Zero Hedge

Pentagon Strikes Iranian Island Target, In First US Military Action In Weeks

Pentagon Strikes Iranian Island Target, In First US Military Action In Weeks

Update(1615ET): Things have been quiet for many days and weeks on the military front when it comes to the Iran war, but on Sunday there are some emerging reports of new but limited US strikes. According to the latest late Sunday from Axios:

Senior American official: Earlier today, American forces attacked two Iranian launchers on Larzac Island. Revolutionary Guard forces were observed preparing to launch rockets carrying sea mines toward the Strait of Hormuz.

So despite the White House signaling a move away from military action and toward the economic warfare front, it's also clear that more sporadic tit-for-tat blows could follow. But Trump has lately made clear that military options are still on the table, and strikes will be utilized as needed.

*  *  *

Propaganda has always been a problem when it comes to the fog of war.  The internet and social media add a new dimension to the confusion as conflicting information is allowed to spread like wildfire using civilians and media outlets as tools for propagation.

The lack of confirmation is exploited, often by both sides, and the truth becomes lost in the mire.  That said, the facts on the ground will eventually see the light regardless of spin.  In the case of the war in Iran, the facts on the ground do not bode well for the Islamic Regime. 

Iranian leaders now openly admit that the US blockade has crippled around 35% of the nation's exports and imports while domestic prices continue to skyrocket by 60% or more.  This, however, is not the most immediate problem for the regime.  

It would appear that initial reports of gasoline shortages across Iran did not convey the true scope of the crisis.  In the past week alone more evidence from within Iran has hit social media, showing mass lines at gas stations and panic among citizens as rationing is introduced. 

Energy officials have acknowledged a gasoline deficit of roughly 15 million liters every day, warning that strategic reserves have reached “dark red” territory.

Iran has ten main operating oil refineries plus the large Persian Gulf Star condensate refinery, which is the country’s biggest gasoline producer, meaning, they do have the capability to produce their own domestic gasoline supply.  So, why the shortages? 

 

Some refined products are shipped into Iran from foreign sources and the US blockade is stifling that supply.  However, there is also the possibility that the blockade has forced Iran to shut down a number of oil wells due to lack of storage.  Depending on the type of well, a shutdown can cause extensive damage and prevent new production for years to come.  It's likely that Iran's crisis is rooted in an oil supply problem as much as a refining problem. 

The Iranians have recently called for a return to the standards set by the MOU agreement with the US, and they have also accused the US of committing "war crimes", arguing that the blockade is causing a humanitarian crisis.

The recent admissions of economic damage, the fuel shortages and the assertions of humanitarian crisis are a sharp tone shift from Iran's posture only a month ago.  Couple this with the 400% surge in ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz and it would seem that Iran is losing the war outright.  If the blockade continues for another few months the financial damage could be irreversible and repairing resource flows could take years.    

It's not enough for the regime to survive if the economy they oversee dies.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:15

AI's China Syndrome: Who Will Control The World's Newest Energy?

AI's China Syndrome: Who Will Control The World's Newest Energy?

Authored by J.T. Young via Substack,

Ceding leadership in AI to China's Chinese Communist Party (CCP), what could go wrong?

Just about everything. Yet that is precisely what some here in the U.S.-and all in Beijing-want to occur.

America is currently being swept by misguided attempts to curtail AI's development and the development of the data centers on which AI's development will depend. Some of these stem from legitimate concerns (though often inaccurate) about what AI can and will do. Some stem from concerns about what data center development will mean for their communities. [The answer is jobs, investment, and growth-something that West Virginia's governor Pat Morrisey and statehouse leaders presciently see as they pitch their state for just such responsible development.]

However, some of this opposition also stems from foreign influence from those who would love nothing more than to see America not be the leader in a technology that has the potential to define this century's development and beyond.

The history of mankind's development could be shorthanded into a history of mankind's harnessing of energy. This history began with humanity's use of its own muscle power. It moved from our muscle power to harnessing (literally) the muscle power of animals. This power was supplanted by the power of the elements-wind (with sails, mills, etc.) and water (mills, dams, and more). Then there was steam. Then the internal combustion engine. Electricity. Nuclear. And yes, renewable forms as well.

We shifted back and forth between these as refinements were made to their production and application; however, they largely served first to supplement, and soon to supplant, our muscle power. Certainly, there were enhancements to our "mental energy" too, writing and the printing press, for example; however, it was not until relatively recently (in the 1940s) that the "mental energy" revolution exploded with the advent of the computer.

AI is different, and in that difference lies its potentially revolutionary aspect. AI offers the power to supplement our mental power far beyond what the computer can. Our mental power is the distinguishing feature of the human species, which underscores just what AI could do for humanity.

This brings us back to those who want to curtail America's leadership in this vast potential. Clearly, China's CCP is at the forefront of those who would like to see America not have this leadership. Even more, it is clearly at the forefront of those seeking to prevent American leadership in AI.

China's efforts to slow America's AI development are many. Undoubtedly, the CCP will find more ways, and more examples will come to light.

All this leads to the question: If America does not lead in AI, who will? China's answer is already clear. Even more important, then, is the question: What would China's leadership in AI entail? We can largely answer that question based on past and present experiences.

The virtual monopoly the West gave to China in rare earth mining, production, and manufacturing of products heavily dependent on these minerals has not served us well. It has given the CCP leverage in many instances. It has undoubtedly increased the price volatility of rare earth-dependent products, which has also encumbered the adoption of such products. It has also shifted these rare earth activities to a country with lower environmental standards (one even more pronounced in the past, when the West gave China its rare earth monopoly).

China's laxer oversight standards have had global repercussions beyond the environment. COVID's origin from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology is increasingly accepted; concerns about its safety and management standards were known years before COVID. At the very least, China's delayed revelation of important information about COVID allowed the virus to spread. The escape of an earlier SARS virus in 2004 is also widely known.

None of these argue for security when it comes to AI oversight in China. How then could China be trusted in the development of a technology that is widely predicted to potentially be the world's most powerful?

There should be even less confidence in the CCP's deployment of AI. China regularly targets its adversaries (both at home and abroad) with every tool available-and increasingly with AI-making its citizens among the most surveilled in the world. There are growing reports of China's funding of U.S. protests. China's Belt and Road Initiative uses investment to gain influence and build dependency across the globe-particularly in developing nations.

China's direct aggression has been increasingly on display for years. There are its recurrent border conflicts with India. There is the building of island bases in waters near the Philippines (and other areas in the Pacific for years) and confrontations with that government. There has been the abrogation of its deal with Hong Kong for recognized rights, and its jailing of political opponents there. There have been continual threats of aggression against Taiwan; bellicose warnings have also been issued against Japan.

The CCP's internal repression is even greater than its external actions. Its recently passed "Ethnic Unity" law builds on past charges of genocidal practices against the Uyghurs and Tibetans. Internal surveillance, already severe, has only been enhanced by the CCP's use of AI.

If the CCP uses a myriad of ways to confront foreign governments and intrusive means against its own citizens at home and abroad, there is no reasonable expectation that it would not use AI against foreign nations and their citizens too.

The CCP desires AI supremacy, just as they have been allowed to have it in rare earth minerals. They are working to secure this for the obvious reason that AI has the potential to be far more valuable than rare earth minerals.

And because the West was shortsighted enough to cede China leadership in rare earth minerals, the CCP has some reasonable expectation of success in its AI efforts. That the West is so willing to allow its own culture and values to undergo assault from within (in contrast to the CCP's enforcement of its cultural hegemony internally with its new ethnic unity law) is just another signal to Beijing that the West is unwilling to defend its interests.

How fast China is progressing in the 21st century's technology race is evidenced by its leadership in the development of humanoid robotics and other areas. So, the threat is not only real; it is already here.

To recap, China's already using AI for surveillance internally and externally. China's oversight of its science has proven inadequate in medical research, just as its oversight of the environment has been. Yet some, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would not only have us ignore these warning signs, but dramatically exacerbate their potential for danger with AI by curtailing its development and de facto ceding AI leadership to China.

The history of energy has written the history of human development. This history of energy was largely one of supplementing muscle energy. The new revolutionary energy is not physical energy but mental energy. It is AI, and it will supplement humanity's mental energy. Beyond the question of what AI can do is who will control it?

We all recognize that AI will be overseen; such oversight is a hallmark of the U.S. However, doing so to the extent that it curtails AI development and renounces leadership in a technology of unprecedented power to the world's least accountable government is extremely naive. Doing so to a government that has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that it will use all the means at its disposal to the detriment of those it perceives to be adversaries would be the biggest mistake in history-with potentially the most powerful technology in history.

J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America's Socialist Left from RealClear Publishing. Follow him on Substack.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 15:45

'No End In Sight': Democrats Make Trump Foreign Policy A Central Issue After 6-Months Of Iran War

'No End In Sight': Democrats Make Trump Foreign Policy A Central Issue After 6-Months Of Iran War

Via Middle East Eye

US Democrats on Friday slammed the Trump administration for dragging out the war on Iran to its six month anniversary, warning Republicans would pay the price in the upcoming midterm elections.

The joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, beginning on February 28, was initially meant to last a few weeks, by President Donald Trump's own estimates. Half a year later, the war has seen the US lose at least 18 of its troops and cost $100bn in military spending, most of which was approved by the Republican-controlled Congress late last month after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requested additional funds north of $60bn.

AFP/Getty Images

The war has cost each American taxpayer around $600 to $1,000 in extra energy costs because of Iran's response in blocking the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Brown University study and estimates from Moody's Analytics. 

Estimates for the number of Iranian dead vary between 3,400, according to the UN’s OCHA agency, and 6,000, according to the Israeli military.

"Trump and his chief dealmaker [Vice President JD] Vance have failed to reach an agreement to end their war. Back in March, Trump and Vance said the war would be over 'soon' - but just this week, Trump said he is 'not in a hurry' to end the war," Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Ken Martin said in a statement on Friday. The DNC oversees all party activities and vets candidates for elections.

"[They] dragged the US into a deadly and costly war they clearly cannot find a way out of - at the expense of the American people who are struggling to make ends meet. Trump and Vance explicitly promised no new foreign wars, yet six months in, there is no end in sight to the conflict that has driven up prices on everything from gas to groceries," Martin said.

"While Republicans claim they cannot bring down costs or fund affordable healthcare for everyday Americans, they continue to spend billions of dollars on a war no one wanted or asked for - and voters will remember this betrayal when they head to the polls in November.”

The Silver Bulletin, which tracks and analyses public sentiment, noted on Friday that repeat polling has shown around 37 percent of Americans support the US-Israeli war on Iran, while 55 percent oppose it. 

Half hearted opposition?

While Democrats in the House of Representatives latched onto an effort by the progressive wing of the party in late February to force a War Powers vote - which would insist on Congress having the power to declare war and not the president - it was not clear they would have actually opposed any attacks in their capacity as lawmakers.

Earlier this year, before the 28 February US-Israeli onslaught began, reports emerged that Democratic Party leadership was trying to curb more grassroots efforts to restrain Trump's war-making authority.

Establishment Democrats, many of whom failed to condemn Israel for what the United Nations and Holocaust scholars have called a genocide in Gaza, have not shied away from consistent condemnation of Iran, believing that, if not now, then at some point Tehran would have to be militarily confronted.

Iran itself had said that, while it must be ready for a war with the US - largely egged on by Israel - it would rather cut a deal that allows it the weapons it says it needs to defend itself as a sovereign state. 

A week before the US and Israel began joint air strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed House and Senate leadership on the latest Iran developments behind closed doors. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, emerged only to say to reporters: "This is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people."

Four days earlier, Schumer said in a statement that "confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, regional aggression, and horrific oppression of the Iranian people demands strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity".

Where things stand

If there is a diplomatic track that Trump is still pursuing, there are no signs that it's yet at a senior enough level to bear fruit. Two attempted ceasefires have quickly collapsed. 

Qatar's prime minister arrived in Iran on Thursday in a bid to seek a joint Iran-Oman solution to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The talks have slightly lowered the price of oil this week, but Trump's new deployment of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for a seven-month stint in the region suggests tensions are not winding down any time soon.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday announced a new wave of sanctions against Iran and its "enablers", towards what he described as an "asphyxiation of this regime".  He called it "Operation Economic Outcast".

Most Democrats have all along shared the same hawkish attitudes and assumptions when it comes to Iran...

Using a "zero leakage approach", Bessent said the Treasury had "mapped every node, every facilitator, and every network that Iran has used to smuggle oil and evade sanctions", and that Trump had already made phone calls to counterparts around the world "with specific requests to cease their interactions with the regime". He did not specify which leaders, nor on what timeline they may act.

Then there's the critical shortfall in US munitions, given the Pentagon has moved many to the Gulf, as it strikes back at Iranian retaliation against US military bases and energy facilities in the region. A Reuters report this month said the US had exhausted its stockpile of sophisticated long-range missiles during the war on Iran, including surface-to-surface ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). 

The Associated Press also reported a "beyond critical" shortage of advanced missile interceptors, especially Patriots, which have been used to shoot down Russian ballistic missiles in the war with US-backed Ukraine. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 15:10

"Profound Game-Changer": Musk Launching New Turbine Blade Factory To Solve Shortage Threatening AI Boom

"Profound Game-Changer": Musk Launching New Turbine Blade Factory To Solve Shortage Threatening AI Boom

SpaceX is making an aggressive push into the power generation market, with The Information reporting that Elon Musk is preparing to address one of the most critical bottlenecks threatening America's data-center buildout: the shortage of advanced gas turbine components, particularly the blades and vanes needed to power massive data center campuses.

SpaceX is laying the groundwork for a new factory in Bastrop, Texas, that would manufacture high-temperature blades and vanes for industrial gas turbines. The move could allow Musk to circumvent the severe turbine blade shortage that has pushed availability toward 2030.

On X, Musk responded to the report, saying, "The limiting factor for nat gas turbine production is casting the blades & vanes. By doing in-house casting at SpaceX, we can accelerate nat gas turbines coming online by up to 18 months, which is a profound game-changer."

Musk previously warned about the shortage during a recent podcast, saying, "Turbines are sold out through 2030. In order to bring enough power online, SpaceX and Tesla will probably have to make the turbine blades and vanes internally. There are only three casting companies in the world that make these, and they're massively backlogged."

A Federal Trade Commission filing shows that Musk has acquired APR Energy, a provider of mobile gas turbine power plants used by data centers, utilities, and industrial customers.

Musk's acquisition of APR Energy also gives him access to a mobile fleet built around GE TM2500 and Mitsubishi FT8 turbines, which typically produce 20-35 MW per unit.

SpaceX is targeting roughly 10 gigawatts of AI computing capacity by the end of 2027, while Musk has said the company wants substantially more power and cooling infrastructure.

This all signals that Musk views the turbine shortage as a direct threat to SpaceX's data center buildout timeline. Rather than wait on constrained outside suppliers, he is moving aggressively to vertically integrate another critical layer of the AI infrastructure stack across his business empire.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 14:35

Iceland Voters Reject Reopening Talks To Join European Union

Iceland Voters Reject Reopening Talks To Join European Union

Iceland voters on Saturday rejected a proposal to reopen negotiations to join the European Union, after the island nation of some 400,000 people chose to maintain independence after shelving its membership bid more than a decade ago.

Supporters of the 'No' campaign wave Icelandic flags during a rally against reopening Iceland's European Union accession negotiations in Reykjavik, Iceland, on Aug. 27, 2026, two days ahead of a national referendum. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images

Heading into the vote, the "yes" camp was ahead by just 2.6 points - however opponents defeated the measure by a margin of 52.8% to 47.2%, according to RUV. 

A "yes" vote would have sent the government back to Brussels -  while any deal would have required a second referendum and ratification by all 27 member states. Now, the issue is shelved and moot.

Before the 'no' vote, Social Democrat Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir described the vote as "an opportunity."

Opponents suggested this was nothing more than deception - with the government trying to convince people "that we are not really applying, that we are merely looking into what membership would entail," Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, a former foreign minister and current lawmaker for the opposition Independence Party, said in an interview with The Epoch Times. "If you apply to join the EU, you are applying to join the EU."

Membership, he said, would mean EU law overriding Icelandic law, a sweeping transfer of legislative and executive power, and the jurisdiction of the EU's courts on top.

Haraldur Ólafsson, a physics professor who chairs the eurosceptic movement Heimssýn, told The Epoch Times the question was worded so that people "find it very difficult to say no to discussions."

Applying without wanting to join, he added, makes "a fool of the European Union." "You should try to win over the people of the country before you submit an application, instead of submitting one in camouflage," he said.

Iceland Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir participates in a listening session on the upcoming referendum in Reykjavik, Iceland on Aug. 26, 2026. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images

As the Epoch Times notes further, Iceland applied to join the EU in July 2009, months after its banks collapsed. Talks opened in 2010, and 11 of 35 policy chapters had been provisionally closed by the time a new center-right government froze the process in 2013. The fisheries chapter, the most sensitive of all, was never opened.

In March 2015, Reykjavík asked Brussels to no longer regard it as a candidate country.

The current government contends that the application nonetheless remains valid, a view the European Commission has endorsed. Thordarson disputes this. The "still valid" line, he said, was the product of government lobbying in Brussels and "came as a total surprise to all of us."

He also said that visits by European ministers to Reykjavík over the summer to urge a "yes" amount to "foreign interference."

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares and his Austrian counterpart, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, both spoke favorably of Icelandic membership during visits to the country in June, with the referendum on the agenda.

France's Jean-Noël Barrot struck a similar note during an official visit in July, saying Iceland "had nothing to lose" by reopening talks.

The Greenland Factor

The government's own explanation for the timing points not to Brussels but to Washington. Frostadóttir's center-left coalition, formed after the late-2024 election, had pledged a referendum by 2027. In March it brought the vote forward, weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his push to acquire Greenland, which he said has become a national security concern for the United States because of increasing Russian and Chinese influence over the Arctic.

Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrín Gunnarsdóttir said it would be "both naive and irresponsible" not to take the moment in history into account.

Snærós Sindradóttir Bachmann, executive director of the European Movement in Iceland, told The Epoch Times that the vote is "about human rights and democracy, and about standing with like-minded nations against this threat from the West," a reference to Washington's pressure on Greenland.

"Greenland is 290 kilometers [about 180 miles] away from us. We have to be realistic," she said.

Eggertsson, for his part, said he was "very cautious about speculating that similar pressure will be directed at Iceland," citing the country's "strong and longstanding ties with the United States."

But as larger powers grow more willing to apply pressure, he said, "stronger cooperation with allies and like-minded countries becomes increasingly important." He added: "I would not frame this as turning away from the United States or from NATO."

Iceland has no armed forces of its own. A founding member of NATO, it relies for its defense on a 1951 agreement with the United States. In March, it also signed a security and defense partnership with the EU covering Arctic and maritime security, cyber issues, and economic security.

The Greenland episode weighs on her, Bachmann said, and she's concerned it does not seem to worry many of her compatriots.

Thordarson, who said he too objected to Trump's statements on Greenland, dismissed the argument as "a pretext" and a narrative that "does not hold up." Frostadóttir, he added, had not campaigned on a referendum on reopening accession talks.

Ólafsson was blunter: the government, he said, had blown the Greenland issue "light-years out of proportion."

Greenland has weighed on the debate "much less than people abroad would think," Oddsson said. "The topics actually being discussed are much closer to home: the currency, fisheries, agriculture, and questions of sovereignty."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 12:15

Druckenmiller Warning: The Bond Market Already Priced It

Druckenmiller Warning: The Bond Market Already Priced It

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Recently, Stanley Druckenmiller wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal. The “Druckenmiller warning” hit on August 24, and within a day, the financial press turned it into a soap opera. Some of the headlines were “Mentor scolds protégé,” and “Billionaire slams the Treasury Secretary.” Then, the revelation that he wrote it with the help of AI somehow became its own headline.

However, while the media was busy making headlines, the argument was lost. Stanley Druckenmiller did not forecast a debt crisis, nor pitch a trade. What he said was something difficult to fit in a headline, and it was something the bond market has already said for him.

What Actually Happened On August 19

On August 19th, the Treasury said it would double the size of its long-dated buyback operations to at least $4 billion. That operation will run from September 9 through November 4 (it hasn’t started yet) and is aimed at the long end of the curve. The timing of the announcement was the tell, and the heart of the Druckenmiller warning, as the move came right after yields hit their highest level in about 19 years. Yields dropped on the news, but by the next trading day, the bond rally was reversed. The long bond has hovered in the 5.2% range since then.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent then told CNBC the operations could run bigger than $4 billion. Days later, senior officials floated the idea of using the department’s nearly $950 billion cash account to help fund the purchases. What is crucial to understand is that these actions are a very different conversation from “liquidity support.”

You do not need to support a market you yourself describe as having strong, consistent sponsorship, and that strong sponsorship is the definition of a healthy market. However, the Treasury intervened anyway right after yields peaked, which is why the market read it as “price management” and shrugged.

What The Druckenmiller Warning Actually Says

I posted the link to Druckenmiller’s warning above, and encourage you to read the piece closely. When you do, you will realize that the popular summary falls apart.

Most notably, the article was not a claim that yields are about to spiral. What Druckenmiller suggests is that a 30-year bond at 5.5% is an “invoice,” not a “crisis,” nor was it a claim that the “bond vigilantes” have finally arrived. He actually described the opposite: a market he called “a pushover that had finally begun to clear its throat,” and the bond market has been too calm, rather than too violent.

However, Druckenmiller’s real target is structural. To wit: the long bond, in his framing, is “the only fiscal disciplinarian the U.S. has left.” He states that if you suppress that signal, you subsidize the one thing Washington does reliably well: “delay.”

While many currently point fingers at the Republicans, particularly as we approach the mid-term elections, the reality is that neither party has the will to touch entitlements with the market applying pressure. But more importantly, without that pressure, neither party has shown the will to touch them either. Such is why entitlements are called the “third rail of politics,” because if you touch them, your political career is toast.

There’s a second layer that most of the media coverage skipped. Historically, yield management has always started as a technical operation. However, as with most things in Government, it tends to end as a more permanent policy commitment. From 1942 to 1951, the Fed capped long Treasury yields to finance the war. Naturally, that cap outlived the war by years before the Treasury-Fed Accord finally killed it. The wall between managing the debt and managing bond prices was built on purpose. Unfortunately, that “wall” gets blurred by this intervention.

The last time this happened, it looked like this.

The gap at the center of the Druckenmiller warning is the space between what he wrote and how it’s being read. That gap is wide enough to matter. The table lays it out.

The Strongest Case Against The Druckenmiller Warning

To be fair, the bond bears have a valid point. Someone will wave the whole thing off as $4 billion against a market north of $30 trillion, a rounding error. So, what is all the fuss about? They are correct about the arithmetic. Four billion dollars cannot set the long end, and the recent round-trip in yields proves it. However, that also exposes the risk in the argument. You can’t call an operation both impotent and dangerous in the same breath without saying which one it is.

(The chart below shows the history and magnitude of previous buybacks. This is not unprecedented by any measure.)

There is a much better version of the pushback, and it comes from people like Jon Hilsenrath. He noted that a move in long yields isn’t purely fiscal information but also reflects dealer balance sheets, hedging flows, and the financing of levered positions. The March 2020 and 2022 gilt crises both showed that liquidity can seize up even when the fundamentals look fine. Furthermore, Bessent’s stated case is that the Treasury sees something about market functioning that outsiders don’t. That probably isn’t as crazy as it sounds on its face.

So where does that leave the Druckenmiller warning? In our opinion, it is much stronger than its critics allow, for one reason. The danger was never the four billion dollars. The mistake is the precedent: the signal that the Treasury will now step in to defend a price. Once the market believes that, every selloff becomes a test of official resolve, and the tests only get bigger. This is the very definition of “moral hazard” that we discussed previously. More notably, the bond market has already ruled on this point.

Bessent’s actions run counter to Kevin Warsh’s recent mandate to remove the “Fed Signal” from the market. For investors, this means we will need to watch the next moves from both Bessent and Warsh.

What The Druckenmiller Warning Means For Bond Investors

The future is currently uncertain. What will happen with oil prices, tariffs, and political policy? The mid-term elections are coming quickly, and there are signs of both economic weaknesses and strengths. The Fed is signaling it is backing away from market support, but the Treasury says it is still there. It’s all confusing, but for investors managing their own portfolio, it suggests several changes to both strategy and holdings.

  1. Do not buy the long bond for the buyback bid. A $4 billion operation is a backstop, not a floor under prices. Supply at the long end is getting heavier as deficits run near 6% of GDP. Furthermore, corporate issuance is competing for the same buyers. The 20- to 30-year part of the curve is now a political football. Political footballs trade with extra volatility.

  2. Own the belly of the curve, the 5- to 10-year part. That is where you capture most of the yield with far less duration risk. You also reduce exposure risk to whatever “policy commitment” the long end gets dragged into. At a 10-year near 4.7%, the coupon does real work as you are paid to wait. Just take that interest rate “carry” where the duration risk is SMALL.

  3. Lastly, it could pay to keep some inflation protection in the mix. If the Treasury escalates its interventions and funds long-bond purchases with bills or its cash account, that’s a quiet form of easing. However, that is occurring while inflation still runs above the Fed’s 2% target. In that environment, TIPS will earn their place in portfolios. But the risk is that you cap your returns if the term premium keeps grinding higher on increasing supply.

Here is an example of the 40% allocation in a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio.

So, here is the question worth asking.

“If there’s no crisis, why not just own the long bond and clip the coupon?”

The answer is the escalation path, so you will want to watch the Treasury General Account. If Treasury actually deploys the $950 billion to defend a yield level, Druckenmiller’s “technical tool becomes policy commitment” line stops being theory, and the trade shifts toward steeper curves, more inflation protection, and shorter nominal duration.

The one thing that would push me to extend into the long end with conviction is the opposite of intervention. A credible plan on the deficit would do more for the long bond than any buyback. This is the real point of the “Druckenmiller Warning,” and it’s mine too. I’ve argued before that the debt problem is a crisis without a calendar. However, that is what the waiting looks like.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 11:40

CIA Director Pushed Trump-Putin-Zelensky Summit During Moscow Visit: Report

CIA Director Pushed Trump-Putin-Zelensky Summit During Moscow Visit: Report

Yet another take has been issued, and more alleged details, on CIA Director John Ratcliffe's Tuesday trip to Moscow, which took place amid great secrecy and still even days later has only been subject of immense speculation.

Axios is reporting over the weekend that the CIA chief proposed a trilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - when he met with top Kremlin intelligence officials but was not granted a direct meeting with Putin himself.

NBC/Getty Images: CIA Director John Ratcliffe, left, held talks in Moscow with Russia's foreign intelligence chief, Sergey Naryshkin, this week.

"Of course, President Putin is immediately briefed on everything," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, calling the meeting "a positive phenomenon" while not giving additional details.

The war has quite obviously ramped up this summer, with tit-for-tat strikes expanding beyond just military and energy targets, to include food and retailing companies, and increasingly even civilian neighborhoods.

According to some details via Axios:

  • Ratcliffe's visit was partly aimed at determining whether Russia's heads of intelligence services could help convince Putin to move toward resuming U.S.-mediated negotiations with Ukraine, the sources said.
  • On Friday, U.S. officials briefed Zelensky on Ratcliffe's talks in Moscow and the proposal for a trilateral summit.
  • The Trump administration has raised the idea in the past. Zelensky has been on board, but Putin has rejected it.

Over in the Middle East, the Iran war has not gone well for Washington, and so the White House has recently pivoted back to seeking a war forward toward peace in Ukraine, needing a foreign conflict 'win'.

However, US admin officials have signaled they are not ready to force Ukraine into a 'bad' peace deal. Also according to Axios, "Zelensky's chief of staff, Kyrylo Budanov, told local media on Thursday that U.S.-mediated talks with Russia could resume in September."

As for Trump, on Wednesday he told Glenn Beck in an interview: "We would like to see the Ukraine war end," adding that his administration was "working very hard to get that war ended."

Concerning the CIA chief's visit to Moscow, some have said that it may have been focused on Iran, amid Washington warnings for Russia to cease helping Tehran, following prior widespread allegations that Russian intelligence provided targeting information of US bases and troops across the Mideast region.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 11:05

Fly British Flags In UK And Face Jail... But Pakistan And Palestine Flags Get A Pass

Fly British Flags In UK And Face Jail... But Pakistan And Palestine Flags Get A Pass

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Britain's largest local authority has spent a year treating the Union Flag and the St George's Cross as a public-order problem. On Saturday the picture sharpened again: the legal squeeze now circulating around Birmingham's flag war is being described as a ban aimed at England and the United Kingdom, while other national colours keep their place in the city's official life.

Birmingham City Council has gone to the High Court to stop "unauthorised attachments" on the highway. Breach of an injunction of this kind can mean unlimited fines and up to two years in prison.

The people named in the papers are the campaigners who put British flags on lampposts. But the council still finds time to raise other nations' flags outside the town hall and light the city library in foreign colours. To top it all off, they have reportedly confirmed that anyone raising foreign flags will be exempt from the new ban.

On 26 August the council submitted its application to the High Court. The named respondents include Raise the Colours co-founder Ryan Bridge, Elliott Stanley, Julian Keane, Ross Child, Billy Allison, Ben Cullen, Mark Keating and "persons unknown."

The catch-all clause is the point. If a judge grants the order, it is not only the named men who are in the frame. Anyone who keeps putting flags on lamp columns, railings or other street furniture without permission can be pulled into contempt proceedings.

Green councillor Jane Baston, cabinet member for equalities, communities and social justice, said: "The council is taking a lawful, proportionate and evidence-led approach to unauthorised attachments on the highway. This includes pursuing injunctive action based on the evidence gathered to date."

She added: "Our priority is to protect public safety, staff and contractor welfare, community cohesion and the responsible use of public funds. We ask residents and community groups to support this approach and to ensure any displays are placed only where permission exists."

The authority insists the action "is not directed at any particular community, belief or viewpoint." It says officers have "witnessed incidents that have involved harassment, intimidation or obstruction during removal activity."

That is the official script. The record of the last twelve months tells a different story about which flags trigger the machinery of the state.

Raise the Colours started in the Birmingham area last summer and spread across England. Thousands of St George's Crosses and Union Flags went up on lampposts, roundabouts and bridges. The council answered with safety language: attachments on tall columns, risk to motorists, LED upgrades, highways law. Flags twenty-five feet in the air became a danger to life.

Bridge has not offered the council the surrender it wants. On Talk TV he said he would keep going. "100% I will be carrying on. If I go to jail for it, so be it."

Times columnist Matthew Syed, sitting with Kevin O'Sullivan, refused to treat the flag as a social contaminant. "I believe in the flag, I believe in the nation," he said. "I think that if you don't have a strong sense of nationhood, it's very difficult to do anything." He further argued that without a coherent nation, you get caste, clan and tribe. You do not get a country that can function.

Former Metropolitan Police detective Peter Bleksley called the jail threat "absolutely scandalous." The Free Speech Union called it "truly mental." Reform UK's Birmingham group leader, councillor Jex Parkin, said: "It is extraordinary that we have reached a point where people peacefully displaying the Union Flag or St George's Cross could potentially find themselves before the courts, with breach of any eventual injunction carrying extremely serious consequences, including imprisonment."

He added: "The Union Flag and St George's Cross belong to everybody in this country. They should unite us, not divide us."

Conservative group leader councillor Robert Alden said the flags are "a unifying force celebrating our shared culture and heritage" and called on the council to enable formal neighbourhood displays instead of dragging patriots into court.

The phrase that is repeated ad nauseam in Birmingham is "community cohesion," yet it was not the governing principle when other flags were raised in the street.

For months after October 7 2023, Palestinian flags flew from lampposts in parts of the city. Nearly a third of Birmingham's residents are Muslim. The council did not race to the High Court. A leaked internal message from cabinet member Majid Mahmood, reported in 2025, explained the real constraint. On Palestine flags he wrote: "We are taking these down, but we need the support of the police due to issues that have cropped up when we first tried to take them down."

Reform UK's Robert Jenrick commented, "It is ridiculous that the council is taking down England flags and Union flags while Palestine flags are allowed to remain," adding "It's blatant two-tier bias against the British people."

Foreign colours get to stay, yet the national flag is treated as an attachment to be litigated out of existence.

The hypocrisy is not confined to protest banners. It is civic policy.

In July the Somali flag was raised outside Birmingham Council House in Victoria Square, with civic representatives present. The Library of Birmingham was lit blue and white for the occasion.

Reform UK's Birmingham group put the contrast in writing: "Only weeks ago the Somali flag was officially raised outside Birmingham Council House with civic representatives present. Earlier this month the Pakistan flag was raised outside the Council House at a ceremony hosted by the Lord Mayor."

"There is something badly wrong," the group said, "if Birmingham City Council can proudly accommodate the national flags of countries around the world while people are made to feel that displaying the Union Flag or St George's Cross is somehow provocative."

The same authority now determined to strip British flags from the streets has been happy to fly the Somali flag from the civic building itself.

The library routine is now a seasonal fixture. Green and white for Pakistan Independence Day. Orange, white and green for India. The same council that scrambles to criminalise British flags will bathe a landmark in another country's colours overnight.

Jamaica has had the same civic courtesy. Footage from Council House shows the Jamaican flag raised for independence day on the same steps now being used to lecture English residents about cohesion.

Last year a Pakistani flag flew over the central square.

They're seemingly happy to fly any flag at all, except for British ones. Why is that?

Here's why...

What happened to diversity being a good thing?

Councillor Alan Feeney, the Conservative shadow cabinet member for city services, said the obvious thing the cabinet will not. "This simply is not a priority for residents. Birmingham has an ongoing bin strike, roads filled with potholes and travellers breaking onto parks across the city, costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. The council's focus should be on dealing with these issues, not taking down flags that were placed as a symbol of national pride."

Labour's remaining voice on the council, group leader Nicky Brennan, offered the opposing theology: "We cannot allow a small group of people to attempt to divide the communities of Birmingham."

The communities he is referring to claim to be divided by the English flag. They are apparently knitted together by the Somali flag on the Council House and a library washed in the colours of Islamabad.

Birmingham is the prize because it is huge, broke, and demographically transformed. Almost a third Muslim. Large Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Somali populations. A political class that has learned to speak the language of cohesion while practising a hierarchy of flags.

The enforcement now taking shape singles out England and the UK while other countries' colours remain in the clear.

A nation that will jail a man for the Cross of St George, and light a library for Pakistan, has told its own people where they stand.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 10:30

El Nino Fuels Atlantic Hurricane Drought As Dolly Eyes Florida

El Nino Fuels Atlantic Hurricane Drought As Dolly Eyes Florida

The 2026 Atlantic hurricane season has yet to produce its first hurricane, putting the Atlantic Basin within reach of its latest start on record. There's a big reason for this: The intensifying El Niño is largely responsible for the strong wind shear that disrupts tropical system development.

Four named tropical storms have formed through late August, including Tropical Storm Dolly, but none has strengthened into a hurricane during the season's first three months as peak hurricane season nears, around Sept. 10.

Focusing on Tropical Storm Dolly, the National Hurricane Center's latest update early Sunday shows that the storm is now a strong tropical wave and is set to produce showers and thunderstorms across Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the northern Leeward Islands.

"The remnants of Dolly could bring heavy rains and gusty winds to portions of the Leeward Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico over the next couple of days," the NHC wrote in an update earlier today. An accompanying cone of uncertainty map shows that the storm may track toward South Florida.

Latest from Polymarket: What will be the name of the first hurricane in the Atlantic during the 2026 hurricane season?

A second area of low pressure was located about 125 miles south of southeastern Louisiana. Its thunderstorms have become more concentrated since Saturday, but surface observations showed that the system had not yet strengthened. Gradual development remains possible as it drifts toward the Louisiana and upper Texas coasts during the next several days.

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 09:55

Taxpayers Lost $65 Billion On Obamacare Fraud Last Year

Taxpayers Lost $65 Billion On Obamacare Fraud Last Year

Taxpayers spent $65 billion on health insurance premiums for people who either didn't exist or didn't qualify for benefits in two federal programs in 2024, according to an Aug. 26 report from Paragon Health Institute.

Expanded Medicaid and Obamacare, the signature programs of the Affordable Care Act, improperly enrolled a combined 14.3 million people that year, researchers concluded.

Expanded Medicaid allows states to enroll people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, versus up to 100 percent for traditional Medicaid. That limit was about $35,600 for a family of three in 2024.

Obamacare was open to people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level at that time, about $103,000 for a family of three.

Both programs are administered through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, with coverage provided by commercial insurance companies.

As Lawrence Wilson details below, via The Epoch Times, researchers estimate that about 34 percent of all Marketplace enrollees in 2024 were either fraudulent, duplicates, or simply didn't meet the benefit criteria.

And the number went up the next year, researchers said.

"Improper exchange enrollment increased by more than 26 percent from 2024 to 2025 - up to an estimated 6.5 million enrollees," the report stated.

Enrollment Problems

Researchers studied federal data from surveys, program enrollment, and spending and concluded that more than 9 million Medicaid expansion enrollees in 2024 probably didn't qualify for the benefit.

Those were likely people whose income was over the limit, did not meet citizenship, immigration, or residency requirements, or should have been enrolled in traditional Medicaid.

With Obamacare, the $0 premium policies made possible during the post-COVID years became a target for fraud, according to Paragon President Brian Blase.

Testifying before Congress in December, Blase said many people were enrolled in the program without their knowledge by unscrupulous insurance brokers, prompting the federal government to send a commission check to them - and premium payments to an insurance company.

These phantom enrollees are detected in part by their lack of activity once enrolled, Blase said.

Also, 28 states had more people enrolled in Obamacare than there were people in the state who met the income requirements.

Skepticism

Paragon had previously reported its enrollment analysis, though the cost calculation is new.

Based on previous reports, some observers have questioned the assertion that improper enrollment, particularly in Obamacare, is as widespread as the think tank concluded.

"There is no evidence of systemic fraud, waste, or abuse in [state-based marketplaces]," according to Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace.

As for the lack of activity by some enrollees, America's Health Insurance Plans released a statement in 2025 saying, "A 'no-claims' year is evidence that a consumer stayed healthy or only had a few months of coverage - not that taxpayer money was misdirected or that their policy was illegitimate."

Others observers say Paragon's research method doesn't factor in all the variables. "There are a number of reasons why people who report incomes somewhat above 138 percent of the poverty line in a survey may be eligible for the Medicaid expansion," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said about a previous Paragon report.

Yet in December 2025, the Government Accountability Office reported that investigators were able to enroll 20 nonexistent identities in Obamacare in 2024 by using Social Security numbers that had never been issued to any person and other easily created counterfeit documents.

Of the 20 false enrollments, 18 were still active in September 2025, costing taxpayers more than $10,000 per month.

Investigators also found 26,000 accounts that received subsidies in 2023 based on Social Security numbers that matched records in the Social Security Administration's death file.

Taxpayers paid more than $94 million in subsidies for one year based on false enrollments uncovered by the investigators.

Savings and Recovery

The federal government has taken aggressive action to root out improper enrollment over the last two years.

That includes suspending agents and brokers from the program for suspected fraud, reinstating data matching between federal programs to prevent duplicate enrollment, canceling phantom enrollments, and requiring Medicaid eligibility recertification every six months.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported in January it had removed more than 1 million enrollees who were concurrently enrolled in Obamacare and Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, or who had failed to file and reconcile previously received subsidies.

Another 250,000 were removed who'd been enrolled without their consent.

Those actions produced $10 billion in annual savings, according to a government statement.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 08:45

Poland, US Discuss Establishing Permanent American Military Bases

Poland, US Discuss Establishing Permanent American Military Bases

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Poland and Pentagon officials are in discussions about possibly locating several American military bases in the country, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski said after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels Aug. 27.

Zalewski said he met with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby about plans for the bases and defense policy.

"The American presence in Poland can encompass various defense capabilities," Zalewski told Polish Radio after the meeting. "We believe it doesn't have to be concentrated in one place. Of course, there are several locations we want to discuss with the U.S. side where such a presence would be truly massive. However, we are still talking about several bases and several locations."

Poland formally requested new permanent U.S. military bases in June after Trump pledged to send 5,000 additional troops to the country. About 10,000 U.S. troops are already stationed in Poland, which spends about $15,000 for each, according to the country's defense department.

Poland's priorities are to secure defense capabilities the country currently lacks, such as reconnaissance and command functions, rather than simply increasing troop numbers, Zalewski said.

The bases would be a permanent strategy for the United States and not just a reaction to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to Poland.

"A permanent U.S. presence would reflect America's long-term strategic interest in the country, not merely respond to the recent activities of Russia," Zalewski said.

The discussion also included nuclear weapons logistics, according to the deputy defense minister.

He added, however, that Poland didn't want nuclear warheads stationed in the country.

"Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on this territory," Zalewski said. "We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence but that does not mean to have nuclear warheads on our territory."

Poland's Minister of National Defense Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz appeared to clarify the comments in a statement on X later in the day.

"To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program," Kosiniak-Kamysz said in the post. "We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government's stance on these issues is unequivocal."

The Pentagon didn't respond to a request for comment about the bases by publication time.

Colby visited Belgium this week to meet with European allies and press them to increase their defense expenditures as Washington evaluates its policy toward the region.

The Pentagon asked the allies to assess their commitment to U.S. foreign policy goals as part of a European Force review launched in June by War Secretary Pete Hegseth. The review examines the future deployment of about 80,000 U.S. troops across Europe, with nearly half of them expected in Germany.

Colby introduced the new framework, which he dubbed "NATO 3.0," earlier this year.

Some countries are concerned the review will result in U.S. troop cuts in Europe. President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw troops from countries that refused to help the United States secure the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran conflict.

In May, the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany after tensions flared between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the Iran war.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Friday that Europe and Canada had accepted a more equitable share of defense spending since last year.

"Still, there is much more to be done and we'll get there," Rutte said.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 08:10

Canada Is Poaching America’s Top Scientists

Canada Is Poaching America’s Top Scientists

Canada is taking advantage of growing uncertainty within the US academic system by offering hundreds of millions of dollars to researchers willing to move north, according to Bloomberg.

The Canadian government has committed C$504 million, or roughly $362 million, to support 64 scientists and scholars joining universities across the country. Three quarters of the recruits currently work in the United States, many at institutions including Harvard, MIT and the University of North Carolina. The remaining researchers are arriving from a dozen other countries, including China, Japan, Germany and the UK. Nearly half of the group coming from the US are Canadian citizens returning home.

The new arrivals include Sara Seager, a leading planetary scientist leaving MIT for the University of Toronto, and MIT materials scientist James LeBeau. The University of British Columbia is adding Brian Kuhlman, whose protein research was connected to work recognized by the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Harvard computational biologist Curtis Huttenhower, who studies the relationship between microorganisms and human health.

Bloomberg writes that each researcher will receive support over an eight-year period, with their work concentrated in fields Canada considers strategically important, including health care, artificial intelligence, advanced computing, environmental science and commercially promising technologies.

The recruitment drive comes as US universities face federal research cuts, a more restrictive immigration environment and continuing disputes with the Trump administration. Canadian university officials say those pressures have left some researchers questioning their long-term prospects in the United States, creating an opening for Canada to strengthen its own academic institutions.

The awards are part of a much larger plan introduced by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government last year. Ottawa intends to spend C$1.7 billion over 12 years to bring more than 1,000 researchers to Canada, including up to 100 internationally recognized scholars selected for heavily funded research chairs.

Canada has also proposed a faster immigration process for H-1B visa holders affected by changes in the United States, although that program has not yet begun. The European Union is pursuing a similar strategy through a €500 million effort to attract scientists interested in leaving the US.

Canadian officials are expected to name another group of research chairs in the coming months.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 07:35

An Illegal Migrant Tried To Saw Off A Man's Head; You Won't Believe What The BBC Did Next...

An Illegal Migrant Tried To Saw Off A Man's Head; You Won't Believe What The BBC Did Next...

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A leaked internal email shows a senior BBC executive reaching for the language of "solidarity" after a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with trying to brutally murder a Northern Irish man in the street. The corporation's instinct was not to dwell on the victim, but instead to soothe colleagues "who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries."

A local man is carved up on a Belfast pavement, unrest follows, and the state broadcaster act as if the real emergency is that imported staff might feel "particularly vulnerable."

Investigative journalist Steven Edginton published the leak on Friday. Jack Whyte, the BBC's Chief Technology Officer, wrote to staff after the backlash that followed the attack on Stephen Ogilvie. Whyte said he wanted to "express our solidarity with colleagues who may feel particularly vulnerable or fearful at this time, including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries."

He condemned "hatred, intimidation, and violence in all its forms" and added that the BBC is "committed to fostering an environment where every colleague feels supported, included, and able to bring their whole self to work."

Whyte's wording is a tell. "Including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries" is the only group specified. Native staff who watched a man carved up on a Belfast street are left to infer that their fear does not count as vulnerability. Their anxiety is "hatred" adjacent, while the imported colleague's anxiety is a welfare priority.

A source inside the corporation put the omission in plainer English: "The BBC offered solidarity to foreign staff but not to native Brits who might be worried about illegal migrants beheading them."

The email was sent in June, after nights of disorder in Belfast. It has only now been dragged into public view. The attack was ugly enough to ignite streets. The official response was to flatten the language, script the aftermath, and treat public anger as the problem to be managed.

The assault took place back on June 8 on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast. Police later told a court they found a man armed with a knife sitting on another man. Officers pulled the attacker off. Bystanders had already piled in. People on the footage can be heard shouting: "He's trying to cut his head off."

Hadi Alodid, 30, a Sudanese national with an address on nearby Duncairn Avenue, appeared at Belfast Magistrates' Court charged with the attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie, possession of a knife in a public place, and threats to kill an NHS radiographer. He used an Arabic interpreter, made no reply to the charges, and was remanded in custody. District Judge Stephen Keown refused bail, citing the risk of reoffending, harm to the public, flight, and public disorder.

Court evidence revealed that Ogilvie, in his forties, lost his left eye. His right eye was badly damaged. He suffered deep cuts to his head, face, neck and back.

A detective told the court that while Alodid was being treated for a hand injury he said: "I've killed someone, I don't know if they are dead." He is also alleged to have told medical staff: "I will kill you."

Alodid's route into the United Kingdom was the now-familiar Irish back door. Police and reporting established that he travelled from Sudan to Paris, flew to Dublin, then took a bus across the border into Belfast in February 2023 and claimed asylum the same day. In September 2023 he was granted leave to remain until 2028.

A local woman filmed near the scene described Ogilvie as someone she had known for years: hard of hearing, struggling with daily life, the sort of man who still offered help. She said two migrants had only moved into nearby accommodation four days earlier. Ogilvie, she claimed, had assisted them as they settled. She said the pair later jumped him, and claimed that a second Sudanese man was still at large.

Ogilvie's family released a statement of devastation, thanking those who intervened and the emergency services, and asking for calm. It also contained the now-standard paragraph: "We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including from within our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work."

Readers noticed the cadence. "Our loved one." Generic gratitude. A pivot from a butchered relative to the national faith in imported labour. Commentators said it read like a template. Subsequent reporting on the Home Office's Research, Information and Communications Unit suggested that suspicion was not paranoia.

RICU, set up in 2007 under the Prevent banner by former MI6 officer Charles Farr, sits in that grey zone between the Home Office and the security services. Professor Anthony Glees has described it as occupying "that kind of shadowy area between what the Home Office does and what the security service MI5 ought to be doing."

A Home Office spokesman would only say RICU "provides analysis on extremist use of propaganda and exploitation of the internet" and "cannot comment on its operations."

Sources quoted after the Belfast unrest said the unit worked with the PSNI's C3 intelligence branch to identify online "calls to protest," feed police a line that cast demonstrators as "unsympathetic thugs rather than activists," and make sure family liaison officers were "well briefed." One source said you can "see their fingerprints all over the statements released by the families of victims in these volatile situations - they usually have a similar tone."

The same Whitehall reflex is now in court on another front. Families of people killed or wrecked by foreign offenders are fighting the Ministry of Justice's attempt to keep nationality breakdowns of convictions sealed.

The Information Commissioner ordered the figures released. Labour's justice department appealed. Relatives of Rhiannon Whyte - the 27-year-old mother stabbed 23 times with a screwdriver by Sudanese small-boat arrival Deng Chol Majek - are among those demanding the data.

Alex Whyte, Rhiannon's sister, told GB News she felt "sick, disgusted and completely let down." Labour, she said, is "too afraid to admit" what open borders have done, urging "Open your eyes. You are so aware of what is happening, but you are too afraid to admit it."

Her mother, Siobhan Whyte, called the refusal "diabolical" and pointed to Home Office leaflets telling asylum seekers that rape is illegal and what the age of consent is. "They know they're a danger, and that's the sad reality of it."

They know publication would detonate the official story. That is why they spend public money to keep the information sealed.

This latest BBC leak sits on a pile of interventions that all point the same way: keep the public from connecting crime, culture and the people being moved into the country.

Culture department plans have sought to force platforms to boost BBC, ITV and Channel 4 content in users' feeds under the banner of fighting "disinformation," as if the remedy for lost trust is to pipe the least trusted institutions back into the algorithm by law.

The same project turned up in a media green paper aimed at YouTube's recommendation system: privileged placement for "trusted" public-service output, with legislation in reserve if the platforms will not play along. Independent creators who covered migrant crime without the approved adjectives would be the ones starved of reach.

Entertainment has been pressed into the same service. BBC fictional soap EastEnders brought in Ade Lamuye, a campaigner for "migration and racial justice," to help shape storylines. Lamuye has said "entertainment and media holds influence and power to make real change." The change, on the evidence, is to recast mass immigration as a moral test the audience must pass.

Children were not spared either. Pro-migrant charity Heard briefed producers on the CBBC series Pickle Storm, a comedy about a young "alien" fleeing persecution and settling in a British town. Heard described the work as a strategy to "tap into children's media and directly impact framing of migration in children's content."

The group has taken more than £4.5 million since 2021 from left-leaning foundations, including seed support linked to George Soros's Open Society Foundations. The BBC insisted the charity "had no power to influence editing or production." Heard's own materials said the input informed the second series.

When the newsroom itself is tested, the same muscle memory appears. Newsnight turned Nigel Farage's "pure cold rage" over the Henry Nowak case into "white cold rage," then shrugged it off as a misremembering. Critics noted that the inserted word was the entire point.

Fran Unsworth, a former BBC news director, has said the atmosphere inside the organisation had become intolerable. "Just dealing with the progressive editorial issues and the bullying around them all. It was incredibly difficult." Asked whether that culture pushed her out, she answered: "I would actually say it drove me out."

That is the same hierarchy that turns a sawing motion at a man's neck into a "stabbing," that treats rioters as the story and the attacker's immigration file as an afterthought, that will go to tribunal rather than print which nationalities dominate the sex-offence columns. It is the hierarchy that lectures the public about disinformation while handing activist charities the keys to a children's comedy.

The BBC collects a compulsory fee to tell the country what happened. After Belfast it told its own staff who mattered. Foreign colleagues who might feel unsafe. Not the public that had just watched an attempted decapitation in a residential street.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 07:00

'Chexit': Global Asset Managers Are Fleeing China

'Chexit': Global Asset Managers Are Fleeing China

Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times,

Fidelity International (FIL) is reportedly the latest fund manager to plan a pullout from its China fund. FIL launched a wholly-owned subsidiary in Shanghai three years ago, but a lack of demand from retail investors led to disappointing growth.

Reuters first reported the story. According to its sources, "A combination of fierce local competition, frequent leadership turnover and chronic struggles to build scale ultimately convinced global FIL executives that the China retail venture was untenable."

FIL has $1.18 trillion in assets under management (AUM). It started its China fund in 2023. The next year, Reuters saw an internal FIL document that said it needed more than $14 billion in assets to become profitable. After several years, it had reportedly reached only about $670 million (less than 5 percent of the goal) and began planning an exit.

Fidelity follows multiple other global asset managers that are backing away from China amid domestic competition and geopolitical tensions. These include Schroders, Legal & General, and Vanguard. The companies that left China were in stiff competition with domestic funds and Western China funds that had typically first been established through joint ventures (JVs) with Chinese institutions.

In 2019, Beijing invited global fund managers, for the first time, to establish wholly-owned China funds. The regime framed the invitation as part of a trade agreement, and the latter sought access to the Chinese public's $12.8 trillion in investable assets. For some of the international investors, it did not end well.

In 2020 and 2021, respectively, the Chinese regime issued permits to BlackRock and Neuberger Berman to start such funds. They both had ties to the regime and headquarters in Shanghai. In 2021, BlackRock raised $1 billion for its fund in its first week, which impressed other institutional investors. It was the first mutual fund owned by foreigners to be granted permission to sell directly to Chinese customers, and it did very well, at least at first.

Several other large asset managers converted their JVs into wholly-owned funds by buying out their JV partners. These then became the largest and most successful wholly foreign-owned public fund houses in China.

Some institutions, including Fidelity, Schroders, and BlackRock, launched greenfield, wholly-owned China funds, but they tended to be smaller than the converted JVs, delivered lower returns, and were disappointing in terms of growth. In 2018, Vanguard's Asia CEO mentioned a possible future China AUM of $5 trillion. But Vanguard was the first to close its Shanghai office in 2023.

The next year, Legal & General canceled plans to get a China business license and reduced its presence in Shanghai by about 80 percent.

Schroders, a British firm with AUM of $1.1 trillion, established a wholly-owned China fund management unit in 2023. But three years later, Schroders only managed $250 million. In May, news broke that the company planned to sell its China funds to a wholly-owned China unit of Neuberger Berman.

China has a $5.9 trillion public fund market dominated by domestic fund managers. Even as the smaller foreign-owned funds cut their losses in China, the larger ones are holding on.

JP Morgan Asset Management China is the largest foreign-owned fund with $34 billion in AUM. Manulife China has $17 billion, and Morgan Stanley China has $4.5 billion. These three funds started as joint ventures and then bought out their Chinese partners. Their returns tend to be better than those of new ventures, with about a third of their funds getting above 10 percent.

Most new foreign-owned funds posted a year-to-date return of less than 5 percent in June, which is far below the returns of the leading domestic fund managers. The top 11 Chinese companies each have more than $147 billion in AUM. Yicai has noted that the best 15 domestic funds had returns of at least 90 percent, which likely attracted some retail investors.

Domestic funds reportedly have multiple advantages over western funds, including brand recognition, established online and bank distribution channels, and low-overhead index and money-market businesses dominated by locals.

According to a Yicai Global source, "Most domestic fund managers have spent decades building out full product lines, gaining deep experience, earning a track record investors recognize, building local sales networks, and learning Chinese investors' preferences."

Other Yicai sources note that to compete, foreign companies should localize their management, research, investment, and sales teams.

There may be other advantages less frequently noted. A Fitch Ratings analyst put it bluntly when discussing the entrance of foreign banks into China's retail banking space in 2007.

"Foreign banks don't break people's arms when they don't repay them, like some Chinese banks might," the analyst said. "They can't operate like that, so what they have to focus on is the high end of the retail market."

Another challenge is unspoken regime bias against foreign companies, combined with overregulation. In June, for example, China's top securities regulator targeted algorithmic trading, which is one of the West's bright spots, not only internationally but in China trading.

The measures hit domestic algo traders as well, but they block one avenue in which foreign firms hold an advantage. Regular domestic managers have closer ties to regime agencies and exchange relationships and, therefore, better access to market data and regulatory largesse.

This isn't the first time that foreign banks have been squeezed in China to the advantage of domestic actors. The British pioneered modern banking in Shanghai in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Banks from other countries, including Germany, France, Japan, and the United States, entered later.

But after the revolution of 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took over the most lucrative businesses of the banks and forced them to maintain idle workers. This forced most of them out in the 1950s. The two major foreign banks that remained, Standard Chartered (under a prior name) and HSBC, lost market share. Starting in 1979, the CCP gradually reopened its financial sector to foreign entities while ensuring that its domestic banks remained dominant.

With an uneven playing field and unfair referees, China is not the best of opportunities for Western investors. In the case of companies like Fidelity, Schroders, Vanguard, and Legal & General, the numbers did not add up and probably never will.

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 Sat, 08/29/2026 - 23:20

AI Skepticism Outweighs Excitement In The US

AI Skepticism Outweighs Excitement In The US

Despite the tech industry’s conviction that the rise of AI is an inflection point that will change the course of humanity, many humans remain skeptical whether the new direction we’re headed in is the right one.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports below, the pace at which AI seems to be taking over parts of our lives, whether we like it or not, is especially worrisome to many.

In a recent Statista Consumer Insights survey, 31 percent of U.S. respondents said that they were worried about the speed at which AI is developing and 25 percent of respondents claimed to be avoiding AI wherever they can.

18 percent said they used AI but felt bad about it and another 28 percent simply don’t believe in the hype, saying they weren’t convinced that AI is as good as people say.

AI Skepticism Outweighs Excitement in the U.S. | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the other end of the spectrum, 28 percent of respondents said they were excited about AI, 19 percent said they liked to use AI for shopping and 15 percent described themselves as early adopters – always keen to try the latest AI features first.

The bottom line is that Americans are neither all in on AI nor are they fully against it.

Many people are mixing their excitement with a dose of skepticism, which is probably a good way of looking at a potentially life-altering technological shift.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 22:45

The Arday Tragedy: A Story Of Institutional Failure, Not A Witch Hunt

The Arday Tragedy: A Story Of Institutional Failure, Not A Witch Hunt

Authored by Lipton Matthews via The Mises Institute,

The recent death of Jason Arday has been met with widespread grief, but also with a disturbing rush to assign blame.

Much of the media narrative has positioned Nathan Cofnas as the villain, the man who exposed plagiarism and, in doing so, supposedly hounded a vulnerable academic to his death.

This is a convenient story, but it is not the truth.

Let us be clear. Nathan Cofnas did nothing wrong. Yet he has been suspended from his post as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University. He brought to light legitimate concerns about Jason Arday’s academic record. That is the function of journalism and scholarly scrutiny. If the allegations were false, Arday would have defended himself more effectively. If they were true, then they deserved to be aired. The fact that Arday was mentally unwell is tragic, but it does not retroactively make Cofnas’s actions malicious. We do not hold journalists responsible for the pre-existing vulnerabilities of those they cover.

This is not the first time a scandal has broken around a prominent figure. Stephen Glass—once a star at the New Republic—saw his career implode when his fabrications were exposed. He did not retreat; he wrote a novel about his disgrace, turning infamy into profit. Jayson Blair—the New York Times plagiarist—did the same. Both men monetized their scandals. Jason Arday’s exposure came in the age of social media, so the venom was more intense, but the principle is unchanged. Public figures often exploit controversy for personal gain. That Arday could not do so is unfortunate, but it is not evidence of a uniquely cruel campaign against him.

What is striking about Arday’s case is the institutional support he received. Diane Abbott and prominent Cambridge academics rallied to his defence. Compare this to the treatment of Charles Negy, Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Helmut Nyborg, and others who have been vilified as racists simply for engaging with research on intelligence and group differences. Gottfredson continues to be defamed by the disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center. Nyborg had to sue the Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty for falsely accusing him of scientific misconduct. Negy is not even a race researcher; he was penalized by his university for saying that black privilege is real. As Negy put it, “beyond affirmative action, special scholarships, and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is itself a form of privilege.” None of these scholars had the institutional backing that Arday enjoyed. He was given an opportunity on a platter of gold. However, he failed to distinguish himself and, when the scrutiny came, he could not withstand it.

The real lesson of this harrowing tale is not a racist media hounding a black academic to death. It is the intensity of what might reasonably be called black privilege—a system that elevates individuals to positions they are not prepared for, shields them from criticism, and then reacts with shock when reality intrudes. Mike Adams - a white academic - was badgered to suicide in 2020 by social media and his university simply because people found his tweets offensive. Unlike Arday, he received no institutional support from elite institutions, nor was there an outpouring of solidarity. The difference between his case and Arday’s is glaring.

Invariably, the hatred directed at Nathan Cofnas stems not from his role in the Arday affair, but from his wider writings on race and intelligence. Cofnas holds that racial differences in intelligence are partially genetic. This is controversial, but it is not unsupported. Psychologist Russell Warne has defended similar positions in his book In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence. Even if the hereditarian view is ultimately wrong, the environmentalist thesis has failed to produce a convincing alternative. Not much has changed since Arthur Jensen’s landmark 1969 report How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Robert Plomin’s more recent text Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are reinforces the point that parental influence is largely genetic. Cognitive gaps between blacks and whites persist even when both groups are similar in socioeconomic status, education, and other environmental measures. The reality is that—irrespective of the truth of hereditarianism—groups will differ in behavior and intelligence. If elites would simply accept this, we could stop obsessing over erasing every disparity and instead focus on helping people thrive where they are.

In an ordinary world, Jason Arday might have been a successful PE teacher, or even a comedian.

He had charm, energy, and a compelling personal story.

He died because Cambridge elevated him to a position for which he was not prepared, and the inevitable scrutiny crushed him.

When he was alive, Arday said he wanted the world to spin on an axis of love. But the truth is that the DEI fanaticism that elevated him, and ultimately destroyed him, was propelled by an excess of love for egalitarianism, a love so blind that it refused to see the human cost of its own ideology.

Jason Arday’s death is a tragedy. But it is not Nathan Cofnas’s fault. It is the fault of a system that prioritizes symbolism over substance, and then abandons its symbols when they fail.

If we want to honor Arday’s memory, we should begin by telling the truth about how he got there and who really put him in harm’s way.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 22:10

Meta Tests Robots That Can Swap Cables And Reset Servers At Its Data Centers

Meta Tests Robots That Can Swap Cables And Reset Servers At Its Data Centers

Kiss those data center technician jobs goodbye...

Meta is testing robots that can swap network cables, restart servers, reseat components, and perform other physical tasks traditionally handled by data center technicians. The experiments come as the company rapidly expands its AI infrastructure and seeks to operate facilities more efficiently, according to Wired.

Some employees worry about job security. One Meta worker estimated that a successful cable swapping robot could eventually take over as much as 80 percent of certain workloads. “We thought those of us performing the physical tasks were safe for a while, but not anymore,” the worker said.

Meta says automation does not mean it needs fewer people. Spokesperson Francis Brennan cited a shortage of skilled tradespeople and the company’s investments in training and hiring workers. Meta has launched programs teaching electrical, mechanical, and plumbing skills and partnered with trade unions on apprenticeships.

Still, robotics is part of Meta’s longer term strategy. Robotics manager Eric Xu has said robots could eventually assist with incident response, environmental monitoring, and preventive maintenance.

The company is experimenting with equipment from several manufacturers. A Kinova Gen3 arm is being evaluated for power cycling servers, while other machines are being tested for cable replacement. Some facilities already use a simple remotely controlled device resembling a mechanical finger to press power buttons and reboot equipment.

At its Altoona, Iowa, campus, Meta is testing dual arm Watney robots for cabling. At its newer Prometheus campus in New Albany, Ohio, ABB robots mounted on four wheel platforms are being used to reseat components and could eventually perform more work with less human supervision.

These projects build on simpler automation already deployed in Meta facilities. Self driving tugger robots transport heavy server racks, while wheeled inventory robots scan equipment and assist with inspections. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have also explored robotics for data center operations.

Wired writes that the economics are attractive. Robots could provide consistent labor where qualified technicians are scarce and handle repetitive or hazardous work. They could also operate in hotter, darker, or otherwise less hospitable environments.

But current systems remain far from replacing technicians entirely. Meta’s inventory robots struggle with cables and corners, require humans to move them between buildings, and cannot reliably interpret some equipment indicators. Other robots need substantial charging time and remain slower than people.

Data centers were also designed around human dexterity. Complex cabling, particularly around advanced AI systems such as Nvidia’s GB300, remains difficult for robots. As one former Meta employee put it, “Things have been designed for human hands forever to make everything a five-minute repair.”

Even so, the experiments are changing how some Meta workers view their future. Employees have reportedly discussed fears that automation could eliminate jobs or shift remaining positions toward lower paid workers who mainly follow AI generated instructions.

That could also affect the politics surrounding data centers. Communities often justify tax incentives partly through the jobs these facilities create. If robotics significantly reduces employment, governments may reconsider those economic tradeoffs.

For now, humans remain faster and more adaptable. But as robotic hardware gets cheaper and AI improves, Meta is preparing for a future where machines perform considerably more of the physical work inside its data centers.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 21:35

US Steps Up Africa Push As China Expands Economic, Security Footprint

US Steps Up Africa Push As China Expands Economic, Security Footprint

Authored by Arthur Zhang via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration says it has helped close 37 commercial deals worth $25.67 billion in Africa as Washington moves to compete with a much larger Chinese economic footprint across the continent.

"China continues to flood Africa with exports," Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Frank Garcia told Fox News in an interview published Aug. 27.

Garcia said Chinese state-subsidized overcapacity threatens local industries and has left African countries exposed to debt and economic coercion.

China's General Administration of Customs recorded approximately $348.1 billion in two-way goods trade with African nations in 2025. Chinese exports accounted for about $225 billion, while imports from Africa totaled about $123 billion.

U.S. goods trade with Africa was about $83.35 billion last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Pressure on African Manufacturers

Chinese imports have already hurt manufacturers in parts of Africa.

A 2025 study published in Energy Economics found that Chinese import competition reduced productivity among African manufacturers, with particularly pronounced effects on small and medium-sized firms facing financial and electricity constraints.

Research published in International Affairs in November 2025 found that more than 400 Chinese-owned manufacturers registered operations in Ghana between 2004 and 2024 as some private Chinese companies shifted from trade toward local production.

In South Africa, Chery Auto inaugurated the former Nissan plant in Rosslyn in July after acquiring it. The Chinese automaker plans to begin production there in mid-2027.

Chinese investment has also generated resentment in some communities. Chinese rights activist Jie Lijian, who spent more than seven months traveling overland through Africa in 2019 while fleeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) persecution en route to the United States, told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times in October 2020 that he repeatedly encountered complaints about Chinese companies.

In Ethiopia, Jie said police officers who initially mistook him for a Chinese company employee complained that Chinese businesses had polluted water and air and harmed livestock.

Local resistance has also at times turned violent.

In October 2024, residents of Konkoï in Guinea protested against Chinese-owned Hongxing Mining Guinea SARL over alleged damage to farmland and the local environment. Guinean and regional reports said two people died after security forces intervened, including a young man who was shot and a child who inhaled tear gas. The local prefect said at the time the company was operating legally and paying taxes, according to Guinea-based online news platform Guineematin.

Minerals Become a US Security Issue

Critical minerals are an area where China's dominant control directly impacts U.S. national security.

U.S. Africa Command's (AFRICOM) 2026 posture statement states Beijing is using investments in African mining, infrastructure, and transportation to secure critical minerals and strategic infrastructure.

The command singled out graphite.

"Beijing dominates 90 percent of battery-grade graphite processing," AFRICOM said.

The command called that concentration a "structural vulnerability" for the U.S. defense industrial base.

Separately, a 2026 U.S. Geological Survey report put China at 79 percent of natural graphite production, along with 98 percent of primary refined gallium, 83 percent of mined tungsten, and 68 percent of mined rare earths.

The United States is trying to build alternative supply routes.

The Washington-backed Lobito Corridor is designed to link the copper belt in Congo and Zambia to Angola's Atlantic port at Lobito.

Bernard Swanepoel, chairman of South Africa's African Exploration Mining and Finance Corp., told The Epoch Times in July 2025, "Judging from how often he mentions it, copper is central to Trump's ambitions."

He pointed to the Washington-backed Lobito Corridor.

Former Zambian Mines Minister Paul Chongo Kabuswe also told The Epoch Times at the time that China had pledged to invest $5 billion in Zambia's copper industry by 2031, including $800 million in one mine. He said Zambia was also discussing more U.S. investment with the Trump administration.

"Just because we have Chinese interest here doesn't mean we don't want United States companies here," Kabuswe said.

Armed Groups and Mining Security

In some mining regions, Chinese-linked operations have also become entangled with armed groups.

In the Central African Republic, the mining minister revoked three exploitation permits held by Chinese mining company Daqing SARL in June 2024. A 2025 U.N. Panel of Experts report said government sources found that the company had mined without authorization, interacted with armed group members, and brought unauthorized foreign workers to the site.

A July 2016 Global Witness investigation found that Chinese-owned Kun Hou Mining paid $4,000 and supplied two AK-47 rifles to Raia Mutomboki, armed factions in eastern Congo, in 2014 and 2015 to secure access to gold deposits.

Global Witness said a February 2015 letter from four Raia Mutomboki factions confirmed receipt of the money and rifles. The group also reported that Kun Hou supplied armed factions with communications equipment and food.

Chinese companies have also used overseas security contractors to protect commercial operations.

A Chinese security contractor in Sudan told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times in April 2023 that his work included preparing security plans and supervising foreign security personnel.

Huaxin Zhong'an Security Group, a Beijing-based Chinese private security company, stated in a corporate news release in March 2022 that retired military personnel accounted for 100 percent of its overseas security employees.

Huaxin Zhong'an has hired more than 1,000 armed guards in host countries for overseas projects, and its overseas Communist Party organization helped select, vet, train, and manage security personnel sent abroad, according to a separate March 2022 statement.

Beijing Expands Military and Political Training

China is also expanding military, police, and political training in Africa.

Under the Forum on China - Africa Cooperation Beijing Action Plan for 2025-2027, Beijing pledged a 1 billion yuan ($140 million) military grant, training for 6,000 African military personnel and 1,000 police and law-enforcement officers, and visits to China for 500 young African officers.

At least 50 African countries regularly take part in Chinese professional military education, according to Paul Nantulya of the U.S. Defense Department's Africa Center for Strategic Studies.

In an October 2023 analysis, Nantulya wrote that African officers attending Chinese military schools are exposed to the CCP model of political control over the People's Liberation Army, including political commissars and the principle that the armed forces answer to the ruling party.

In a May 2023 report, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, an institution under the U.S. Department of War and part of the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., said a South African police unit sent to China's People's Armed Forces Academy for training in 2016 was later illegally deployed into the country's top security agencies as a "hit squad" to intimidate and assassinate political rivals.

The CCP has expanded political training as well.

The Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School in Tanzania trains cadres from six Southern African ruling parties. In a November 2023 report, the Africa Center said CCP Central Party School instructors participated in the school's programs, which included party recruitment, management, administration, mass mobilization, leadership, and propaganda systems. The center said in 2025 that the school remained part of Beijing's expanding party-training network in Africa.

Ports and Strategic Access

AFRICOM is also watching Chinese-built and Chinese-controlled infrastructure for potential military use.

China operates its overseas military base in Djibouti, near the entrance to the Red Sea.

AFRICOM's 2026 posture statement said Beijing's investments in transportation infrastructure can support a persistent security presence.

In a response to The Epoch Times, a U.S. Africa Command spokesperson said AFRICOM leadership has "consistently warned" that Beijing is trying to expand its military footprint beyond Djibouti and establish a permanent naval presence or dual-use port facility on Africa's Atlantic coast, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea.

The spokesperson said AFRICOM is also tracking Beijing's efforts to gain access to African natural resources and to control critical minerals, infrastructure, and key sea lines of communication.

"The United States delivers enduring value as a partner of choice with capabilities only we can provide," the spokesperson said, adding that Washington's approach is based on transparency, respect for sovereignty, and mutual prosperity.

The State Department and the African Union did not respond to inquiries for further information by publication time.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 21:00

What Happened To The So-Called AI Job Apocalypse?

What Happened To The So-Called AI Job Apocalypse?

Authored by Joe Bertolami via RealClearMarkets,

A recent report from Stanford reviewed the latest employment data and found that, so far, AI has not resulted in large scale job destruction. Meanwhile, new hiring data from the Economic Times reveals that AI is actively fueling unprecedented job creation, with AI skills now powering nearly two-thirds of new Global Capability Center hiring. Together, these recent dispatches from the front lines of the labor market point to a calming reality: the much-dreaded AI job apocalypse hasn't materialized as a sudden extinction event.

The (sometimes buried) lede: AI is delivering real impact, and it is broadly changing the nature of work. But disruption is not a new phenomenon. The economy has always dismantled old work to build new work. What determines whether this evolution feels like progress or collapse isn't just the number of jobs lost, it's the speed at which that loss hits the labor market.

In 1995, Bill Gates circulated a memo titled "The Internet Tidal Wave," calling the web the most important computing development since the IBM PC. If the internet was a tidal wave, artificial intelligence is a tsunami. It is arguably the biggest advancement in computing since the Turing machine. Yet, from a distance, it's difficult to appreciate the speed of this wave, leading many to wonder when the broader economy will truly feel its impact.

To put this in context, we must understand the historical pattern already visible in the labor market. Combining decades of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve yields a remarkably consistent story of overlapping curves: job loss and job creation. Over the last two decades, nearly 20 million U.S. jobs vanished in disrupted sectors. Over the same period, total payrolls grew by 25.7 million. That equates to roughly 1.3 new jobs for every one destroyed. Classic examples include jobs in video rentals (-98.9%) and word processing (-83%) which largely vanished, but new work sprung up at the same time in areas like data processing (+54%) and warehousing (+260%) to support the digital economy.

The data also reveals an early signal that separates an absorbable decline from a brutal collapse: the disruption half-life, or how long an occupation takes to lose half its peak employment. Across the largest technological disruptions of the last few decades, the median half-life is about 10 years. Fast disruptions, like photo processing, take one to five years. Typical disruptions take eight to 13 years. And time is the ultimate shock absorber. When the economy transitions over ten years it feels like progress rather than a fast collapse, because it gives older workers time to retire and younger workers time to prepare.

If we track the most AI-exposed occupations-customer-service reps, IT support, telemarketers-since modern LLMs arrived in 2022, the early data is measured. After three years the current disruption looks closer to "typical" than a fast collapse, even before discounting the effects of offshoring, automation, and post-COVID corrections. This is Amara's Law playing out in real time: we tend to overestimate the effect of technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run. The dire early warnings have given way to more cautious rhetoric. In 2025, Anthropic's Dario Amodei warned AI could erase half of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years. By 2026, he and OpenAI's Sam Altman are emphasizing productivity, economic growth, and the continued demand for human labor.

However, looking solely at total employment numbers masks a dangerous structural threat. Current evidence does not foretell the end of human labor, but AI is quietly breaking the mechanism by which we create experienced workers.

Software engineering is the canary in the coal mine. By most aggregate measures, employment looks stable; unemployment held at 4.2% in June 2026, and groups like the Yale Budget Lab find no clear AI effect yet on exposed occupations' absolute job totals. But the composition is shifting underneath our feet. Per AP and Oxford Economics, junior developer postings are down roughly 40% in four years. Employment for 22-to-27-year-old computer and math grads has fallen 8% since 2022, even as older grads in the same fields have edged up. This same erosion is surfacing wherever entry-level work once meant routine tasks: paralegals, junior analysts, and first-line support.

The paradox is that these industries keep growing even as their entry-level doors narrow. The BLS still projects software developers and QA analysts to grow 15% through 2034. But that projection relies on a pipeline that turns juniors into senior talent-precisely the pipeline now being choked off.

The reason lies in the nature of the work. Software development is a process of judgement and accountability: deciding what to build, executing it, and owning the result. AI is fluent at the middle layer-the well-specified, routine coding that once served as a junior's apprenticeship. But it remains far weaker at the judgment required on either side. The tasks AI automates are precisely the ones juniors were hired to learn on.

This is not merely an academic concern; it is a capital allocation problem. Misjudge the speed of disruption and you risk premature layoffs followed by a scramble to rehire, or funding the transition years too late, leaving you with a critical talent shortage when the leadership pipeline runs dry.

The challenge of the next decade isn't surviving the end of work. It is training the next generation of experts when the traditional paths to apprenticeship no longer exist. And businesses are beginning to realize this new reality as demand for AI continues to grow. IBM is tripling its entry-level hiring, redesigning those roles around the oversight of AI and systems thinking rather than cutting them. Rebuilding the entry-level on-ramp is now a competitive imperative.

Junior roles are not charity; they are talent capex. If AI creates more work than it destroys, companies will still need people who know how to run it, judge it, and fix it. AI may be the broadest technology yet, but that breadth is its best reason for optimism. A general-purpose technology seeds new work across every sector. The firms that recognize this, protect their entry-level pipelines, and keep training now are the ones who will own the senior labor market later.

Joe Bertolami is the Co-Founder and CTO at Clifton AI, an agentic context engine for investment research. Previously at Snap, Google, and Microsoft, with a couple of startups in between. He holds an M.B.A. from the University of Washington and likes using AI to write code, stories, and music, which he posts at https://www.bertolami.com.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 19:50

CDC Reports COVID-19 Activity Is Increasing Across US

CDC Reports COVID-19 Activity Is Increasing Across US

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday said COVID-19 activity is "increasing" across the United States although its levels are still considered "very low" overall.

"As of August 26, 2026, we estimate that COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 48 states, declining or likely declining in zero states, and not changing in two states," the CDC said on Friday.

Overall community viral activity levels, or a measurement of the virus in wastewater levels, for COVID-19 is considered by the CDC to be "very low." Emergency department visits were also considered "very low," which is the lowest ranking on the CDC's website, with "very high" being the top.

According to a Friday update on the CDC's website, wastewater data show that COVID-19 activity is "very high" in Texas and "high" in Mississippi.

"Moderate" levels were observed in California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

All other states were listed as either "very low," "low," or there was limited or no data.

As Jack Phillips reports for The Epoch Times, another map provided by the CDC on Friday shows that COVID-19 levels were either "growing" or "likely growing" in every state where data was available.

Influenza levels are also growing nationwide, according to the CDC. There was no change in levels for RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, on a week-to-week basis.

"RSV activity is very low in most areas of the country," the CDC said on a webpage broadly dedicated to respiratory viruses in the United States, adding that "seasonal influenza activity is low."

The CDC said that rhinovirus and enterovirus, which are also respiratory viruses, are increasing around the country.

Meanwhile, infections caused by the Mycoplasma pneumoniae bacteria, sometimes called "walking pneumonia," are low in most areas across the United States, and infections caused by the pertussis bacteria, known as "whooping cough," are at lower levels than seen post-pandemic, the CDC said.

The latest figures and estimations published by the CDC come as the Food and Drug Administration approved Moderna, Novavax-Sanofi, and Pfizer-BioNTech's updated COVID-19 vaccines, the companies said on Thursday, after a CDC advisory panel recommended that the shots should target the dominant XFG variant.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has dropped in recent years. Just 17.5 percent of adults and 10 percent of children received a shot in late 2025 and early 2026, according to figures from the CDC.

This month, the Chinese CDC reported more than half a million COVID-19 cases in July, a sharp increase from June's figures. In July, 522,000 cases were reported, up from the 443,000 cases that were reported in the previous month.

Experts who are familiar with local conditions in China told The Epoch Times they suspect there are far more cases of the virus, which is believed to have originated in or around the Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019 before sparking a worldwide pandemic, than the Chinese regime is reporting publicly.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 19:15

Pages