No Whites Allowed, Britain's MI5 Tells Applicants

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Britain's domestic intelligence service is once again telling White university students they are not wanted.

For the 2027 Summer Intelligence Internship, MI5 has confined applications to people from a "black, Asian, mixed heritage or ethnic minority background" who also come from a "socially or economically disadvantaged background."

White British candidates - including those from the poorest homes - cannot even submit an application. The agency calls this a response to "underrepresentation." Critics call it what it is: racial exclusion.

The rule sits on the official careers page in plain English. Final and penultimate-year students may apply for the 2026/27 academic year only if they tick the approved ethnic boxes.

MI5's own wording is blunt: "We're confining the applications for this internship to those within this demographic due to a current underrepresentation in our workforce."

This is not a fringe outreach day. The placement is billed as a serious introduction to national security work. Interns are promised "unique insight" into operations and "meaningful contributions to real projects," not a seat on the sidelines.

The MI5 stint is expected to run from Monday 28 June to Friday 20 August 2027 across sites in Central and West London. Successful candidates are paid £4,849, with accommodation covered if they cannot reasonably commute. GCHQ is running a parallel scheme on similar racial terms.

MI5 accused of 'flagrant racism' as white candidates told not to bother applying for summer internshiphttps://t.co/wqPUXiNKrn

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 27, 2026

Applicants must be British nationals, normally resident in the UK for seven of the last ten years, and able to survive the usual vetting. They still face a competitive sift. The racial gate comes first.

The listed groups include Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British, mixed-heritage combinations, "other ethnic minority," and a narrow "White other" category covering Romany Gypsy, Scottish Travellers or Irish Travellers. White British is not on the list.

The socio-economic test is equally specific. At age 14 the main household earner must have been in technical, craft, routine or semi-routine work, or unemployed and seeking work - or the applicant must have been eligible for free school meals. A White student who meets that poverty test is still barred. An ethnic-minority student who meets it is invited in.

What happened to getting a job on merit?

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp called it "flagrant racism from MI5 & GCHQ." He wrote: "White applicants for summer 2027 internships - including from disadvantaged backgrounds - can't apply. The scheme must be scrapped. Applications should be merit-based and colour blind. Working class white boys are among the most disadvantaged - yet are ignored."

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage put the charge in institutional terms. "Yet again, taxpayer funds are being used to fuel a culture of anti-white prejudice across the public sector. It's racism. It's wrong. Only Reform will bring meritocracy back to our institutions. We'll ensure that nobody is discriminated against based on the colour of their skin."

This is not a one-off. The Summer Intelligence Internship has been running across MI5, MI6 and GCHQ since 2023. Every cycle has produced the same argument and the same official shrug. The agencies say the programme exists to "increase diversity within our organisations." Ministers treat the Equality Act 2010 as cover.

In July, Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked the Cabinet Office why White candidates were ineligible. Dan Jarvis, minister of state for security, answered that the internships are "designed to provide insight" to people "from demographics and backgrounds under-represented within UKIC," and that "this is a lawful measure (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) used to encourage people from under-represented demographics to consider national security careers."

He added that anyone later applying for a proper job would face "fair and open competition, with selection based on merit."

That last line is doing a lot of work. The paid summer placement is itself the pipeline: mentors, projects, a foot in the door, a chance to apply afterwards with the agency already knowing your name. Excluding the country's majority from that pipeline is not a neutral "encouragement." It is a racial filter on the first rung.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's own guidance on positive action is narrower than the agencies pretend. Employers may encourage under-represented groups to apply. The Commission says that if they do so, "the advert should clearly state the employer is seeking applications from everyone but wishes to encourage applications from people with a particular protected characteristic."

Confining applications - telling one racial group not to bother - is a different creature. "Positive action" was sold as outreach. This is a closed shop.

Claire Coutinho has been making that point for years. When the scheme returned in 2025 she said: "Deciding who can do a summer internship scheme based on the colour of their skin is bad enough. To bar patriotic white Britons who want to serve their country, but allow white Irish people, is utterly mad."

She added: "To make matters worse, the security services will also shut you out if you're a child of a nurse, a cabbie or your dad ran a corner shop, while the child of an £80,000-a-year train driver is eligible. This is state-sponsored discrimination. We should just choose the best people for the job."

In the Commons she asked the obvious question: "What message does it send to our young people when they are told there are some job opportunities they cannot apply to solely based on the colour of their skin?" Equality, she said, "must mean equality of opportunity, not putting some people in society on a pedestal above others."

Jacob Rees-Mogg charged that "MI5 is institutionally, publicly racist against white people." He noted that the policy "discriminates against 92.6% of my constituents in Somerset."

Toby Young of the Free Speech Union gave the thought experiment that every defender of these schemes refuses to answer. "Imagine if it was the other way around, and the intelligence services were saying only white people can apply for our summer internships. There would be absolute uproar."

There would. If the advert had said "no Blacks," the building would be surrounded by cameras before lunch. Because it says, in effect, no ordinary White British applicants, the official class calls it inclusion.

The security services are not improvising. They are copying a model that British policing has already normalised.

West Yorkshire Police, one of the country's largest forces, has run a two-track application system for police constable roles. Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates have been able to apply year-round. White applicants from British, Irish and Eastern European backgrounds have been told to wait for specific recruitment windows.

An internal whistleblower told The Telegraph that minority applicants were treated as "gold" and White candidates as "bronze." The whistleblower said: "The process restricts progression opportunities for White British candidates, while individuals from other backgrounds are swiftly advanced through recruitment stages."

Ethnic minority candidates, the same source said, were regularly "shortlisted, sifted, assessed and invited to an interview before White candidates can even apply."

The force's own website made the hierarchy official: "We are currently accepting applications for the two police constable entry programmes (uniform and detective) from people from our under-represented groups... If you are not from one of these groups, please keep checking this page for future recruitment opportunities."

West Yorkshire dressed this up as Positive Action under the Equality Act. A spokesman said ethnic minority representation among officers was around 9 percent against a local minority population of 23 percent, and that early applications were merely "held on file" until a window opened for everyone.

The whistleblower's account was that the holding file was a fiction: the favoured group moved while everyone else waited outside.

At Thames Valley Police the ideology went further than the application form. Officers were put through mandatory "equity training" on "white privilege," "micro-aggressions" and the difference between being "non-racist versus anti-racist."

This followed an employment tribunal finding that the force had positively discriminated against White officers by appointing an Asian detective inspector without considering White candidates who had served 19 to 26 years.

Former assistant chief constable Kerrin Wilson, who led an independent review, recorded "strong feelings of frustration." "As white males they felt disadvantaged and ... they had the perception that unfairness was allowed for minority groups but not for majority populations," she wrote.

The review warned that the training "can often be seen as demonising white people and therefore building barriers to the learning." White officers' response was "very strong, at times bordering on aggressive." They felt "they have no support within the force." There was "a tangible feeling of being overlooked."

Minority staff were not grateful either. Some said they would not seek promotion because "even if they did succeed in securing promotions their efforts would not be accepted by some as genuine." Some described the force as a "hostile environment."

Former government adviser and ex-officer Rory Geoghegan said officers "deserve far better from their leaders than to be crudely categorised by skin colour and subjected to reductive, divisive ideologies." The review, he argued, failed to confront "the unthinking acceptance of critical race theory - a deeply political framework that has no place in an impartial police service."

That is the culture now being imported into the agencies that handle terrorism, hostile states and domestic subversion. First the police. Then the Bar. Now MI5.

The legal profession built the same wall and called it progress. A paid internship linked to the Bar Council and the 10,000 Interns Foundation offered London Living Wage work experience while restricting eligibility to specified ethnic minority backgrounds. White applicants were excluded outright.

Sophie Corcoran applied anyway. She is now suing. In her own account of the case she wrote that the central issue is simple: "should organisations operating in Britain be permitted to deny opportunities to people purely because they are white? I believe the answer must be no."

She draws the distinction the agencies keep blurring. Encouraging under-represented people to apply is one thing. "Outright excluding others from opportunities on racial grounds" is another.

She further noted, "The Equality Act was never intended to create a hierarchy of races where some groups are protected from discrimination while others are expected to tolerate it, but this is exactly what these schemes do."

The schemes also flatten every other kind of hardship into a racial cartoon. "A wealthy privately educated applicant from an affluent background can qualify for some race-based schemes, while a working-class white applicant from a struggling town cannot."

White working-class pupils have been the lowest-attaining major ethnic group at GCSE level for more than a decade. Corcoran herself grew up with epilepsy, hearing difficulties and dyslexia and attended a failing state school. None of that counted. "Just because someone is black does not automatically mean he or she is disadvantaged. Equally, just because someone is white does not mean he or she is not disadvantaged."

Rupert Lowe called the Bar scheme "vile, anti-white racism." Corcoran urged "everyone knows that if the races were reversed, such policies would never be considered acceptable. Equality cannot operate on a double standard."

The intelligence agencies' own socio-economic test makes the double standard sharper. They admit class exists. They even try to measure it by the parent's job when the applicant was 14, and by free school meals. Then they add a racial veto.

National Audit Office internships have run on a similar exclusionary logic, limiting places by sex, "black heritage" or lower socio-economic status and shutting middle-class White men out of a taxpayer-funded programme.

Transport for London has run placements reserved for BAME, disabled or disadvantaged candidates. The pattern is no longer a few over-eager HR departments. It is how the British public sector now allocates opportunity.

Intelligence work is not a diversity seminar. It is judgment, languages, technical skill, nerve and loyalty. The agencies' public line is that "a diverse organisation is vital to ensure diverse insights." That sentence has become a mantra. It is used to justify shutting the country's largest ethnic group out of the training ground.

A security service that filters the next generation by race is telling the public something larger than a recruitment statistic. It is saying the majority population is surplus to the pipeline. It is saying competence will be balanced against a demographic target. It is saying the Equality Act now functions as a permission slip for the one form of racial discrimination institutions are eager to practise.

The other way around remains the test. A Home Office page that read "no Blacks" would end careers by nightfall. A police force that labelled White applicants "gold" and everyone else "bronze" would be in special measures. A Bar scheme that barred African and Asian students would be treated as a national scandal. MI5's page does the reverse, year after year, with ministerial cover and a press office that talks about underrepresentation.

Merit is not a right-wing hobby. It is the only honest way to staff an intelligence service. Britain's problem is not that too many White working-class students are bursting through the gates of Thames House. It is that the people who run the gates have decided some citizens are the wrong colour to knock.

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 Mon, 08/31/2026 - 02:00

The Telephone, Political Entrepreneurship, And Theodore M. Vail

Authored by Joshua Mawhorter via Mises Institute,

Originally, this article was intended to be an exploration as to how-after a period of initial patent monopoly and an all-too-brief episode of freer market competition-cronyism reestablished a telephone monopoly that would last for decades. While such an article is worthwhile and hopefully forthcoming, I was struck by the influence of one man's leadership strategy as president of AT&T/the Bell System and how open he was about limiting competition in his industry, inviting regulation, and seeking a "middle ground" between a pure state-owned monopoly and true free market competition.

That man was Theodore M. Vail. This article largely presents Vail in his own words and seeks to demonstrate how transparent he was about inviting state intervention to move his industry toward monopoly.

By way of brief introduction, Vail joined the Bell enterprise in 1878 as general manager, helping build the young telephone industry. After leaving in 1887, he returned in 1907 as president of AT&T, where he pursued his vision of "One Policy, One System, Universal Service" and moved the Bell System toward consolidation and government regulation. He provides a quintessential illustration of political entrepreneurship and cronyism in the telephone industry.

Historian Burton Fulsom's The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America makes the critical distinction between "political entrepreneurs" and "market entrepreneurs" (p. 1):

Those who tried to succeed in [business] through federal aid, pools, vote buying, or stock speculation we will classify as political entrepreneurs. Those who tried to succeed in [business] primarily by creating and marketing a superior product at a low cost we will classify as market entrepreneurs. (emphasis added)

Along similar lines, Patrick Newman defines cronyism in the following way, "government intervention that benefits special interests at the expense of the public interest." This distinction is critical because it qualitatively differentiates those who succeed through the production-and-exchange mechanism and those who use the political means and cronyism to gain wealth at the expense of the public.

Theodore N. Vail: The Beginning of the End of Competition (1907-1913)

"Effective, aggressive competition, and regulation and control are inconsistent with each other, and cannot be had at the same time." - Theodore M. Vail, AT&T's 1910 Annual Report

On April 30, 1907, Vail rejoined AT&T as president, "marking the beginning of the end of telephone competition." According to Adam D. Thierer in "Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments In the Development of The Bell System Monopoly," "His return to the firm changed its fundamental focus from competition to consolidation."

Rather than market competition, Vail's most important goals as president of AT&T were "the elimination of competitors, the befriending of policymakers and regulators, and the expansion of telephone service to the general public." Vail pushed for "One Policy, One System, Universal Service." Of course, since this could not be achieved on a free market, or even on a hampered market that allowed a good degree of genuine competition, it had to be achieved by further state intervention.

As the above quote from Vail recognized, market competition and "regulation and control are inconsistent with each other, and cannot be had at the same time." Obviously, Vail favored the latter. He went on to state further, "Control or regulation. . .means everything which is the opposite of and inconsistent with effective competition." And, in 1917-after several successful efforts to limit competition through state intervention-Vail declared,

These two [competition and control/regulation] are absolutely inconsistent. If the public is getting the fullest advantage of control and regulation, no competition except destructive competition can exist. . . .

Under proper control and regulation, complete, соextensive competition could not exist.

What follows below are some selected quotes from Vail, in his own words and in context, that express his desire for government intervention and regulation into the telephone industry that would benefit AT&T. The interested reader should note Vail's transparency.

Regarding his goal of a universal telephone system and in the context of some competition, Vail wrote in AT&T's 1910 Annual Report,

It is not believed that this [a universal telephone system] can be accomplished by separately controlled or distinct systems nor that there can be competition in the accepted sense of competition.

It is believed that all this can be accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the public with its acquiescence, under such control and regulation as will afford the public much better service at less cost than any competition or government-owned monopoly could permanently afford and at the same time be self-sustaining.

Vail's belief, as stated above, was that there should be neither pure market competition nor full state ownership but the soothing and seductive "middle" solution-regulated capitalism or a "mixed market." Of course, this sounds reasonable to many people because they misunderstand or forget the nature of the state and also misunderstand the relationship between the state and big business. The key insight to understand is that state intervention-usually in the name of the "public good"-often purposely benefits big business at the expense of the consuming public.

Vail also openly expressed his desire for a monopoly under one system. He believed there would be two acceptable methods by which this could be accomplished:

This process of combination will continue until all telephone exchanges and lines will be merged either into one company owning and operating the whole system, or until a number of companies. . .[are] closely associated under the control of one central organization exercising all the functions of centralized general administration. But whatever may be the form of the operating organization, there is bound to be for legal purposes and the holding of franchises, some sort of subordinate state organization which will bring the business and property in each locality under the jurisdiction of the state in which it is situated and operated.

Vail opposed full nationalization, instead preferring cronyism. Over time, Vail's wishes were largely granted by the state as AT&T entrenched a monopoly through politics. In 1910, Vail directly argued that regulated companies should be protected from competition. He wrote,

If there is to be state control and regulation, there should also be state protection-protection to a corporation striving to serve the whole community (some part of whose service must necessarily be unprofitable), from aggressive competition which covers only that part which is profitable.

Governmental control should protect the investor as well as the public. It should ensure to the public good service and fair rates. It should also ensure fair returns to the investor.

A public utility giving good service at fair rates should not be subject to competition at unfair rates.

Keeping track, state control and regulation should provide protection from "aggressive competition," protect from the profit-and-loss test, assure "fair" returns to investors, and ensure that a firm offering its goods for "fair" rates should be protected from those who offer their services at "unfair" rates (i.e., lower prices). Of course, such high-minded rhetoric-"fair," "striving to serve the whole community"-are arbitrary and simply prejudge the conclusion in favor of whatever AT&T, industry insiders, and government regulators decide.

However, Vail reassures us that he is not an enemy of all competition,

It is not that all competition should be suppressed, but that all competition should be regulated and controlled. That competition should be suppressed which arises out of the promotion of unnecessary duplication, which gives no additional facilities or service, which is in no sense either extension or improvement, which without initiative or enterprise tries to take advantage of the initiative and enterprise of others by sharing the profitable without assuming any of the burden of the unprofitable parts or which has only the selfishly speculative object of forcing a consolidation or purchase. (emphasis added)

Thus, instead of allowing entrepreneurs and consumers to freely interact and decide the landscape of the market based on what goods they produce and value, the extent of alternative competitors, market prices, and profit and loss, competition only ought to be allowed within the range that the state and key firms decide.

As opposed to a pure free market and state ownership, Vail argued that regulated capitalism would have all the benefits of both without the disadvantages of either.

When thoroughly understood it will be found that "control" will give more of the benefits and public advantages, which are expected to be obtained by state ownership, than could be obtained through such [private[ ownership, and will obtain them without the public burden of either the public office-holder or public debt or operating deficit. It is conceded that as a rule private management is better, more economical and more efficient than public management, and much more advanced and enterprising.

When through a wise and judicious state control and regulation all the advantages without any of the disadvantages of state ownership are secured, state ownership is doomed.

Apparently, according to Vail, there was nothing to fear, "The proper use of corporate organization or combination under proper regulation or control cannot be objected to."

AT&T, Antitrust Danger, & the Kingsbury Commitment (1912-1913)

At first, to attempt to achieve his vision of a uniform system under AT&T, Vail began acquiring a number of independent competitors until such activity caught the attention of the federal government because of existing antitrust statutes. Michael K. Kellogg, John Thorne, and Peter W. Huber write in Federal Telecommunications Law (1999),

In 1912, fresh on the heels of its victory against Rockefeller, the U.S. Justice Department threatened to take on Vail. There followed a great deal of sound and fury, no doubt reflecting America's traditional populist mistrust of monopoly. In the end, however, government officials would conclude that monopoly in communications was much more tolerable than monopoly in oil.

To avoid antitrust lawsuits, Vail orchestrated the Kingsburg Commitment in 1913 (a year with which readers are doubtless familiar for several other reasons). According to industry historian Gerald W. Brock in his book The Telecommunications Industry: The Dynamics of Market Structure (1981),

Rather than risk legal action that could be adverse to the system, the Bell system entered into negotiation with the attorney general and in December 1913 reached an agreement known as the Kingsbury Commitment.

Correctly assessing the precarious situation of AT&T, Vail tried another-more successful-strategy. The strategy that was reached was essentially an agreement between AT&T and the federal government. AT&T agreed to abandon further acquisitions, sell its Western Union holdings ($30 million), and permit independent telephone companies to interconnect with its system, while the government allowed AT&T to retain its increasingly-dominant position. For Vail, this was a far more favorable alternative to having the government dismantle the Bell System. It constrained AT&T's expansion through acquisition but gave it something far more valuable-the government's acceptance of AT&T's dominant, regulated position in the telephone industry.

Richard Vietor writes in Contrived Competition: Regulation and Deregulation in America (1994, p. 172; also quoted in Thierer),

Vail chose at this time [i.e., around the time of the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment] to put AT&T squarely behind government regulation, as the quid pro quo for avoiding competition. This was the only politically acceptable way for AT&T to monopolize telephony. . . . It seemed a necessary trade-off for the attainment of universal service. (emphasis added)

This was precisely Vail's strategy. Robert W. Garnet-author of The Telephone Enterprise: The Evolution of the Bell's Horizontal Structure-writes (1985, p. 130; also quoted in Thierer),

Regulation played a crucial role in Vail's plans. Astute enough to realize that the kind of system he proposed-universal integrated monopoly-would stand little chance of gaining public approval without some form of public control, he embraced state regulation. In doing so, he broke with the company's long-standing opposition to what [AT&T] management had traditionally regarded as an unwarranted intrusion on its prerogatives. But after years of unfettered competition, during which the firm's financial strengths had been sapped and its efforts to build an integrated system had been dangerously undermined, regulation became a much-preferred alternative. (emphasis added)

Conclusion

All this provides ample evidence of the cronyism and political entrepreneurship within the telephone industry. While speaking of banking in particular, Rothbard provides a simple and profound general insight which every student of economic and political history ought to remember,

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed. (emphasis in original)

This history also serves to confirm the key insight of Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism, that-contrary to the popular historical narrative concerning the Progressive Era-certain key businesses often invited and helped shape regulations in order to achieve a cartel or a monopoly at the expense of the consuming public. Instead of the government and the consuming public teaming up against big business, the government and big business largely teamed against the consuming public. "Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests," writes Kolko, therefore, the power of the federal government had to be sought to establish monopoly. But don't just take Kolko's word for it, take that of Theodore M. Vail in 1917,

We have repeatedly and constantly contended that competition, so far as the public utilities are concerned, is costly, unsatisfactory, undependable. That as an incentive to development or improvement [competition] has passed its period of usefulness, if indeed it ever had any.

We have also contended with equal constancy, that with combination of like utilities under proper control and regulation the service to the public would be better, more progressive, efficient and economical than competitive service given by the separate systems.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 22:10

Rise And Fall Of "Climate Crisis" Info War As Dems Urge Politicians To Avoid Global Warming Talk

The "climate crisis" headlines forced down the throats of the American people only began to emerge when socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and unhinged leftist Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal in early 2019. That was the moment when global-warming headlines spiked and the NGO complex ramped up activist networks through protests and an informational war in the press, tricking the public into supporting climate bills intended to solve a made-up crisis.

Fake News

By March 2019, those climate-crisis headlines had intensified as Democrats desperately tried but failed to pass the Green New Deal.

More Fake News

Then, in 2022, those same headlines spiked again as Sen. Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer unexpectedly announced the Inflation Reduction Act, reviving much of the climate agenda.

It was all a lie. 

By August 2022, the IRA had passed and President Biden had signed it into law, flooding the Democratic Party's pet projects with $369 billion.

But those headlines subsequently peaked in late 2022. Democrats moved on after securing their massive funding package, and climate was no longer the party's main focus. This suggests that the earlier propaganda push was merely an informational war against taxpayers designed to hustle them.

Climate-crisis headlines remain out of fashion in 2026 as Democrats pivot toward socialism, thirdworldism, protect criminal illegal aliens, and quadruple down on all things woke.

Even AP's new reporting makes the case for the retreat clear: Climate ranks poorly among voters' priorities, suggesting that the public has increasingly rejected the party's climate-grift narrative as bullshit.

The retreat in climate propaganda has become so pronounced that researchers have coined the term "climate hushing." The Democratic-aligned Searchlight Institute has urged candidates this election season to stop emphasizing climate change because it ranks poorly among voters' priorities.

The shift in talking points is playing out in Massachusetts, where Markey, a leading sponsor of the Green New Deal, is placing less emphasis on climate policy as he faces a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton.

All of this demonstrates that the entire climate-crisis propaganda campaign was about pushing legislation through Congress to fund NGOs and climate projects, not actually about the climate.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 21:35

US Forces Sink Vessel Providing At-Sea Refueling For Cartel: SOUTHCOM

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

U.S. forces, on Aug. 28, sank a vessel in the eastern Pacific that the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said was serving as an at-sea refueling point for drug-trafficking boats.

A vessel suspected of providing at-sea refueling for drug traffickers burns after being targeted by U.S. forces on Aug. 28, 2026. U.S. Southern Command

SOUTHCOM, which oversees military operations in and around Central and South America, said U.S. forces worked in coordination with the government of Ecuador to track down the vessel.

"Intelligence confirmed the vessel, previously identified and targeted under Department of the Treasury sanctions, was operating in support of the Los Choneros violent narco-terrorist organization," SOUTHCOM said in a press statement.

Los Choneros is one of more than a dozen Latin American transnational criminal enterprises that the U.S. government has designated as a foreign terrorist organization since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.

According to SOUTHCOM, U.S. Marines and sailors launched from the amphibious transport dock ship USS San Antonio to board and search the vessel, and did so without incident.

"Individuals removed from the vessel were safely escorted to Ecuador. Once cleared, U.S. forces sank the vessel," SOUTHCOM said.

SOUTHCOM has since published footage purporting to show U.S. forces boarding the suspect vessel, as well as footage of the boat being destroyed in a fiery blast.

"Today's operation is a stark example of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition's power to dismantle the sophisticated, clandestine narco-terrorist tactics and capabilities that have enabled the trafficking of dangerous drugs destined for American communities," SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan said of the operation.

The Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, formed in March of this year, is a military partnership between the United States and other Western Hemisphere nations to disrupt cartel operations.

The U.S. military had been taking a more forceful approach to disrupt cartel operations even before recruiting regional partners through the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition.

On Sept. 2, 2025, U.S. forces bombed a boat in the Caribbean Sea, which officials said was transporting narcotics, killing 11. It was the first in an ongoing series of strikes on drug boats.

U.S. forces have struck dozens more vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific in the past year. Most recently, SOUTHCOM claimed responsibility for a strike in the Caribbean on Aug. 25 that killed four people it identified as members of a drug-trafficking network.

The campaign of lethal strikes on boats has met with scrutiny and criticism.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), in an Aug. 3 letter to the president, said: "A careful review of the available evidence suggests that the United States has killed individuals who are not involved in narcotrafficking."

A December report by Human Rights Watch described the campaign of boat strikes as a series of "extrajudicial killings."

The family members of two Trinidadian nationals who have been missing since October filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the United States in January. The plaintiffs claimed that the two missing men had been working as migrant laborers in neighboring Venezuela, and had arranged a boat ride home to Trinidad and Tobago, but were likely killed in an Oct. 14 strike by U.S. forces.

The U.S. government has not publicly identified any of the individuals they believe to have killed in these boat strikes.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 21:00

Central Asia Resists US Pressure To Choose Sides In AI Race

Authored by Eurasianet via OilPrice,

• Kazakhstan is continuing to expand AI cooperation with China even after joining the US-led Pax Silica initiative.
• Uzbekistan says it wants access to both cutting-edge American technology and lower-cost Chinese AI models rather than choosing between them.
• Their positions illustrate the difficulty Washington faces in persuading Central Asian governments to take sides in the intensifying US-China technology rivalry.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are tossing figurative darts at a US trial balloon connected to the intensifying race between the United States and China for leadership in AI development.

Reuters reported on August 14 that the US State Department had drafted a note stating that any nation interested in widening access to advanced American know-how and technology in the AI sector under a program known as Pax Silica must refrain from participating in a rival Chinese initiative known as the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO).

Kazakhstan is a member of both Pax Silica and WAICO, while Uzbekistan is a signatory to the Chinese initiative while expressing keen interest in expanding cooperation with the United States in AI development. More broadly, the United States has taken steps over the past 18 months to expand economic ties with all five Central Asian states.

Actions and statements by Kazakh and Uzbek officials since news of the draft State Department note began circulating indicate that both states are disinclined to adhere to what amounts to an American demand.

Kazakh officials have not publicly commented on the issue of the country's participation in both Pax Silica and WAICO, but recent developments suggest Astana is intent on maintaining close contacts with China in the AI sphere.

On August 18, experts from the countries' respective academies of sciences agreed to jointly develop a science-focused AI platform to analyze "scientific literature and large data sets, identifying patterns, formulating and testing hypotheses, modeling complex processes, planning experiments, and predicting results," according to a Kazakh government statement. The Kazakhstan and China are also working on an AI initiative called DeepBas, which aims to develop "specialized models" enabling the more efficient management of water resources.

Exchange programs are likewise proceeding. Kazakh engineers from the national space company recently participated in a training program in China on using AI to analyze satellite data to improve natural disaster early warning capabilities. In addition, at a recent symposium in Almaty, Chinese and Kazakh researchers discussed AI applications in medicine and agriculture, as well as joint research and training for young AI specialists.

Uzbekistan has perhaps been more direct in addressing the brewing AI issue. Speaking at a technology forum in Tashkent on August 24, Bobur Khodjaev, an aide to President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, issued what could be considered a veiled plea for the US to abandon an "us-or-them" stance on AI development. He also stated that Uzbek officials would continue to opt for the best available AI solutions, regardless of national origin. He acknowledged that American tech may be superior but also stressed that China offered more affordable options.

"As a developing country, we want to have access to all available technologies," Gazeta.uz quoted Khodjaev as saying. "Specifically referring to the US and China, obviously American tech companies offer cutting-edge AI chips and AI models. China, in turn, offers open-source models that are significantly cheaper than American ones. And we would like to have access to both."

"We are open to collaboration with all partners and interested parties and strive to implement artificial intelligence technologies not only in finance but in all areas of our economy," Khodjaev added.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 19:50

Federal Court Rules Sexual AI Images Of Children Are Legal To Possess

Perhaps sometimes it's best for judges to ignore technical loopholes and rigid legal precedent for the sake of doing the right thing?  Maybe, in extreme cases where absolute evil is involved, our system could dismiss the "rights of artists" and enforce restrictions based on the potential long term damage to society as a whole? 

Yes, the constitutional conundrums are plenty, but can't we also simply use common sense? Because if we can't, these kinds of artistic "expressions" are going to inspire independent vigilantism and it will be the fault of the courts when this inevitably happens. 

A federal appeals court says a Supreme Court precedent set in 2002 forces it to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material.  The court warned that rapidly advancing technology has complicated legal lines drawn nearly 25 years ago. 

The Seventh Circuit said it was bound by the Supreme Court decision that rejected restrictions on sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their creation. But two judges warned that modern AI can now generate images virtually indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children. 

In other words, artistic depictions of child abuse are legal to possess in private because no real children were harmed in their creation.  The use of AI exploits this loophole for the creation of hyper-realistic images very similar to real pornographic content.   

"Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then," Judge John Lee wrote. "Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves." 

If we give these judges the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the Supreme Court ruling prevents them from taking action, we are still left with the moral question.  There are constitutional purists out there who might argue that "artwork" is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.  There are others (progressives) who will argue that a private individual owning such images hurts no one and they should be left alone to bask in their AI generated pedophilia.

This brings us to the deeper question:  Should known pedophiles be allowed to roam free within society because they haven't abused a child "yet"?  Or, should these people be locked up the moment they are identified for the sake of protecting communities from "potential" harm? 

It's generally not constitutionally legal to arrest someone for something they might do, but obviously, the legalized possession of AI child abuse images cannot be allowed to stand.  Even if the materials could be labeled "art" that does not harm real children, they act as a useful identifier for some of the worst monsters within any given community.  That is to say, these images should be used as an excuse to round up such people. 

It doesn't matter if they have not yet harmed a child; given the opportunity, they likely will.  The Supreme Court should change their precedent for this reason alone. 

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of one of four charges against Steven Anderegg, who investigators said had hundreds of AI-generated sexually explicit images depicting children on devices seized from his Wisconsin home. 

Anderegg was charged with producing and distributing the AI-generated material, transferring it to a minor under 16, and possessing it. A federal district court dismissed only the possession charge on First Amendment grounds, leaving the other three charges intact. 

For now, the distribution of these images is still illegal.  Generating the images, while still considered illegal, is difficult to prove, which is why the possession issue is so important.  Any AI images that use pictures of real children as a reference are also illegal.   AI is testing legal lines that many people thought impossible only a decade ago and limitations need to be addressed before extensive damage is done.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 19:15

What Do "Capitalism" And "Socialism" Really Mean?

Authored by Vincent Cook via Mises Institute,

The old debate between socialism and capitalism is back. It wasn't that long ago when socialist economics had been repudiated even by former Soviet insiders, businesses like Wendy's and Miller ran clever television advertisements poking fun at the once-mighty but by then grossly dysfunctional Soviet Union, and the remaining leftist political parties in Western countries pivoted to focusing on promoting welfare statism while admitting that government controls over the means of production is a losing proposition. Back in the day, even people lacking the keen theoretical insights of a Ludwig von Mises could plainly see that actual attempts to realize socialism, however well-intentioned they were originally, only delivered totalitarian tyranny and mass impoverishment.

Since then, schools haven't been so keen on teaching younger generations that a system based on individual liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights is what delivers the goods and what enables competent adults to function as morally- and intellectually-autonomous individuals. Neither do they teach that politically-generated handouts, subsidies, privileges, and immunities, nor governmental fiat money creation or unrealistic governmental promises of future economic security are at the root of many of the worsening problems afflicting the productive classes in our society today. Instead, young people have been indoctrinated with a belief that "capitalist" private profit-seeking and the cultural and religious traditions spontaneously propagated in an individualistic culture are to blame for all of society's ills and injustices. They are taught that only by instituting "socialism" to overthrow capitalism and forcibly re-engineer America's culture to "woke" specifications can such problems be solved.

Many contemporary defenders of socialism deny that they have anything like the Soviet Union in mind when they use the "socialist" label (though there is a Marxist Unity Group within the Democratic Socialists of America that is overtly pro-Bolshevik), while they are quick to pin the "capitalist" label on an admittedly dysfunctional status quo that strongly deviates from individualist libertarian principles in numerous respects. Such rhetoric is driven in no small measure by clashing definitions of what "socialism" and "capitalism" are supposed to mean, since of course neither side wants to take blame for either the failed Soviet example or for the failing status quo. So how are we to understand this definitional conflict, and how can we resolve it? In what sense is the extreme Soviet version of socialism relevant, if at all?

Back when the socialist movement got started, the original premise was that private ownership of the means of production was intrinsically evil because only the owners of the means of production (the wicked "capitalist" class), not society at large, allegedly benefited from the existence of private ownership. Private property was smeared as being profoundly unjust. Earning a positive return on investments was erroneously portrayed as being a parasitic extraction of value from producers, not as enhancing productivity in any way.

"Socialism" in this early context broadly referred to any system for organizing production that prevents such private earnings on investments, instead reallocating them to the benefit of "society" according to whatever distributive outcome was considered just. As long as most of the public remains blissfully ignorant about how both private thrift and profit-seeking/loss-avoidance and private investment of the resulting savings actually increases the physical quantity of outputs produced, it is possible to conceive of all sorts of crazy schemes to replace "capitalist" profits with some sort of "socialist" alternative. Socialism, in other words, was originally defined in a negative way as the antithesis of private ownership of production, which rendered it hopelessly vague.

Likewise, narrowly focusing on private ownership of the means of production without regards to other important requirements for a productive profit-and-loss driven economic system-like ownership being based on peaceful acquisition, ownership rights being defined in terms of the owner's exclusive control over the use and disposition of his body and the owned things, and everybody being at liberty to do anything that doesn't violate other people's ownership rights)-leads to an overly-broad definition of "capitalism" as well. It conflates the genuinely productive laissez-faire variant of private ownership with the genuinely exploitative interventionist variants where the state rewards specially-favored private interests with subsidies, with privileges that enhance earnings by restricting the liberty of others, and with immunities that enhance earnings with exemptions from liabilities for violations of ownership rights.

Such fuzzy ambiguities give socialists an escape clause when confronted with evidence of how badly real-world socialist experiments work-"But that wasn't real socialism!" It also permits a conflation of interventionism with laissez-faire that incoherently indicts private ownership with evidence of exploitative outcomes arising from what are actually serious deviations from libertarian/classical liberal principles. With such a foggy conceptualization of the nature of capitalism and socialism, the underlying issue of the absolute economic necessity of private thrift coupled to profit-and-loss-motivated entrepreneurial investing in the context of competitively-generated market prices for capital goods and for factor inputs is never confronted.

The way to dispel this fog is to realize that an eclectic mix of government controls and of private profit-seeking (as is frequently encountered in concrete historical situations) is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist. Appeals to the evidence of concrete historical examples are never fully persuasive because one can always invoke alternative causal factors to rationalize why things worked out as well or as badly as they did in a particular situation instead of treating the historical example as a decisive test of a given system. As Mises explained in his methodological work Theory and History, causal explanations of historical events always have to be preceded by a correct understanding of economic theory; data from complex, uncontrolled social situations does not permit rigorous logical inductions of causal generalizations like the controlled laboratory experiments of the natural sciences do.

This implies that the real battleground for a debate over different economic systems are rival theoretical understandings of how purposeful human action works, not the data of how different historical examples performed. Mises brings theory to the forefront by reserving the label "capitalism" to a system based on laissez-faire principles of liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights, the label "socialism" for coercively-centralized control over the means of production (whether formal ownership itself is centralized or not, which gives rise to two distinct varieties of socialism), and the label "interventionism" for systems with selective government interference with certain aspects of production while leaving all other aspects of production to be self-directed, incentivized by private profit-seeking and loss-avoidance.

The crucial point to note here is that Mises avoids the customary ambiguities by narrowing the meaning of each concept to a particular idealized type of economic system where the properties of each system have been specified sufficiently so that a theoretical analysis of the consequences of each system can be deduced rigorously. Also, it is helpful other conceptual possibilities as needed to provide an exhaustive catalog of possible systems. Unlike the vague terminology that originally informed the capitalist/socialist debate, Mises's definitions are fit for the task of debating the merits of different systems.

While having a more highly-specified, robust set of concepts at one's disposal doesn't necessarily conclusively settle debates over how to interpret a particular concrete historical instance, such concepts do enable deductions concerning what consequences would follow from various changes to the current system, all other things being equal. It also obliges champions of more limited interventions, entitlement benefits, etc. to drop the pretense that because their vision of "socialism" doesn't involve full Soviet-style central planning, their "socialism" somehow doesn't suffer from yet other problems that arise in connection with interventionism, welfarism, etc. All things being equal, the consequences of each isolated type of intervention can be qualitatively predicted using Misesian economic theory too.

What really ought to be the focus of debate today is America's deindustrialization and the associated decline of America's productive classes while the ruling class and its assorted minions and clients have been flourishing. Simply blaming all billionaires (and the newly-minted trillionaire) and traditional American culture for all of America's ills (as progressives like to do) or blaming foreigners and "woke" culture (as MAGA conservatives like to do) does not add up to a coherent logical explanation of how economic exploitation actually works in our society or why it suddenly started becoming a problem a little over half a century ago.

Only a logic of purposeful action, which is self-evidently and universally true for all human beings under all social circumstances, can help us clearly understand how America went wrong and what we must do to reindustrialize America while ending the systemic exploitation of the productive by the unproductive. It is Mises's definition of capitalism, not the interventionist status quo often confused with capitalism, that conceptualizes what is lacking in America today and how America needs to be reformed to make possible liberty and prosperity for all.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 18:40

Pentagon Grabs 35% Equity Stake In Venezuelan Oil As Trump Vows To "Fill Up" The SPR

Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez on Saturday evening unveiled further details of the grand US oil deal that was announced by President Trump on Friday, detailing that her country will receive about $19 per barrel of oil produced under the long-term energy deal.

Rodriguez, who was Maduro's #2 as VP before the former president's overthrow by invading US forces less than a year ago, hailed the "historic" agreement as an avenue for boosting crude output while bringing economic benefits. "The agreement is based on a very simple premise," she said. "Each party contributes what it does best. Venezuela contributes oil, its industry and the experience of its workers accumulated over more than 100 years. The United States contributes the capital and technology needed to recover and develop those assets."

Trump on Sunday: a "Gift from Venezuela to the People of the United States."

Rodríguez additionally said that in return, "Venezuela receives production, jobs, investment in infrastructure, increased revenue for the government and productive linkages for domestic industry." On top of this she assessed the deal would eventually grant Venezuela some $209 billion in taxes.

Her comments attempted to preempt discontent over the US deal from sectors of her own citizenry. Ironically, she's obviously playing the role of a pliant Washington figurehead, and there's local concern that the deal simply siphons off national resources and puts it into Uncle Sam's pocket, which is a long-running experience of a number of Latin American populations especially related to CIA action there in the context of the 20th century Cold War.

President Rodriguez stated that she wants to "make something absolutely clear"... she insisted that "Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources, while utilizing capital, technology and operational capacity to leverage the recovery of a strategic industry that has been severely hit by sanctions."

In parallel to some of the details that Rodriguez filled in, The Wall Street Journal over the weekend has its own lengthy report on some of the deal's ins and outs. Below are a few highlights of that WSJ report...

*  *  *

The Pentagon will take a 35% passive stake in a private company holding Venezuelan oil rights:

Although it was negotiated by senior officials in both governments, the structure would make the U.S. an investor in a private company rather than a direct counterparty to the Venezuelan government. 

The U.S. plans to take a 35% passive stake in Betancourt’s North American Blue Energy Partners and would secure preferential rights to purchase 20% of its production at cost, according to people involved in negotiating the agreement. 

Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt is being offered development of some seventeen oil fields:

It would give Washington a direct financial stake in a private company that would be granted centurylong rights to some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves—and tie the U.S. more closely to the unelected government that is granting those rights.

The private company, led by controversial Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, would have the opportunity to develop 17 oil fields said to contain 65 billion barrels of oil, or one-fifth of the country’s reserves. The Pentagon, in a striking expansion of its remit, would help finance the oil venture and reap the rewards of its future output.

Pentagon's strategic capital office was brought in late in the process to create a financing mechanism:

The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital plans to structure the investment through penny warrants that would yield the U.S. an equity ownership in the business without a significant capital investment, the people said. The Pentagon office has limited statutory authority to strike deals designed to support U.S. national-security interests, typically through loans and guarantees. 

Betancourt has served as a broker in Venezuela’s energy deals and has close ties to Rodríguez. He faced criminal investigations of alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland, though no formal charges have emerged. His NABEP has become the second-largest private oil producer in Venezuela, after Chevron, over the past two years.

Future governments in Caracas could potentially challenge the agreement (though Washington is unlikely to ever cease asserting its direct influence):

For American oil companies pursuing potential investments in Venezuela, the idea of competing with a U.S.-backed private company with a stake in huge swaths of the country’s oil fields is daunting, people close to the companies said. U.S. officials said the state-backed company would be the second-largest corporate holder of proven reserves after Saudi Aramco.

The deal is also raising alarms within the industry about whether a new Venezuelan government could mount a successful legal challenge, and whether it might undercut new entrants’ confidence in making investments, the people said.

...The substance of the agreement appears to be in direct conflict with Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, which states that the country’s oil reserves belong to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and can’t be sold. Critics say Venezuela’s current government, populated by unelected officials kept in power by the Trump administration, has no legal authority to sell the country’s oil rights.

Via AP: The Amuay oil refinery - Venezuela's largest petroleum processing facility.

There remain an additional array of problems facing translating the deal into additional supply at a moment America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve hits decades lows.

Though sitting atop the world's biggest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has long been known for its derelict and largely defunct infrastructure for getting crude out of the ground and refining. There's also the question of security, which has been a source of discussion between the US admin and American oil companies being courted. The oil majors must be convinced that they can operate in enough safety to be successful, not just for the coming months, but for years down the line. And yet, they will now be forced to essentially 'compete' with the US government, ironically enough.

There are also lingering transparency and accountability questions concerning the Venezuelan oil exports that Washington already took over since Maduro's ouster.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 18:05

Opportunity Lost? Gained? Squandered?

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Another week with so many competing narratives driving markets. The information flow was coming so fast and furious that it is difficult to believe that Economic D-Day kicked off the week (it already seems longer than that).

Today, we will take a quick romp through how things seem to be playing out.

Opportunities Lost?

As anyone reading recent T-Reports knows, I was hopeful Warsh would take the stage on Friday and try to “shake things up.” Try to drive home some new (and in my view, much needed) paradigms. We got to discuss this ahead of Warsh’s speech on Friday morning on Bloomberg TV.

Warsh does deserve some credit for using the word “hike” three times at the start of his speech (but all in reference to the activity involving walking outdoors, rather than anything to do with rates). Not sure it was wise, as it likely set the algos off on the 2-year note, but I do applaud the effort to mislead the algos and speed readers.

In the end, bonds bear flattened. Stocks fell a little bit, but the bear flattening was the big takeaway from what I found was quite a boring speech, that really didn’t provide any new information.

The 30-year bond rallied initially and tried to hold on to those gains, but finished the day with higher yields. Part of that afternoon selling on longer-dated Treasuries could well be hedging (yield locks) for some IG new issues on Monday. As we wrote about in Yields Behaving Normally, both Bessent and Warsh need to pay far more attention to the massive supply of long-duration bonds (primarily from corporates in the “compute” space) and bonds in general (including increased global sovereign/quasi-sovereigns).

Had he gone down the path I would have liked to see, Friday might have even been messier than it was, but at least we’d have something interesting to discuss. Instead, I expect by the middle of next week, we will be back to lamenting the lack of specificity on the reaction function.

As the chair of the Fed, he has plenty of opportunities to speak, and people will listen, but the set-up for something more exciting than we got was almost perfect on Friday. An Opportunity Lost, in my view, but one that will be re-addressed as nothing is going to stop the data from coming in and the Fed from having to make decisions.

Opportunities Gained?

Every major news source is reporting increased oil flows out of the Middle East. Between alternative routes and increased passage through the Strait, pressure on the crude market is being relieved.

The blockade remains incredibly successful, preventing trade with Iran via the Strait. 

CENTCOM’s Commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, announced the Strait has been cleared of mines. Another very positive development on reducing the leverage Iran has.

The U.S. is also increasing staffing at embassies in the Gulf States, which is another step towards our view that neither the U.S. nor the Gulf Region has any interest in re-escalating “kinetic” warfare (the “cool” way to say shooting and blowing things up).

If we see renewed escalation, it seems likely to be initiated by Iran, and they don’t seem to have the will, or ability to do much at the moment (they have allegedly disabled some ships trying to transit, but no large-scale attacks on infrastructure in the region – which is the main fear). 

While we haven’t seen diesel or gasoline drop materially, the more oil that can make its way to refineries, the better.

Bessent’s announcement of Economic Outcast on Monday was a bit disappointing. Well, disappointing from launching concrete, obvious effects, that would really pressure the regime to give up (really needs to be tough on China to do that). But that also soothed markets which have less to worry about if we aren’t ramping up the rhetoric with China. A bit of a catch-22.

Basically, Bessent saying that we’ve put everyone on warning/high alert (and they have some time to change their behavior before we come down with the hammer) seems logical. It will take longer that way, but if the threat of the “hammer” works, then it will have accomplished the mission.

On the other hand, what happened to “Sanctioning a Major Financial Institution” on Friday? Maybe it is taking longer to get the legal side of things right, before implementing the sanctions? Maybe the “guilty party” has come to the table to negotiate a deal favorable to the U.S.? Those would be good outcomes and are plausible. But why make such a “direct statement” and not live up to it? On that topic, why didn’t this press conference happen the prior week, which seemed to be the initial target for launching the Economic Armageddon?

As a whole, the direction of travel on the issue of oil and energy products in the Middle East is heading in the right direction (less clear on nuclear deals and change of regime behavior).

Stories are hitting the tape this weekend about a major deal between the U.S. and Venezuela. We continue to see success in working with Venezuela since Maduro has been captured. Having said that, it is difficult to tell from the details provided so far, what the real impact is with this potential “deal.” If it is as good as the Truth Social posts say it is, that could be very good (primarily in the medium to longer term). But as we discussed last week, in the section Done Means Done, we have seen social media pronouncements, or soundbites (even soundbites from the Oval Office), that don’t always materialize the way they were initially touted.

Would be a great win, and I do think Venezuela can be a hub for processing, refining, and smelting materials that the U.S. needs.

Opportunities Squandered?

Since the trade negotiations fell apart (wow, that was only last Friday, that seems even longer ago), there has been a lot of discussion about who caused the deal to break down. Some argue that Carney views it as politically in his interests to not do a deal, even if he could have had a “good” deal. Others discuss last-minute demands on the U.S. side, which seems to fit in with the “art of the deal.” Where this all winds up, who knows.

We are going to lump this into the Opportunities Squandered section, though maybe not in the way you think this is going.

Let’s start with Canada. Let’s start a decade or so ago.

On Friday on Bloomberg TV (during the second segment), I say something that will probably get me in trouble, but once in a while you need to take that risk to get a soundbite across.

I argue that Canada cannot have BOTH a Green Economy and a Real Economy right now. I am not saying that over time you cannot achieve both a robust economy and one that is sustainable for your own nation and the world. I am saying that even if the ultimate end goal skews heavily towards sustainable and green, the priorities in the near term may have to be adjusted. You might never get to the “green” economy if you don’t survive long enough. We argued that the “energy companies of the future are the energy companies of today” during peak “Hopium.” By Hopium, I meant that the vision drove everything and ignored certain realities, that were really needed to turn that vision into reality. I’m not sure I’ve dug myself out of any hole I’ve dug myself into with this attempt at explaining my view, so I’ll just move on.

LNG exports. The U.S. has built a robust business around LNG. Not only is it bringing in revenue for America, and creating jobs, in America and abroad, but you could argue it is helping importers diversify away from LNG imports from less trustworthy, or reliable counterparties.

While there are a myriad of reasons why the U.S. can do better than Canada, and has done better, there is truth to the concept that Canada regulated themselves out of business. Or, more precisely, in this case, regulated themselves out of creating a new business.

This to me, is just another example of why ProSec needs to go global (and is going global).

• If you have the resources, why not extract them?
• Once you’ve extracted the resources, why not refine them?

As we’ve seen with the Strait, the bottlenecks occur primarily around the refined versions of oil. Yes, oil in itself is troublesome, but it is the refined products that are even more important.

Whether Canada listens to this wake-up call (and there are signs that they have been doing it — heck, we even have a tiny blip in the export line from Canada) is yet to be determined. As we’ve highlighted recently, Australia is planning on their first refinery in 60 years!

ProSec is going global. It is in every nation’s interest to ensure that their supply chains for things that are imperative to their existence are as stable, safe, reliable, and resilient as possible.

Having said that, we will discuss two other subjects in this section, even though I’m not sure they are squandered.

• Trade with Canada.
  • At least some of what the U.S. needs for reshoring and, possibly more importantly, the compute build, does or could come from Canada. Aluminum. Data centers need it. Canada has it. There is very little evidence of domestic production that can come on-line quickly, hence, the cost of compute build will go higher. If I’m Canada, I’m trying to harness all the things at my disposal that go into compute and will try to maximize that revenue source (whether in the U.S. or elsewhere). Not sure Canada will do that, but I’m not sure why the U.S. is doing anything making it more difficult or expensive for the compute build, when they are facing enough cost, energy, and NIMBY hurdles.
  • Farming. Potash. The U.S. imports it at scale. It is an important cost to farmers. Canada has it. The U.S. may have it, but it isn’t readily available. I’ve lost track of what the U.S. is doing on some ag things. Importing ground beef from somewhere (presumably Argentina). Changing how the processing is done. Food costs are a key issue for many voters, so not sure what the nation gets more benefit from – tariffs or coordinated effort?
• The China Summit.
  • While it is simplistic, my “working view” is that:
    • China is aiming to catch up on compute, faster than the U.S. can catch up on processing, refining, and smelting.
      • We are purposely avoiding the term – rare earths and critical minerals, because that tends to make people think about the rare earths and critical minerals themselves, rather than what is more important, which is processing, refining, and smelting. Not just rare earths and critical minerals, but even some basic commodities and metals.
  • If we think back to the “cards” on the table when the trade teams were negotiating in Geneva, to now, who has improved their hand?
    • I am not sure. Our compute is growing, but China seems to keep popping up as well. The admin is doing some great work on the processing, refining, and smelting side, but we started so far behind China that we need to continue to operate at lightning speed!

It will be interesting to see if I’m correct and ProSec truly moves global, or if countries will remain content to let others do the heavy lifting, even if it risks their economic future.

Bottom Line

I continue to like owning “compute” bonds on a yield basis (no rate hedge).

The Treasury bear steepener likely has more room to run, but we did have downward revisions to the prior year’s worth of jobs data. Not as draconian as last year, but another hint that the job market might be something the Fed needs to keep an eye on (especially as I don’t see how hiking helps war-related inflation or compute-build inflation). Will want to be adding to the front end. I remain indifferent on the long end, but suspect the global supply of debt will outweigh what Bessent has announced so far, and ultimately, the Fed will need to implement some form of Operation Twist to really shift the pricing of the long end.

If oil keeps coming down, it will help rates and equities. I remain concerned how much (in either direction) equities are being driven by the semis where the number of leveraged ETFs astounds me (creating mechanical buying and selling, amplifying every move).

I do think even with oil prices coming down, energy companies, globally, should remain a key overweight in portfolios (XLE is up 42% YTD) and global demands to harness and deliver energy are only increasing!

I don’t think I “squandered” the summer, but have to admit it went by a lot faster with a lot more work and angst than I would have hoped for! Enjoy this last week of summer and hope you have great plans for Labor Day weekend! (which is a holiday both in Canada and the U.S. though it is spelt differently).

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 17:30

State Department Revokes Visa Of Iraqi National On FBI Terror Watchlist

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

The State Department has revoked the visa of an Iraqi national who was placed on the FBI's Terror Watchlist, ending her ability to enter the United States years after she received a high-profile award from the Biden administration.

The U.S. Department of State in Washington on March 28, 2025.Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Taif Sami Mohammed Al Shakarchi is no longer present in the United States, according to a statement released Friday by Assistant Secretary Dylan Johnson.

The revocation followed her placement on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terror Watchlist. No further details on the underlying intelligence were provided in the department's announcement.

"Under President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, suspected terrorists will never be allowed to remain in the United States," the statement read.

Al Shakarchi was given the International Woman of Courage Award in 2022 by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and then-First Lady Jill Biden. The department said she had been recognized for her purported role in fighting corruption and her advocacy for "gender equity."

The award recognized "women from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equity and equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, in all their diversity."

Al Shakarchi, also referred to in State Department materials as Taif Sami Mohammed, had served as Iraq's deputy finance minister. She was described at the time of the 2022 award as a longtime official in the Ministry of Finance who started out as a budget analyst in 1985 and rose to director general of the Budget Department. Officials then called her a front-line leader against corrupt practices and noted she was known as the "Iron Woman." She was listed as a political independent.

The 2022 ceremony, held virtually, was hosted by Blinken with Jill Biden delivering remarks. Twelve women from various countries received the honor that year.

The Trump administration has made clear it prioritizes removing individuals it views as security risks. In recent months, the State Department has revoked hundreds of visas in targeted efforts, including nearly 900 people targeted by a birth tourism task force launched in early August. Broader continuous-vetting operations have led to more than 175,000 visa revocations for a range of violations, crimes, and national security concerns.

The International Women of Courage Award itself continues under the Trump administration. First lady Melania Trump and Rubio presented the 2025 honors in April, recognizing women from countries including Burkina Faso, Israel, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Romania, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Yemen. The department has noted that more than 200 women from over 90 countries have received the award since it began in 2007.

Al Shakarchi's case stands apart due to the later watchlist designation. The State Department says its visa action is a straightforward application of its policy against allowing suspected terrorists to stay.

The department's release did not specify where she is now or provide additional biographical updates beyond the watchlist status and her departure from the United States.

Visa decisions rest with the executive branch, with courts offering limited recourse to many such revocations, a principle reinforced in prior Supreme Court rulings on related immigration matters.

The move arrives amid wider efforts by the administration to tighten scrutiny of foreign nationals already inside the country or seeking entry. Officials tie those steps to national security priorities under the Trump administration.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:55

The Mother Of All Mean Reversions: Commodities Have Never Been This Cheap Versus Stocks

Across Wall Street, from Barclays and UBS to HSBC, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, a common view is taking shape: physical scarcity is emerging across multiple commodity classes, driving prices sharply higher and signaling a broader hard-asset squeeze.

Last week, UBS strategist Sagar Khandelwal issued a similar call heard across Wall Street, telling clients to “position for a commodity upcycle.”

On Saturday, Christopher LaFemina, who heads Jefferies’ global metals and mining research and is one of Wall Street’s veteran commodity experts, told clients that commodities remain historically cheap relative to US stocks.

LaFemina compared the S&P GSCI with the S&P 500, showing the ratio hovering near its lowest level in more than five decades. Similar troughs emerged during the Nifty Fifty and dot-com bubbles before commodities sharply outperformed stocks.

Previous upcycles in the ratio coincided with the 1970s oil embargo and inflation shock, the Gulf War, and the 2008 oil-price surge. Today’s depressed reading comes as retail and institutional investors remain bullish up to their eyeballs on hyperscalers and memory stocks while remaining highly concentrated in a handful of other AI names. And really, what could go wrong if the AI boom begins to deflate?

The trough in the ratio comes as traders ignore commodity markets, where the theme of scarce physical resources is rearing its ugly head:

• Got Hard Assets? UBS Says "Position For A Commodity Upcycle" As Global Scarcity Emerges
• Barclays Warns Next Commodity Shock Is Taking Shape: What You Need To Know
• "Buffers Running Down Quickly": HSBC Warns Next Global Food Shock Brewing
• The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"

Agricultural prices are soaring; copper is trading above $14,000 per ton in London; tungsten is above $3,000 per ton; uranium is back above $90 per pound; and many other critical materials (seen as the building blocks for the AI boom) are surging as demand accelerates. Electrification, AI buildout demand, rising power consumption, geopolitical fragmentation, including China’s weaponization of export supplies (tungsten and germanium), and years of underinvestment are colliding to create a perfect storm of constrained supplies across energy, metals, and other raw materials.

Agricultural commodities have just broken decisively above nearly 20 years of resistance.

And this is happening while:

▪️Diesel prices approach all-time highs
▪️Mortgage rates hover near 7%, with housing already deeply unaffordable
▪️Wealth inequality stands near historic… pic.twitter.com/rgJfZgUPBC

— Otavio (Tavi) Costa (@TaviCosta) August 29, 2026

"The 10-year rolling change in the US dollar remains one of the most important macro developments in the world today," Azuria Capital's Otavio Costa wrote on X. 

The 10-year rolling change in the US dollar remains one of the most important macro developments in the world today.

We are likely witnessing the beginning of a secular decline in the dollar — a necessary adjustment to the significant trade deficit the US economy faces today.… pic.twitter.com/uWqXcX3QUr

— Otavio (Tavi) Costa (@TaviCosta) August 30, 2026

It's time to focus on "scarcity in the physical world," according to veteran commodities strategist Jeff Currie, who also warned, "The illusion of abundance is likely behind us."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:20

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.

CENTCOM says that they attacked two Iranian missile launchers on Larak island. This is the first time that they have struck an Iranian target in weeks.

— barry with the NED (@bonzerbarry) August 30, 2026

*  *  *

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?

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

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...

Ro to Dem Iran hawks:

"The last thing we want is to goad Donald Trump into more conflict"

"Is this the time to be saying to Donald Trump, you haven't blown up enough stuff in Iran? Absolutely not!"

"Let's get a negotiated settlement... Democrats should be for ending this war" pic.twitter.com/Rxbd7e1iJ6

— Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) May 27, 2026

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

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."

SpaceX and Tesla are each building 100GW/year of solar production capacity as fast as possible, but natural gas will still be needed to supplement and bootstrap solar for several years.

The limiting factor for nat gas turbine production is casting the blades & vanes. By doing…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

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."

ELON MUSK: “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.” pic.twitter.com/YlKHznBXhK

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) August 29, 2026

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.

Consensus estimate is that ~15GW of AI compute produced in 2027 cannot be turned on in 2027.

This is harder than just finding power, as you also need to build out all the transformers, wiring, liquid-cooling, (massive) chillers & complex networking. https://t.co/cRXJ1Wrkri

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

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 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

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

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."

Up close: Massive missile warehouse explosion near Kiev

Ukrainian media suggest it may have held Patriot missiles

The scale of the blast is staggering pic.twitter.com/uUE4gWRizo

— RT (@RT_com) August 30, 2026

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

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.

?NEWS: Birmingham City Council have confirmed that the Flag Ban will only apply to the flags of England??????? and the UK ??

Flags from other countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Palestine will all be exempt

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) August 29, 2026

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."

FLAG BAN FURY

Birmingham City Council wants to stop groups such as Raise the Colours putting up the national flag — but co-founder Ryan Bridge vows to defy the ban.

'100% I will be carrying on. If I go to jail for it, so be it.'@TVKev @RTCORGUK pic.twitter.com/0sRNf45Ti7

— Talk (@TalkTV) August 27, 2026

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.

"I believe in the flag, I believe in the nation."

Times columnist Matthew Syed and Kevin O'Sullivan react to Birmingham City Council seeking a High Court injunction to stop members of anti-migrant group Raise the Colours from putting up flags across the city.@TVKev... pic.twitter.com/fG2OxnjP3F

— Talk (@TalkTV) August 27, 2026

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."

Remember, Birmingham Council never moved for an injunction when it was just Palestine flags being flown from lampposts.

No threats of up to two years imprisonment.

"Community cohesion" wasn't a concern until people put up St George's and Union flags. A two-tier approach. pic.twitter.com/j7EAow80BY

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) August 27, 2026

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.

Birmingham council seeking to ban British flags 'for public safety' yet happy to fly Somali flag outside its council house. pic.twitter.com/4aVCNPeNTy

— Robert Abel (@rj_abel) August 29, 2026

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.

Birmingham Council will happily raise the Somali flag, Pakistan flag and light up the Library of B'ham in Pakistan flag colours.

This would be fine in Pakistan or Somalia. However, we're not. Somehow, raising the Union and St George's flags creates "community cohesion" concerns. pic.twitter.com/1PUh08Ijnq

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) August 29, 2026

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.

Agree/disagree with the flying of a foreign flag?

Birmingham City Council House

??Jamaican independence day in Birmingham.. pic.twitter.com/9AQIUKnwLb

— 'Seeing is believing' (@dave24144975) August 6, 2025

Last year a Pakistani flag flew over the central square.

pic.twitter.com/8CzYcOm1Yp
Are these the new 'British values'?

?This is the same central Birmingham square where the city council banned Britain First, claiming the group didn't share their values. ?A Pakistani flag flies over that exact spot.

?Is this the new standard for...

— Yossi BenYakar (@YossiBenYakar) October 22, 2025

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

Here's why...

"Why would Birmingham City Council ban our National Flags?"

The Council: pic.twitter.com/XPLp72CToa

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) August 29, 2026

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

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.

2 am Aug 30: There are two systems with a low chance of development. Interests along the LA and Upper TX coasts should monitor the Gulf system #97L. The remnants of Dolly could bring heavy rains and gusty winds to portions of the Leeward Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto… pic.twitter.com/SGswhnrE1Y

— National Hurricane Center (@NHC_Atlantic) August 30, 2026

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