomplete, according to the report. That amounts to approximately $210 million over 30 days.

The Paramount-Warner Bros. deal faces an antitrust lawsuit from 12 states, including California, despite approval from the US Justice Department in June and regulators in more than 60 countries and jurisdictions. The trial is scheduled for March, with settlement talks in San Francisco next month.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the lawsuit, has called Paramount's relocation threat nothing more than "blackmail."

For Hollywood, the potential studio loss extends beyond another corporate exit; the exodus includes Chevron, Tesla, SpaceX, Oracle, Charles Schwab, and many others.

Tennessee has actively courted the studio. Nashville also has an existing Ellison family connection: Oracle, co-founded by Larry Ellison, announced plans to move its headquarters there in 2024. Larry Ellison is also financially backing his son David's Warner Bros. deal.

"I tried to warn you. LA is getting absolutely decimated by the insane communist wackos running California. Bob Bonta's jihad against Paramount is a death blow. What a corrupt piece of shit," Spencer Pratt wrote on X.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 22:10

Kirk Family Plans Wrongful Death Suit Against Utah Valley University, Others

Kirk Family Plans Wrongful Death Suit Against Utah Valley University, Others

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

Charlie Kirk's family announced plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that security failures contributed to the fatal shooting of the conservative commentator last year.

In a Sept. 9 legal notice, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants' failures "led to the assassination" and that the university and others were negligent in providing security for the event where he was killed.

"Charlie Kirk was a once-in-a-lifetime public and political figure," the notice said, noting that Kirk's death occurred "when political violence had hit a fever pitch."

The notice was sent to the Office of the Utah Attorney General the day before the first anniversary of Kirk's death.

It named the state of Utah, Utah Valley University, the Utah Valley University Police Department and its Police Chief Jeffrey Long, former university President Astrid Tuminez, and others, as subjects of the suit.

Additionally, Turning Point USA claims to have notified the university police about security risks, specifically those posed by rooftops overlooking the amphitheater where Kirk made his final remarks.

The suit, which has not yet been filed, would be brought by Kirk's estate, his heirs, his wife Erika Kirk, the late Turning Point USA founder's parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, and others.

The notice says that university police failed to control access to the rooftop from where the shooter aimed.

Utah Valley University and its police department, as well as other defendants, did not respond to The Epoch Times' request for comment.

A representative from the Utah Attorney General's office responded by asking that The Epoch Times direct inquiries to the university.

Tyler Robinson, 23, has been charged with Kirk's killing, and the state of Utah is seeking the death penalty. Robinson has pleaded not guilty.

The accused assassin allegedly sent text messages that are consistent with a plan to permanently silence Kirk, the prosecution said.

The trial date is expected to be set at a hearing in late October. During a Sept. 1 preliminary hearing, the prosecution alleged that Robinson had motive, means, and opportunity to kill Kirk.

Utah Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf Jr. ruled that the prosecution demonstrated probable cause during the hearing. Robinson will stand trial for seven charges, including aggravated murder.

The other charges include two counts of obstructing justice, two counts of witness tampering, along with causing serious bodily harm by discharging a firearm, and committing violence in the presence of a child.

Testimony during a July evidentiary hearing indicated that Robinson asked his former roommate and romantic partner to delete messages from Robinson. The male roommate also offered to record testimony stating that Robinson cried and voiced regret after the Kirk shooting.

In Robinson's text messages, he allegedly admitted responsibility and explained his motive, as well as outlining a week of planning before the shooting took place.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 21:45

Pages