The 'Projects' That Could Ignite The Next World War

Authored by Madge Waggy,

The Military, Industrial and Strategic Programs Reshaping the World in 2026

The most dangerous geopolitical developments of 2026 are not necessarily the weapons that have already been fired, but the systems being constructed in anticipation of the next crisis. Across Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, governments are committing extraordinary resources to military production, strategic infrastructure, weapons procurement and long-term defence planning, creating a global security environment in which preparation for war has itself become one of the defining features of international politics. The official justification is almost always deterrence: stronger armies are supposed to prevent aggression, larger stockpiles are supposed to make adversaries think twice and new military infrastructure is supposed to close the gaps that might otherwise invite attack. Yet deterrence has an inherent paradox. Every military capability built by one state is examined by another as a potential threat, and every response can then be used to justify another round of preparation. What emerges is not necessarily an organized march toward a single global conflict, but something more unstable: a collection of increasingly sophisticated military projects operating simultaneously across several regions, each designed to prevent war while potentially making the consequences of miscalculation far more severe.

The scale of this transformation is no longer a matter of speculation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure reached approximately $2.887 trillion in 2025, marking the eleventh consecutive year of growth. European military spending increased by 14% to approximately $864 billion, while military expenditure in Asia and Oceania rose by 8.1% to around $681 billion. The United States remained the world's largest military spender at approximately $954 billion, followed by China at $336 billion and Russia at $190 billion. Together, those three countries accounted for roughly 51% of global military expenditure. SIPRI also reported that European NATO members increased spending sharply, while China's military expenditure continued a decades-long upward trajectory and Taiwan increased its own military spending by approximately 14% in 2025. These figures do not prove that a world war is approaching, but they reveal an international system in which the largest military powers are simultaneously expanding or restructuring their strategic capabilities.

THE GLOBAL REARMAMENT MAP

 

The "Editorial risk assessment" is an analytical classification based on escalation potential, proximity of military forces, strategic importance and likelihood of involvement by major powers. It is not an official probability forecast. Data on military expenditure: SIPRI. Current developments in Taiwan Strait and the Middle East: Reuters and AP.

The most important feature of this table is not any individual number, but the simultaneous concentration of military pressure across several theatres. Europe is rebuilding defence capacity at a pace unseen in decades, China is continuing its military modernization while applying pressure around Taiwan, Russia remains heavily committed to wartime spending, and the United States is attempting to maintain strategic commitments across Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. This creates a geopolitical environment in which a crisis in one region could consume resources, attention and military capacity that are simultaneously required elsewhere. The risk is therefore not simply that one country decides to start a global war; it is that several regional crises could interact with one another at precisely the moment when governments have fewer diplomatic and military resources available to contain them.

EUROPE'S REARMAMENT PROJECT

Europe's rearmament is perhaps the clearest example of a strategic project that is simultaneously defensive in intention and potentially destabilizing in perception. The transformation began with the recognition that the continent had allowed its conventional military capabilities to decline after the Cold War, but the war in Ukraine fundamentally altered that calculation. Governments that had spent years treating defence as a secondary budgetary priority are now rebuilding ammunition reserves, expanding weapons production, ordering new aircraft and missile systems, strengthening military logistics and investing in the infrastructure required to move large numbers of troops and equipment across the continent. NATO has committed its members to a long-term target of spending 5% of GDP annually on defence and defence-related security requirements by 2035, while the alliance reported in July 2026 that European allies and Canada had already increased core defence expenditure by nearly 20% in 2025 compared with 2024. NATO is also explicitly working with industry to expand production capacity, including ammunition stockpiles and other military capabilities.

The economic dimension of this transformation is significant because military production cannot be expanded overnight. A government can announce a larger defence budget in a single parliamentary session, but factories, skilled labour, supply chains and production lines require years to develop. Once those systems are established, they create their own momentum. Defence companies receive long-term contracts, governments become dependent on domestic production capacity and military planners begin designing strategies around weapons that may remain in service for decades. The result is a structural transformation rather than a temporary response to a single crisis. Europe is not simply buying more weapons; it is rebuilding an industrial ecosystem capable of producing them at scale.

From Moscow's perspective, the same transformation can be interpreted very differently. European governments describe their military expansion as a response to Russian aggression and a means of preventing future conflict. Russia, however, is likely to view the growth of European military capabilities, expanded NATO production and increased strategic infrastructure as evidence that the continent is preparing for a prolonged confrontation. This is the classic security dilemma, and it is one of the most persistent mechanisms behind arms races throughout modern history. The fundamental problem is that two governments can simultaneously believe they are acting defensively while interpreting the other's defensive actions as preparation for aggression.

The danger becomes greater when military infrastructure acquires permanence. A temporary deployment can be withdrawn relatively quickly; a factory built to produce ammunition for decades, a new logistics corridor or a permanent military installation creates a different strategic reality. These projects establish capabilities that remain available long after the political circumstances that originally justified them have changed. The result is a continent increasingly structured around the possibility of prolonged confrontation, with defence spending becoming not merely a reaction to war but an enduring component of economic and industrial policy. That does not make a European war inevitable, but it does mean that the physical and industrial capacity required for one is expanding substantially.

THE TAIWAN STRAIT: THE MOST DANGEROUS CONVERGENCE OF MILITARY POWER AND GLOBAL ECONOMICS

The Taiwan Strait represents a different kind of danger because it combines territorial sovereignty, national identity, military competition and the technological foundations of the global economy. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory, while Taiwan maintains its own democratic government and rejects Beijing's sovereignty claims. The United States remains deeply involved in the island's security through arms sales and strategic commitments, making any serious military confrontation potentially capable of drawing the world's two largest military powers into direct conflict.

The latest developments demonstrate how quickly the military environment can change. On July 23, 2026, China began two days of live-fire drills in sections of the Taiwan Strait near the coast of Fujian province, following high-level discussions between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in which Taiwan was a major issue. The exercises followed earlier large-scale Chinese military drills and came amid continuing concerns over the expansion of military activity surrounding Taiwan.

China's military modernization is central to this strategic equation. SIPRI estimates that Chinese military expenditure reached approximately $336 billion in 2025, representing a 7.4% increase and the thirty-first consecutive year of annual growth. Taiwan, meanwhile, increased its own military expenditure by approximately 14% to $18.2 billion, while Japan's spending rose by 9.7% to $62.2 billion. The pattern is unmistakable: China is expanding its military capabilities, while countries that fear the consequences of Chinese regional dominance are simultaneously strengthening their own. The result is an increasingly dense military environment in which naval vessels, aircraft, missiles, intelligence systems and surveillance platforms operate in close proximity to one another.

This is where the Taiwan problem becomes larger than the island itself. Any major conflict would immediately threaten one of the world's most important technological and commercial regions, with consequences extending into semiconductor manufacturing, maritime trade, financial markets and global supply chains. A military crisis in the Taiwan Strait could therefore produce economic consequences before the conflict had even developed into a full-scale war. The strategic importance of the region means that the international community has a strong incentive to prevent escalation, but it also means that the number of actors with something to lose is exceptionally large.

The most dangerous scenario may not necessarily be a carefully planned invasion. A crisis could emerge from an accident, an unexpected military incident or a political decision made under extreme pressure. As military exercises become more frequent and forces operate closer together, the distinction between signalling and provocation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. The immediate challenge is therefore not simply to determine whether Beijing intends to use force against Taiwan, but whether the military systems being constructed by China, Taiwan, the United States and their regional partners leave enough room for diplomacy when something goes wrong.

THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

If Taiwan represents the possibility of a future great-power confrontation, the Middle East demonstrates what happens when escalation is already underway. The ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict has entered a dangerous phase in which military operations, attacks on infrastructure and disruption of maritime trade are becoming interconnected. According to AP reporting on July 23, U.S. forces carried out another night of airstrikes against Iran amid continuing tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran and allied forces threatened or attacked shipping and regional infrastructure. Reuters reported that the conflict had already cost the United States approximately $37.5 billion, with 18 American service members killed and more than 430 wounded, while the disruption to shipping through key regional chokepoints has created broader economic consequences.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly dangerous because it transforms a regional military confrontation into a global economic problem. The waterway is a critical route for energy shipments, meaning that any prolonged disruption affects not only the countries fighting the war but also governments, industries and consumers thousands of kilometres away. Reuters reported on July 22 that the conflict had significantly worsened the outlook for the global oil market in 2026, with analysts projecting a global oil deficit of approximately 1.5 million barrels per day as disruptions continued to affect exports from the Gulf. The same report noted that Brent crude had risen sharply during the renewed escalation.

This is the point at which military escalation begins to acquire a life of its own. Once energy infrastructure, shipping lanes and civilian economic systems become part of a conflict, every military action produces consequences far beyond the battlefield. A strike against a port can affect insurance markets. An attack on a tanker can alter shipping routes. A threat against energy infrastructure can change oil prices before a single barrel is physically removed from the market. The conflict becomes a feedback loop in which military decisions generate economic pressure, economic pressure generates political pressure and political pressure encourages governments to adopt even more aggressive positions.

The latest developments in the Red Sea demonstrate the danger of geographic expansion. On July 23, AP reported that Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi movement claimed responsibility for attacks on two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, while U.S. forces continued strikes against Iranian targets. The involvement of additional maritime routes creates the possibility that the conflict could gradually spread across multiple strategic chokepoints, linking the Strait of Hormuz with the Bab el-Mandeb and the broader Red Sea shipping system.

THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT THAT CONNECTS THEM ALL

The most consequential project underway may therefore be the expansion of military-industrial capacity itself. Europe is increasing production, NATO is seeking greater industrial output, China is continuing military modernization and countries across Asia are responding by increasing their own defence budgets. SIPRI's data show that global military expenditure reached its highest recorded level in 2025, while the sharpest increases were concentrated in regions already experiencing significant geopolitical tension. This does not establish a direct causal relationship between military spending and war, but it demonstrates that the international system is investing heavily in the capacity to sustain conflict at precisely the moment when diplomatic trust between major powers is weakening.

There is an important distinction between preparing for war and wanting war. Governments may rationally conclude that the best way to prevent aggression is to possess overwhelming military capabilities, maintain large reserves and demonstrate the ability to respond immediately. From this perspective, rearmament is a tool of peace. The difficulty is that deterrence depends on interpretation. A military project that appears defensive to the country building it may appear offensive to the country observing it. This problem becomes especially severe when multiple states are rearming simultaneously, because each government can use the actions of others as evidence that its own expansion is justified.

The statistical trend is therefore less important as a prediction of war than as an indicator of strategic psychology. The world is spending more because governments increasingly believe that the future will be more dangerous. That belief itself influences policy, and policy then changes the environment that created the belief in the first place. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which insecurity generates military investment, military investment generates suspicion and suspicion generates further insecurity.

This is why the most important projects of 2026 are not necessarily individual weapons systems. They are the long-term structures being built around them: defence industries, military logistics, strategic alliances, naval infrastructure, ammunition stockpiles, surveillance networks and procurement programs designed to remain operational for decades. These systems are being constructed under the assumption that strategic competition will not disappear quickly. Once established, they will shape the calculations of governments long after today's political leaders have left office.

THE GEOPOLITICAL RISK MATRIX

Analytical assessment based on current military activity, strategic importance, involvement of major powers, economic interdependence and escalation pathways. This is an editorial framework, not an official forecast or probability model.

The matrix illustrates why the danger of 2026 cannot be reduced to identifying one country or one conflict as the source of the next major war. Europe presents a high-intensity military confrontation involving Russia and NATO. Taiwan represents the possibility of a direct clash between the United States and China. The Middle East has already demonstrated the ability of regional conflict to disrupt global energy markets and maritime trade. These theatres are geographically separate, but they are strategically connected through the allocation of military resources, energy markets, alliance commitments and global economic dependencies.

The most troubling scenario is therefore not necessarily a coordinated decision by several governments to launch a global war. It is the possibility that one crisis could destabilize another. A prolonged conflict in the Middle East could absorb American military resources while tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific. A European crisis could force governments to redirect weapons and ammunition away from other theatres. A major confrontation around Taiwan could disrupt global trade at precisely the moment when energy markets were already under pressure. In such circumstances, strategic calculations would become more complicated, not less, because every government would be forced to consider not only the immediate enemy in front of it but also the possibility that another adversary might exploit the distraction.

The modern international system is therefore becoming increasingly vulnerable to strategic overload. The United States, China, Russia and their respective partners are building military capabilities designed to operate in an environment of prolonged competition, while regional conflicts are becoming increasingly interconnected through energy, technology and trade. The danger is not that every military project inevitably leads to war; the danger is that the sheer number of simultaneous projects and crises increases the number of pathways through which an accident, miscalculation or deliberate escalation could become much larger than originally intended.

The world is consequently entering a period in which deterrence and escalation are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Europe is building the industrial capacity to defend itself, NATO is expanding its long-term military commitments, China is strengthening its ability to project power around Taiwan, Taiwan is increasing its own defences, and the Middle East is demonstrating how rapidly military conflict can spread from battlefields to shipping routes and global energy markets. Each of these developments has a rational strategic explanation when examined individually. The deeper danger emerges when they are viewed together.

What is being constructed in 2026 is not a single machine designed to start a world war. It is a network of military and industrial systems designed to ensure that governments are never again caught unprepared by one. Yet the more extensively those systems are built, the more the international order becomes dependent on accurate intelligence, disciplined decision-making and the ability of political leaders to distinguish between preparation and provocation. That dependency is fragile. The statistics show an extraordinary expansion in global military expenditure, the geopolitical map shows multiple simultaneous flashpoints and the latest events in Taiwan and the Middle East demonstrate how quickly military pressure can intensify.

The central risk of the present era is therefore not that war has become inevitable, but that the world is accumulating more weapons, more strategic infrastructure and more potential points of confrontation than it has diplomatic mechanisms capable of reliably controlling.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 23:25

These Are The World's Biggest Beer Brewers

Beer is the world’s most widely consumed alcoholic beverage, but much of it comes from a relatively small group of companies.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Melissa Garside, ranks the world’s 40 largest beer brewers by production volume using data from the BarthHaas Report 2024/25.

Together, these brewers produced 42.7 billion U.S. gallons of beer in 2024, equal to 86.3% of global production.

AB InBev Leads by a Wide Margin

AB InBev dominated the global beer industry in 2024, producing 13.1 billion U.S. gallons, or 26.4% of all beer brewed worldwide.

Its output exceeded the combined production of Heineken, China Resources Snow Breweries, and Carlsberg, underscoring the company’s unmatched global scale.

The Belgian company’s scale is especially clear when compared with Heineken, the world’s second-largest brewer. The Dutch company produced 6.4 billion U.S. gallons, or 12.8% of global output, roughly half of AB InBev’s total.

AB InBev is best known for Budweiser, while Heineken’s flagship beer shares the company name. Although both companies are headquartered in Europe, their brands have become household names worldwide.

European Brewers Dominate the Ranking

Europe had more companies in the top 40 than any other region. Its 21 brewers produced a combined 29.6 billion U.S. gallons, equal to nearly 60% of global beer production.

Germany placed six brewers on the list, more than any other country, yet none ranked in the top 20. Its more than 1,500 breweries are mostly family-owned and regional, while brewers from smaller countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark have expanded more extensively abroad.

Asia followed with 11 brewers, led by China Resources Snow Breweries, Tsingtao, and Asahi Group. Asian companies in the ranking produced 10.3 billion U.S. gallons, equal to 20.8% of global production.

Despite being the world’s second-largest beer producer and recording annual beer consumption of 22 gallons per person in 2023, the United States had just two brewers on the list: Molson Coors, a Canadian-American company, and Constellation Brands.

Molson Coors is associated with Coors Light, while Constellation Brands holds the U.S. rights to Mexican beer brands Modelo and Corona. Modelo has been the country’s best-selling beer since 2023.

China’s Brewers Rank Among the World’s Largest

As the world’s largest beer-producing country, China is home to four brewers in the global top 40.

The highest-ranked was China Resources Snow Breweries, which placed third with 2.9 billion U.S. gallons, equal to 5.8% of global production.

Tsingtao Brewery Group also placed in the top 10, producing 2.0 billion U.S. gallons in 2024. Yanjing and Pearl River added another 1.1 billion and 380 million gallons, respectively.

Together, the four Chinese brewers produced 6.3 billion U.S. gallons of beer, nearly matching Heineken’s global output and highlighting the size of China’s domestic market.

Familiar Brands Behind the Biggest Brewers

Many of the world’s largest brewers are tied to widely recognized flagship beers. The top seven are associated with Budweiser, Heineken, Snow, Carlsberg, Coors Light, Tsingtao, and Asahi Super Dry.

Further down the ranking, regional champions play an important role. Guinness supports Diageo’s beer output, while San Miguel Pale Pilsen, Singha, Chang, Saigon Beer, and Sapporo anchor major brewers across Asia.

A handful of multinational giants dominate global beer production, but strong regional brands continue to shape individual markets. The result is an industry that is highly concentrated at the top while remaining diverse across countries and brands.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Rising Beer Prices of Popular Brands on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 23:00

Bill Gates Ignored Repeated Warnings And Met Epstein Thirty Times

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

An independent review has confirmed what many long suspected: Bill Gates and senior figures at his foundation met with Jeffrey Epstein roughly 30 times between 2011 and 2014, brushing aside repeated internal warnings about the reputational and ethical risks of associating with a man already convicted of sex crimes involving a minor.

The findings, released by the Gates Foundation after a months-long external examination by the law firm WilmerHale, show that foundation staff "raised on multiple occasions the risks of associating with Epstein because of his prior conviction," and that those concerns reached senior leadership, including Gates himself.

Gates was aware of the reputational issues tied to Epstein's 2008 conviction and sentencing when the conversations began in 2011. Meetings took place on the foundation's campus and at Epstein's Manhattan residence. Interactions centered on potential philanthropy ideas that never materialized and ended by December 2014.

The review found no evidence that the foundation paid Epstein, no evidence of knowledge or participation in his sex-trafficking operations, and no evidence the meetings involved illegal conduct.

Yet the sheer volume of contact, combined with documented staff alarms that went unheeded, underscores a pattern of elite indifference that has defined the Epstein saga from the start.

Bill Gates ignored numerous warnings about the reputational risks of associating with Jeffrey Epstein, according to an independent review.

? https://t.co/ipdAMBh4Tz pic.twitter.com/99H1F6JUjb

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) July 22, 2026

Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman commissioned the review in March 2026 with support from Gates and independent board members. WilmerHale conducted more than 50 interviews and reviewed foundation records.

In a statement, Suzman said the work "depends on integrity and earning and maintaining the trust of partners" and that the foundation is moving forward with board-approved steps to strengthen vetting, risk management, and accountability.

Gates himself stated: "Completing this review is an important step in providing the clarity that partners, employees, and grantees deserve as well as strengthening our oversight with additional policies going forward."

The board approved new processes for centralized vetting of intermediaries, escalation of risks introduced by leadership, clearer dual-role rules, and tighter conflict-of-interest policies.

Notably, the review did not examine Gates's personal emails or communications from his private office - a limitation disclosed in a footnote that leaves significant territory unexamined.

This latest disclosure lands amid a broader reckoning that has already forced Gates into congressional testimony and exposed layers of previous denials.

For years the Microsoft co-founder insisted his contacts with Epstein were limited and regrettable.

In 2019 he admitted the meetings were a mistake, saying he had given Epstein "some benefit by the association" after the financier's conviction for soliciting a minor.

"My doing that was a mistake," Gates said at the time. "None of that money ever appeared, and I gave him some benefit by the association, so I made a doubly wrong mistake there."

That measured language has long contrasted with Gates's visible discomfort whenever the subject arises. In one 2021 interview he snapped "He's dead!" when pressed.

In a later appearance he insisted "There never was any relationship of any kind," then offered an odd smile while repeating that he "shouldn't have had dinners with him" for the "over 100th time."

"I shouldn't have had dinners with him." – @billgates on his association with Jeffrey Epstein #abc730 pic.twitter.com/xdqHjyVv3U

— abc730 (@abc730) January 30, 2023

The February 2026 release of millions of Epstein files intensified the pressure. Documents included draft emails in which Epstein alleged Gates had contracted a sexually transmitted infection after encounters with Russian women and contemplated secretly medicating his then-wife Melinda.

A Gates spokesperson dismissed the claims as "absolutely absurd and completely false." Melinda French Gates, speaking on NPR's Wild Card podcast, did not contest the specifics.

She described "unbelievable sadness" and said the revelations contributed to the end of their marriage and her departure from the foundation. "They need to answer to those things, not me," she stated. "And I am so happy to be away from all the muck."

The files also contained a 2011 email from Hollywood producer Barry Josephson to Epstein referencing a question Epstein had posed to Gates: "How do we get rid of poor people as a whole?"

Josephson claimed to have "an answer." The exchange then shifted to discussing a 16-year-old relative of Epstein's for a film project. The document does not record Gates's response, but it sat alongside the foundation's documented meetings during the same period.

Even liberal media turned. On The View, hosts mocked Gates's denials. Joy Behar ridiculed the familiar refrain "I was not on the island," noting it was hardly the only location where Epstein operated. Sunny Hostin said the Justice Department files meant Gates "should answer to it."

Lawmakers moved quickly. Rep. Nancy Mace publicly demanded a subpoena, writing that she had watched Melinda Gates's interview and immediately asked House Oversight Chairman James Comer to compel Gates's testimony.

"I have questions for Bill Gates about Epstein," Mace stated. "Nobody is above the law. Not billionaires. Not the powerful. Nobody." Comer confirmed the committee was consulting counsel and that "the odds are good" Gates would face questions under oath, noting bipartisan interest on the panel.

Gates ultimately sat for a transcribed interview with the Oversight Committee in June 2026.

He told lawmakers he "never witnessed nor had any indication" Epstein was engaged in ongoing criminal conduct, described the association as a "grave error in judgment," and acknowledged he may have been in the presence of victims.

He has also said he was "quite stupid" to spend time with Epstein, believing it would advance global health philanthropy when it did not.

The foundation's new review arrives as other strands of the Epstein network continue to fray under scrutiny. This week French model scout Daniel Siad, whose name appeared more than 2,000 times in the released files and who arranged introductions of young women to Epstein for over a decade, was found dead at his home near Paris.

An autopsy has been ordered. Siad is the second French modeling figure linked to Epstein to die before facing trial; Jean-Luc Brunel was found hanged in a Paris prison cell in 2022. Prosecutors say the broader trafficking investigation continues without him.

Meanwhile, former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas has detailed how federal prosecutors in 2019 persuaded his office to halt its probe of Epstein's Zorro Ranch in exchange for a promise to return state-related materials once the federal case concluded.

That promise was never kept. Current New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has waited more than 130 days for unredacted files while agents recently searched the property for possible remains.

Balderas said the Justice Department "burned" his office and is now burning the current one.

The pattern is consistent. Warnings are ignored. Evidence is withheld. Associates exit the stage under opaque circumstances. Powerful figures issue carefully lawyered statements of regret while the machinery of accountability moves slowly, if at all.

The Gates Foundation review closes one chapter with institutional reforms and a finding of no direct criminal knowledge. It does not erase the documented decision to meet a convicted sex offender nearly thirty times after staff raised alarms, nor does it resolve the unanswered questions that still surround the broader network of influence, money, and protection that allowed Epstein to operate for so long.

Accountability for the elite has never been the default setting of the administrative state. It remains a demand that must be forced.

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 Fri, 07/24/2026 - 22:35

Humanoid War Robot Gets Advanced AMD-Powered AI Brain

At the start of February, we began tracking startup Foundation Robotics after publicly available news reports and X posts suggested it could become one of the first US companies to deploy humanoid robots on the modern battlefield.

TIME later reported that the company's robots had been sent to Ukraine for testing and evaluation, raising the prospect that these war bots could soon reach the front lines in Eastern Europe.

Our February 2 report, "Watch: Russian Soldiers Surrender To Gun-Wielding Robot; Humanoid Warfare Nears," and our February 3 report, "AI's Next Frontier Is Physical As Humanoid Robots Begin March On Assembly Lines And Beyond," both preceded TIME's coverage of Foundation by a full month and showed how these robots were being positioned for testing in Ukraine.

In another signal that Foundation is preparing its war bots for battlefield deployment, Reuters reported that the startup partnered with Advanced Micro Devices to supply high-end AI processors for its second-generation Phantom MK-2 robot.

Foundation plans to open a factory in October capable of producing 5,000 robots per year, followed by a second facility with capacity for 50,000 units. Industrial robots will be leased for about $100,000 annually, while defense models designed for logistics and reconnaissance will be sold for $300,000 per unit.

Phantom MK-1 robot 

Last month, we were also the first to publish video from a Las Vegas testing range showing the Phantom MK-1 operating a light mortar system.

Phantom MK-1 robot 

Founded in 2024, Foundation said its first-generation Phantom MK-1 robots are already operating in the automotive supply chain and contributed to the production of more than 24,000 vehicles last year.

Beyond the factory floor, the key question is when these bots will reach the front lines. Our report earlier this month, citing a Ukrainian news outlet, revealed that Kiev is preparing to launch a grant competition for war bots, with Foundation appearing well positioned to secure funding.

Latest coverage on warfare robotics:

• Drone War Enters Terrifying New Phase As Russia Deploys 300-MPH Jet-Powered Shahed
• Watch: Aerial Drone Airlifts Kamikaze Ground Bot Into Battle As Warfare Automation Accelerates
• Anduril Unveils Tiltrotor Killer Drone Straight Out Of 'Terminator'

Major Wall Street desks are finding ways to profit from the asymmetric warfare boom:

• "Only The Beginning": How To Profit From The Asymmetric Warfare Boom
• This American Drone-Motor Company Is Positioned For "Massive Procurement Tailwind"

You're getting a front-row seat to what the 2030s battlefield will look like - a lot of automation - AI kill chains - just chaos.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 22:10

Smokey Skies Does Not Mean Global Warming

Authored by Anthony Watts via American Thinker,

Every summer seems to follow the same predictable media script.

Wildfires ignite somewhere in North America. Smoke drifts hundreds or even thousands of miles. Air quality alerts are issued. Television stations fill the screen with hazy skylines. Then, before investigators have even determined how the fires started, headlines begin linking the smoke to climate change.

This year has been no different. As smoke from Canadian wildfires spread across parts of the Midwest and Northeast, much of the news coverage quickly shifted from reporting on the fires to treating them as evidence of a worsening climate crisis. Yet one crucial fact was often left out: many of the fires responsible for the smoke were ignited by lightning, a natural cause that has existed for as long as forests have.

Lightning is not new. Smoke carried by prevailing winds is not new. What is new is the growing tendency to treat every smoky sky as proof of climate change.

That illogical leap simply isn't supported by the evidence.

One of the most striking graphics I've seen tells a story you probably haven't seen in the news. Using data from the European Commission's Global Wildfire Information System, it shows that 2026 has experienced the lowest cumulative burned area across the Americas in at least the past decade.

A second graphic, using the same global database, shows that every inhabited continent is running below its recent average for area burned this year, with Africa, the Americas, and Europe at record lows.

Those are remarkable statistics. They don't mean wildfires have disappeared or that smoke isn't a serious public health concern. They simply demonstrate that the broader wildfire picture is very different from the one often portrayed in daily news reports.

If global burned areas are unusually low, why are so many stories describing an escalating wildfire emergency and attributing it to climate change?

Part of the answer lies in how we consume news. Reporters naturally cover fires that are burning today, not forests that aren't burning. Dramatic images of smoke-filled cities attract attention. Maps showing below-average burned area rarely do. The result is a form of selection bias: the public constantly sees active disasters while receiving little context about longer-term trends. It's a variation of the old news adage, "If it bleeds it leads."

History provides even more perspective.

Another telling graph comes from fire research published by the Royal Society. Drawing on evidence from more than 800 fire-scar sites across western North America, it shows that large wildfires were substantially more common before 1900 than they are today. Fire activity declined with changes in land management, livestock grazing, settlement patterns, and organized fire suppression. In other words, today's forests are not burning at historically unprecedented levels.

The broader scientific literature reflects this. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in chapter 12 of their Sixth Assessment Report has concluded there is low confidence in observed global trends for fire weather and burned area. The IPCC also reports with high confidence that the global land area burned has declined in recent decades. That is a far more cautious assessment than many news reports suggest.

None of this means climate has no influence on wildfire behavior. Weather has always affected fire, and changing climate conditions may influence fire risk in some regions. But wildfire is driven by many interacting factors: ignition sources such as lightning, accidents, and even arson, wind, humidity, fuel accumulation, insect damage, forest management, decades of fire suppression, and simple bad luck. Reducing every wildfire to somehow being caused by climate change ignores most of what really determines how a fire starts and how it spreads. The smoke itself tells us even less.

Smoke is transported by normal atmospheric circulation. A relatively modest fire season can produce severe smoke episodes if winds carry the plume over densely populated areas. Conversely, enormous fires in remote regions may receive little attention if the smoke disperses harmlessly elsewhere. Smoke over Chicago, Milwaukee, or Buffalo tells us where the wind blew from. It does not tell us why the fire started, nor does it prove that climate change was the primary cause.

Good journalism should provide readers with both immediate news and historical context. Unfortunately, wildfire coverage increasingly follows a predictable formula: smoke appears, climate change is declared the culprit, and the broader evidence rarely enters the discussion.

The public deserves far better than reporting by following a script.

Wildfires are serious. Smoke poses real health risks. Those realities don't require exaggeration or selective reporting. Before every smoky summer is presented as another chapter in an inevitable climate catastrophe, readers deserve to know the full picture, including the parts that don't fit the prevailing narrative.

Because good science depends on evidence, good journalism should too.

Anthony Watts (awatts@heartland.org)) is a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute and has over 40 years of weather reporting experience in radio, television, and print.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:45

China Is Now Viewed More Favorably Than America

Public opinion toward the world’s two leading powers has undergone a notable shift. Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey reveals significant differences in how countries perceive China and the United States.

The visualization below, created by Visual Capitalist's Iswardi Ishak using Pew Research Center data, compares favorability toward both countries across 36 nations, showing where each holds the strongest public support and where opinions remain closely divided.

How the World Views the U.S. and China

The chart below plots favorable opinions of China and the U.S. using Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey.

Regional differences are pronounced. Many countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America express more favorable views of China. The U.S. leads in nine countries: Brazil, Ghana, Hungary, India, Israel, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, and South Korea.

The Development Divide

The scatterplot reveals several broad clusters. Wealthier Western democracies generally remain skeptical of both countries, with Germany, France, Sweden, Australia, and the Netherlands posting relatively low favorability ratings for each.

Much of the developing world falls into the opposite quadrant, where China receives majority support while views of the U.S. lag behind. Pakistan stands out with a 90% favorable opinion of China versus 15% for the United States. Large gaps also appear in Malaysia (75% vs. 19%) and Indonesia (72% vs. 29%).

Several African countries, including Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, express positive views of both powers. This suggests many respondents see value in maintaining relationships with each country rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive.

Why China’s Image Has Improved

China’s improving standing reflects both rising favorability toward Beijing and declining perceptions of the United States. Recent reporting indicates that this reversal has been especially pronounced among several longstanding U.S. partners, including Canada and countries across Europe.

Public opinion rarely hinges on a single issue. Analysts point to expanding Chinese trade and diplomatic engagement, alongside changing perceptions of U.S. foreign policy and reliability. As countries deepen economic ties with Beijing, trade has become an increasingly important factor in international relationships.

Coverage from the BBC and analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations also suggest that many countries are pursuing pragmatic relationships with both powers, balancing security partnerships with growing economic ties to China.

Soft Power Remains a Global Competition

Although China receives stronger favorability ratings across most countries surveyed, the results do not necessarily translate directly into geopolitical alignment.

Instead, the survey points to an increasingly multipolar world in which economic influence, trade, diplomacy, and public perception all contribute to global power. As China expands its international presence and the U.S. works to maintain longstanding alliances, competition between the two superpowers is increasingly measured not only in economic and military terms, but also through global public opinion.

How does public opinion compare with hard power? Explore The U.S. and China Account for 49% of Global Military Spending on the Voronoi app to see how the world’s two leading powers compare in defense spending.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:20

Not Giving The Pentagon $1.5 Trillion Is the 'Greatest Threat' Facing The US, Hegseth Claims

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday, said a failure to appropriate $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget constitutes the “greatest threat” to US national security.

Hegseth, joined by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday to discuss the Trump administration’s request for an additional $87.6 billion in supplemental spending.

Hegseth before the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 21, 2026 (DoW)

Most of the money would go to the Pentagon, but approximately $11.1 billion would go to US farmers. The war with Iran has depleted Pentagon funding, and the shock to the oil economy will have a direct impact on the fertilizer market farmers depend on.

On Tuesday, Hegseth defended the supplemental funding and claimed it would be part of the Pentagon’s FY27 budget, not in addition to it. Congress has yet to approve the $1.5 trillion the Pentagon wants.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to authorize $1.15 trillion of the massive military budget, but the Senate has yet to approve it.

There is no guarantee the Republican-controlled Senate will sign off on the funding. Democrats have generally opposed the funding on party lines (only six democrats in the House voted for it) and even Republican senators have balked at the massive price tag.

Pete Hegseth: Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces. pic.twitter.com/j2AvDMdpzg

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026

Hegseth characterized the full budgetary request as a "generational investment" and claimed the supplemental funding was of the utmost importance:

"As you know, we live in a dangerous world that requires bold and swift action. Hence, this supplemental request for fiscal year 2026. This request is an urgent, necessary injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department," he said.

The "immediate needs" refers to the ongoing war with Iran, which analysts believe has cost far more than the Pentagon is willing to admit.

On Tuesday, Hegseth told Senators the war has cost approximately $37.5 billion thus far. Credible independent analysis, however, suggests the cost could already be north of $100 billion, a number much closer to the supplemental money the White House has requested.

The Pentagon wants more money than the US spent in all of World War 2 https://t.co/q6nxT8axWK

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) July 22, 2026

Unprecedented budget ask amid a 'war of choice'...

CNN split screen comparison of what Hegseth was saying months ago on the Iran War and what he said today. pic.twitter.com/YUEBfKsKIU

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 22, 2026

Regardless of the true cost of the war, Hegseth’s commitment to the $1.5 trillion funding target tracks typical military bureaucratic logic, and it marks a major boost in military spending, a nearly 50% increase from this year’s more than $1 trillion military budget.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:55

From Porn Star To Politician: Amaranta Hank Sworn In To Colombia's Congress

A former adult film actress was sworn in as a Colombian senator on Monday, and she is vowing to fight for the rights of the country's adult-content creators.

Deyci Alejandra Omaña Ortiz, 33, who performed as Amaranta Hank before leaving the business, took her seat in Bogotá for the left-wing Historic Pact party, La Opinión reported. She won it as the 23rd name on the party's closed candidate list.

Villa del Rosario está presente en el Congreso de la República. Fue en el Templo Histórico donde se firmó la primera Constitución de la Gran Colombia, donde Simón Bolívar tomó posesión como Presidente y donde se abolió la esclavitud. También fue Villa del Rosario donde me crié,… pic.twitter.com/fx0gTLViB4

— Alejandra Omaña (@aleomanao) July 20, 2026

The former journalist turned adult performer turned politician was elected in March to represent the Norte de Santander region, and she is wasting no time. Her signature priority is guaranteeing social-security rights for adult performers, who she says are ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous companies and agencies.

"These women have been unprotected by the state because, due to misinformation, prejudice and double standards, no one has declared to regulate it," she said in a campaign video obtained by the Post.

This is not Omaña's first role in Colombian government. Before her election she served as a deputy minister in the Ministry of Equality under President Gustavo Petro, appointed alongside another former adult performer, Juan Carlos Florián - a pair of appointments that stirred considerable controversy within Petro's administration. Her Senate run, in other words, was a step up rather than a leap from nowhere.

Omaña, who entered the adult industry in 2017 and left two years later, has defended her decision to run despite her past. "My experience allowed me to understand inequality, the struggle for freedom and the popular economy, arguments that I now promise to bring directly into legislative debate," she said, according to the Post. "The problem is that society consumes adult films but denies us the possibility of speaking in spaces of power."

Her agenda extends past the industry that made her famous. Omaña has said she will also push for improved mental-health services and stronger measures to prevent sexual abuse, and has floated designating her home city of Cúcuta a special border, commercial and historic district. Born in Cúcuta and a working journalist until 2017, she has framed her arrival in the Senate as the start of a broader project.

"We can look for a different way of doing politics," she said. The Historic Pact, currently Colombia's strongest political force, won more than 4.4 million votes - 22.7 percent of the Senate ballot - and took 25 seats in the March elections that carried her into office.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:30

Over 148,000 Mail Ballots Rejected In California's Primary Election, Data Show

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Election data that was provided by California state officials for last month's primary elections show that more than 148,000 mail-in ballots were rejected, an uptick of more than 40,000 from the 2024 primary.

Election workers conduct ballot tabulation at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center during California's state primary election in the City of Industry, Calif., on June 2, 2026. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

All in all, 148,241 were rejected in the state's June 2 primary election, according to data released by the California Secretary of State's office, which manages elections. The figure represents 1.73 percent of all mail-in ballots.

According to the data released earlier this month, more than 93,000 mail-in ballots were rejected by officials because they arrived too late. Another 8,300 were rejected because there was no voter signature on the ballot, and nearly 44,000 were rejected due to a non-matching signature.

Meanwhile, some 580 weren't used because no photo ID was provided, more than 740 were rejected because the voter had already voted, around 640 were rejected because the ballot was missing from the envelope, and roughly 450 were flagged as having multiple ballots in each envelope, the election figures show.

The data provided by the office did not list the rejected ballots by party registration.

The rejection rates varied by county, with Tulare County having the highest rate at 3.52 percent. Alpine and Merced counties saw 3.36 percent rejection rates, according to the data. The lowest was reported in Placer County, with a 0.93 percent rejection rate.

Los Angeles County, the county with the highest population and most voters, reported a 1.34 percent rejection rate, while San Diego County saw a 1.37 percent rate, the figures show.

The 2026 primary rejection figures are up from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 mail ballots were tossed, representing a 1.56 percent increase, according to the California Secretary of State's office.

Kim Alexander, the head of the California Voter Foundation, told media outlets this week that ballot rejections during the primary election last month were largely due to them being mailed too late.

"Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count," Alexander told The Associated Press.

Following last month's primary, President Donald Trump criticized California's election system. At one point, he questioned results showing Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt falling to third place behind two Democrats.

"Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had," Trump wrote on social media at the time. "Rigged Elections!"

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office has sought to counter claims made by Trump that elections are being mismanaged in the state, including a post issued on X last week.

"California law is clear: You MUST be a U.S. citizen to vote state and federal elections," the post said. "Voter fraud is EXTREMELY RARE - and almost always committed by U.S. citizens."

Newsom added that the Trump administration has "provided NO evidence to support" recent claims of non-citizens being registered to vote in California. It came as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said on July 17 that around 250,000 non-citizens were registered in New Jersey, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and California.

The Trump administration has sought to tighten rules around mail-in ballots, issuing an executive order that would create a voter list regarding who could get a mail-in ballot during elections that was blocked by a judge in late June. Trump has long said, especially in the lead-up to and after the 2020 election, that voting by mail leads to fraud and irregularities.

On Thursday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers called on the U.S. Postal Service to address delays in the state in April.

"Hundreds of absentee ballots received by the Postal Service before Wisconsin's Spring Election were delivered after Election Day, preventing them from being counted," the two Democrats wrote to U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner.

The California Secretary of State's office did not respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:05

New York City Says This Rideshare App May Owe Millions In Unpaid Congestion Fees

New York City Council Majority Leader Shaun Abreu is calling on the MTA to investigate rideshare platform Empower, arguing the company may be sidestepping New York City's congestion pricing system while gaining an unfair advantage over licensed competitors like Uber, Lyft and the city's yellow taxi fleet, according to the NY Post..

The Post writes that cecause Empower does not hold a Taxi and Limousine Commission license, Abreu contends it has not been collecting the per-trip congestion charges that licensed for-hire vehicles are required to pass along to passengers, allowing the company to advertise lower fares.

According to Abreu, if Empower is facilitating as many as one million rides per month in New York City, the unpaid congestion fees could amount to tens of millions of dollars annually that would otherwise help fund the region's transit system. He has asked the MTA to determine how many Empower trips entered the congestion pricing zone without paying the required toll, calculate any missing revenue and pursue repayment if appropriate.

MTA Chairman Janno Lieber said the agency is already examining the issue and intends to recover any fees that should have been collected, saying companies should not be able to exploit regulatory loopholes.

Empower strongly disputes the accusations. The company says it has repeatedly offered to work with city officials to facilitate payment of any applicable taxes or congestion charges but claims those proposals were rejected. Empower maintains that it is not a traditional rideshare operator because drivers pay a monthly subscription fee to access its platform, set their own fares and keep the full amount paid by passengers, making the company a software marketplace rather than a transportation provider.

The controversy adds to Empower's broader legal challenges in New York. The city has already filed suit, alleging the company is effectively operating as an unlicensed rideshare service while avoiding the regulatory requirements and costs imposed on its competitors. Similar disputes have arisen in Washington, D.C., where courts previously ordered Empower to stop offering rides without proper authorization and later imposed millions of dollars in contempt penalties after the company continued operating.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 19:40

The Manufactured 'Bipartisan' Push For An AI Kill Switch

Authored by Jordan Schachtel via American Greatness,

The AI Kill Switch Act, introduced Thursday by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), seeks to hand the government unprecedented authority to order private companies to throttle, suspend, or shut down products in "kill switch" fashion, purely on their own arbitrary determination, with fines up to $20 million a day. Behind this carefully staged rollout is a fanatical coalition that looks like a broad consensus, but it is mostly one funding network with an arsenal of astroturf organizations at its disposal.

The Lieu-Moran bill arrived with endorsements preloaded from five groups: the AI Policy Network, Americans for Responsible Innovation, ControlAI, the Future of Life Institute, and the Alliance for Secure AI. Five organizations may sound like a broad coalition, so let's pull the thread and explore the details.

Americans for Responsible Innovation is funded by Coefficient Giving. Coefficient Giving is the freshly rebranded Open Philanthropy, the vehicle for Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna's fortune and the central bank of the far-left Effective Altruism (EA) movement's AI doom apparatus. Dustin Moskovitz was one of the largest individual megadonors supporting Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential election effort, contributing roughly $38 million to the pro-Harris super PAC Future Forward (FF PAC). The Open Philanthropy Action Fund pumped $2.9 million into ARI. ARI's 501(c)(3) sister organization collected another $3 million in general support.

The Alliance for Secure AI is the group built to make all this palatable to the Right. It spent six figures on ads running on Fox News and Newsmax last summer, pitching AI fear to conservative audiences. Who pays for the conservative outreach? In May, the New York Times reported that the Alliance for Secure AI is funded by ... Coefficient Giving. Surprise! You will search its website for that disclosure in vain.

ControlAI, the third member, openly advocates an international prohibition on advanced AI development and swims in the same donor waters. The group's top leaders have been calling for a complete shutdown of AI development since the very early iterations of ChatGPT.

The Future of Life Institute, which has also received millions from Coefficient Giving, is an EA-aligned leftist nonprofit best known for its ruthless insistence that America must force industry to "pause AI" indefinitely.

The AI Policy Network (AIPN) is an AI doomer outfit that is supported by leftist tech bros in Silicon Valley, some of whom are longtime AI panic mongers and influential executives at Anthropic and OpenAI.

This power grab arrives on the heels of the OpenAI sandbox episode, in which the company itself reported a security breach that has not been independently verified. OpenAI has every incentive to inflate the dangers of its own product because a frightening "autonomous" AI is both a better marketing pitch and a better argument for the regulatory moat that keeps its future competitors out. Washington is now being asked to hand a cabinet secretary sweeping authority over private enterprise on the strength of an incident report written by the party that stands to benefit.

So the "broad coalition" is substantially one checkbook, belonging to a left-wing Silicon Valley billionaire, laundered through a series of organizations that act as window dressing for one agenda. This is not bipartisanship, but rather the lobbyist-concocted appearance of bipartisanship.

The bill empowers the Homeland Security secretary with a shutdown trigger that includes a loss-of-control scenario, defined to cover a model behaving contrary to instructions in "another high-stakes context." That phrase is defined nowhere. The company must comply immediately without recourse. Its petition for reconsideration, the statute says flatly, does not stay the order. If the secretary ignores the petition for five days, silence counts as a denial. Court review would, of course, come months later, long after the product went dark, the business was likely destroyed, and all of the customers went elsewhere. Do we really want to grant the government this power?

And the definitions of who is covered? Rewritten by the agency, by rule, every single year, guided by a factor list that ends with "such other factors as the secretary determines relevant." Try executing a successful business strategy when your legal exposure gets redefined annually by government bureaucrats.

Some frontier AI model companies are not yet protesting the bill, largely because this enormous compliance burden could potentially create a wall around the incumbents. The giants can absorb the lawyers, the audits, the whims, and the like. Startups that attempt to catch up could get obliterated in one fell swoop. This kind of regulation is deliberately priced at a level only the largest firms can bear. It is a moat with a safety label.

The AI doomer lobby wants its federal chokepoint, and some of its frontier lab collaborators get a licensing wall between themselves and their future competitors. Everyone in this somewhat complex coalition wins except the American innovators.

What Congress is being sold is a federal "kill switch" button for upstart private enterprise, wielded on undefined standards and immune to timely challenges; and it's all being pushed by a fake "movement" that is mostly one billionaire's philanthropic arm.

Jordan Schachtel is an independent journalist who covers AI, tech, and world politics, and he's the publisher of The Dossier on Substack.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 19:15

Forget Beef. This Protein Is Way Cheaper

Building on Bank of America's latest note, which cited Oklahoma State University agricultural economist Derrell Peel's warning that the US cattle cycle is unlikely to improve anytime soon, beef prices are poised to remain elevated through at least next year. But two competitively priced proteins that consumers can switch to today remain largely overlooked.

That overlooked protein is ground pork, with an average of $4.81 a pound in mid-June, compared with $7.95 for ground beef, while pork chops cost roughly one-third as much as beef steak, according to Bloomberg, citing NielsenIQ data.

Still, beef consumption is forecast at a 15-year high, underscoring how stubborn consumers are and how unwilling they are to trade down for their meats.

Processors including Smithfield Foods are responding with precut, marinated and ground-pork products designed to improve convenience and compete with beef and chicken.

Industry insiders see ground pork as the category's biggest opportunity, though ground beef's $17 billion in annual sales suggests any shift will be gradual.

"People don't want to risk something not tasting great when it comes down to it," said Reba Hatcher, chief commercial officer at meat subscription company ButcherBox, who the outlet cited. "Even if it's cheaper when you go to the checkout, it's not cheaper if you end up throwing it away or people end up hating it at the dinner table."

For readers wondering just how long beef prices will remain elevated, the BofA note provides a timeline for when the cattle cycle could turn upward. Spoiler alert: not anytime soon. Read report.

With beef prices unlikely to meaningfully ease anytime soon, the Beck Ranch Carnivore Trio in ZeroHedge Store lets readers stock the freezer with more affordable and premium chicken and pork while still keeping premium ground beef in the mix. 

Get yours here.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 18:50

Health Officials Urge States To End Mercury-Containing Dental Fillings

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Federal health officials on July 22 encouraged state Medicaid officials to stop covering dental fillings containing mercury.

Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 22, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent letters to the Medicaid director in each state urging them to phase out mercury-containing dental fillings by restricting or ending state Medicaid coverage for dental amalgam, fillings that combine mercury and other materials to treat cavities.

"Americans should feel confident that the health care they receive is always working in their best interest," CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.

"That's why we're urging state Medicaid programs to end the use of mercury-containing dental fillings. This is a straightforward and meaningful step that reflects our shared commitment to safe, higher quality care for all Americans and supports the Trump Administration's broader goal to Make America Healthy Again."

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added: "Mercury has no place in the mouths of our children or in modern American health care. For decades, we have relied on a material that contains one of the world's most toxic heavy metals when safe, effective mercury-free alternatives are widely available. The Make America Healthy Again agenda means confronting outdated practices that needlessly expose Americans to toxic substances."

The letters to the state officials noted that the Indian Health Service, which provides healthcare to American Indians, announced in February that it would end the use of mercury-containing fillings by 2027, citing "health concerns regarding mercury exposure."

Researchers have found signs that amalgam can cause health problems, including higher mercury concentrations in the blood, and patients attributing health problems to the amalgam.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury, signed by the United States in 2013, advises countries to restrict the use of amalgam and identify alternatives, and some countries have already phased out the fillings.

Certain groups such as the American Dental Association say amalgam fillings are safe.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says there is limited data on long-term health outcomes of amalgam in young children, and advises that populations such as children under 6 may face a greater health risk due to mercury exposure.

Alternatives to amalgam fillings include composite resin, porcelain, and glass ionomer.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology says that composite fillings are as durable as amalgam and are the most frequently chosen alternative because the white coloring matches the teeth well, and the cost is moderate.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 18:25

Death Toll Revised Lower: Trump Admin Accused Of Playing Politics With Iran War Casualties

The US administration and Department of War has just reduced the total number of American service members killed during the Iran war from 18 to 14.

Removing the four most recent deaths, which occurred in Jordan and in Iraq last week, appears to be politically-driven as a way to keep official casualties lower related to President Trump's decision to go to war. That's what's being widely alleged anyway.

The NY Times, which reported the significant change, wrote that "Three military officials said that one reason behind the change was that the Trump administration decided to remove four service members killed this past weekend from the list — three in Jordan and one in northern Iraq — because their deaths occurred after President Trump declared a cease-fire in the war in April." 

UPI/Shutterstock

The report lays out that—

• On Wednesday, the Pentagon reported on its casualties website that a total of 18 American service members had been killed during the war in Iran.
• By Thursday, the Defense Department had lowered that number, reporting that 14 American troops had been killed in the war.

The White House is being widely accused of using troop deaths to play cheap political tricks for the sake maintaining image, and ahead of the November midterms and as voters increasingly turn negative on the dragged-out war.

For example, some scathing commentary out of Rolling Stone says the following:

Soldiers die in war. But ever since the death toll in Vietnam broke a generation's appetite for war, the American public has been uniquely sensitive to casualty counts as a result of our military actions abroad.

We venerate fallen servicemembers as heroes, no matter how just the conflict they died in was. But now, Donald Trump's administration is reportedly trying to say that some deaths don't count.

On Thursday, the Pentagon's official roll of servicemember deaths as a result of the Iran war suddenly changed, with four names dropping off the list, bringing the total number from 18 down to 14. The New York Times reported that the change came as a result of a direct action, with the Trump administration declaring that four servicemembers who were killed last weekend at bases in Jordan and Iraq don't count toward the tally of deaths in the Iran conflict, as they occurred after he had declared the conflict to be at a ceasefire in late April.

This kind of paradoxical, absurdist logic is core to the administration's messaging on the Iran war. We are at war, but not technically at war, because there is a cease fire. However, neither side has ceased firing; four American soldiers just died. However, because there was a cease fire, their deaths cannot be attributed to the Iran war, which is not technically an active conflict, despite the conflict being very active.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, on Thursday claimed on X that "the site errors on the Defense Casualty Analysis System were due to a temporary data disruption" and the "site anomalies are currently being resolved in coordination with the Military Services."

US defense officials explained that "their deaths occurred after Trump announced a ceasefire in the war in April."

This was after the Pentagon website that informs the public about the dead and wounded had clearly changed with no explanation. But the bottom line is that at the start of the week the four service members' deaths were listed under Operation Epic Fury but by Thursday their names were dropped. By close of Friday the website has remained uncorrected, displaying the lower number.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 18:00

Why Were Americans Funding Jobs For Transgender Workers In Nepal?

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Former HIV outreach worker and biological male Rubi Lama lost a job he'd held for nine years when U.S. funding vanished from a health program in Nepal. He tested people, counseled those at risk, and helped sex workers avoid infection.

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Months later, unable to find other work, he joined them along a highway outside Hetauda.

Fox News:

An Associated Press social media post about transgender aid workers in Nepal turning to sex work after losing their jobs due to U.S. foreign aid cuts sparked a wave of conservative backlash, with critics arguing the video made the case for defunding USAID rather than saving it.

The AP post said that in Nepal, where "a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options," around 100 LGBTQ aid workers left jobless by U.S. funding cuts had turned to sex work to survive. An accompanying video focused on Rubi Lama, a former HIV outreach worker who said USAID-funded programs had provided free condoms, lubricant and HIV-prevention medication before the cuts.

"When USAID funding was there, condoms were free, lubricant was also distributed ... for free," Lama said in the video, adding that HIV treatments, including PrEP, were also available without cost. "But, now it is gone."

His story is painful on a human scale; it also raises a question many Americans are asking: why was the United States expected to keep paying his salary?

Lama worked for Friends Hetauda, part of a network connected to the Blue Diamond Society. The society received 85% of its funding from USAID, operated 20 clinics, and employed 350 people.

Associated Press:

For nine years, Lama - who is transgender - had devoted her life to conducting HIV outreach in Nepal's marginalized communities, including the LGBTQ+ sex workers who wait by this highway each night. But after the United States slashed its foreign aid funding last year, Lama and more than 280,000 aid workers worldwide found themselves out of a job.

In impoverished Nepal, where a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options, the impact on aid workers' lives was particularly crushing. Starving and scared, Lama and around 100 other LGBTQ+ aid workers left jobless by the funding cuts have turned to sex work to survive, walking the streets alongside the very people they once fought so hard to help.

When the money stopped, 262 employees lost their jobs, and the organization says 35% to 45% of those former workers later entered sex work.

The clinics provided HIV tests, condoms, counseling, antiretroviral drugs, and PrEP. More than 1,200 clients reportedly lost access to PrEP after the shutdown. Those are real health services, and the people affected aren't punchlines.

The political reaction followed a familiar script: President Donald Trump cut foreign aid, vulnerable workers suffered, and American taxpayers were cast as villains for refusing to continue the arrangement.

Trump's Executive Order:

Section 1. Purpose. The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.

Sec. 3. (a) 90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy. All department and agency heads with responsibility for United States foreign development assistance programs shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors pending reviews of such programs for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy, to be conducted within 90 days of this order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall enforce this pause through its apportionment authority.

Critics spoke as though Washington had fired public employees in Ohio rather than ended overseas grants in Nepal.

Foreign aid can serve American interests; HIV prevention can reduce disease, improve stability, and protect people who travel across borders. Compassion also has limits when one country becomes the permanent source of salaries and program funding for organizations half a world away.

Nepal has a national government; it has health agencies, wealthy residents, international charities, and neighboring countries with their own interest in regional health.

Fox News:

USAID later told partners to pause new funding obligations and issue stop-work orders or suspensions for existing awards, while critics have said the review led to major disruptions, staff reductions and the cancellation of critical foreign-assistance awards.

But Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway argued the AP post exposed misplaced priorities, particularly among the media, saying the outlet presented U.S. tax dollars flowing to a "trans Nepalese job protection program" as though it was a good use of public money.

"The AP announces that your hard-earned tax dollars were flowing to a trans Nepalese job protection program as if that was an even remotely good use of your money," Hemingway wrote in a post on X. "AP is sick Democrat propaganda."

"How dare Elon cut USAID funds to the Nepalese trans sex worker community," quipped Republican activist Jack Posobiec.

Where were they when an organization depended on Washington for 85% of its budget?

President Trump ordered a review of foreign assistance on Jan. 20, 2025, requiring programs to prove they were efficient and aligned with U.S. foreign policy.

The order didn't ban all aid; it required justification before the money kept flowing.

The old system trained foreign groups to build programs around American checks, and when the checks stopped, the collapse was immediate. A model that leaves hundreds of employees with no local funding, no transition plan, and no replacement support was never sustainable.

American families face medical bills, housing costs, layoffs, and taxes of their own. They can care about Rubi Lama without accepting lifelong responsibility for his paycheck. They can support targeted HIV treatment without giving every foreign NGO a permanent claim on the U.S. Treasury.

The outrage over Nepal makes President Trump's case for him. Foreign aid should have a clear purpose, measurable results, shared costs, and an exit plan.

Sympathy can't replace accountability.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 17:40

Black Dems Up In Arms As Party Considers Giving Nevada First 2028 Primary

It's always fun watching the party that cherishes identity politics being torn apart by identity politics. 

That's once again the case, as the Democratic National Committee endeavors to lay out its sequence of primaries for the 2028 presidential race. As a DNC panel convenes in Washington this week, there's substantial momentum behind the idea of taking the coveted "first in the nation" spot away from 25% black South Carolina, and handing it over to 31% Hispanic Nevada. Party sources tell the New York Times that the black vs brown infighting over the possibility is getting increasingly nasty. 

If the switch happens, South Carolina's tenure in the top slot will have only lasted one election cycle. After a decades-long tradition that had both Republicans and Democrats kicking off their presidential primary balloting in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Biden team maneuvered the DNC into putting South Carolina first in 2024, after the state's black voters played an outsize role in helping Biden win the 2020 nomination. The move was made easier by the fact that, when it was setting the 2024 calendar, the Democratic Party still had a strong, post-2020 case of Black Lives Matter fever, and was fixated on pandering to blacks at every turn. 

Christale Spain, who became South Carolina Democrats' first black party chair in 2023, says putting Nevada first would be disrespectful to blacks (Meg Kinnard/AP)

“If Nevada gets elevated over South Carolina, it would be because of their Latino vote,” South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told the New York Times. “So you would then be telling black voters that you matter less than brown voters. And I refuse to believe that our party wants to send any type of message like that.” Of course, a corollary of Spain's assertion is that putting Nevada second tells brown voters that they matter less than black voters.

It's increasingly apparent that America's Latino population is a critical swing vote. Factor in Nevada's status as one of the swing states, and it's easy to see why Democrats are rethinking the batting order -- especially when South Carolina is a solid red state that hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democrat since Jimmy Carter won 56% of the vote in 1976.  

Nevada Democratic Party chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno says putting her swing state first would be a smart strategic move

In an interesting twist to this colorful controversy, the indignant black female South Carolina chair is facing off with the determined black female chair of the Nevada Democrats. “I’m a Black mama whose children are Black and Latino, Native American," Daniele Monroe-Moreno told the Times. Nevada is about 11% black, slightly lagging blacks' 13% share of the US population.  

Reverend Al Sharpton -- yes, he's still alive, though not all that relevant -- is among those decrying the idea that South Carolina might be told to give up its seat at the front of the metaphoric primary bus. "Pushing South Carolina to the back of the line would be a slap in the face to the very voters who’ve kept this party alive," he said on Thursday.  

The 2024 Electoral College map: Nevada was part of Trump's sweep of all seven swing states, but the state went to Biden in 2020

Some black leftists are ridiculing the uproar. "I'm sorry, this is absurd," tweeted Briahna Joy Gray, former press secretary for the 2020 Bernie Sanders Campaign, adding: 

"Democrats do not respect the Black vote because they don't have to -- Black Americans vote blue no matter who. The *most* Black voters ever get are rhetorical gestures like promises to pass the George Floyd Act (which never happened) or Junteenth (hooray). By contrast, Latinos are swing voters & consequently will be courted. Moreover, NV is a winnable state for Dems -- SC is not -- so it makes sense to prioritize it."

Other states are making a dark-horse bid to go first, including substantially-Latino (49%) New Mexico and substantially-black (19%) Virginia. Democrats may put off a final decision until after the midterms, to avoid throwing cold water on the voter enthusiasm of whatever states end up losing the race to go first. 

Gray questioned the sincerity of black South Carolina pols who are expressing outrage over the prospect of losing their slot: "The scramble to keep SC as the first state to vote in the primary is 100% about SC local politicians trying to preserve their newfound endorsement power & influence. It bears no relationship to the interests of Black Americans in SC or anywhere else."

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 17:20

Confirmed Deaths In Ebola Outbreak Eclipse 1,000

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Ebola outbreak spreading in Africa has killed more than 1,000 people, authorities said on July 23.

A doctor provides care to a patient with Ebola virus disease at an Ebola treatment center in Bunia, Congo, on July 13, 2026. Benediction Murhabazi /AFP via Getty Images

The number of confirmed deaths from Ebola in Congo in recent months hit 1,033, Congolese authorities said.

Forty percent of the confirmed 2,536 patients have died.

Another 506 people have recovered, and 738 are currently in isolation or being treated in hospitals, according to officials in the central African country.

"Health teams are pursuing surveillance operations, case management, and contact tracing to contain the spread of the disease," Congo's Ministry of Communications said.

Teams have been able to track the contacts of 77 percent of patients in a bid to control the outbreak, much lower than the 90 percent threshold suggested as ideal by the World Health Organization.

The only other deaths confirmed in the outbreak are two in Uganda, which has not recorded any new cases in several weeks.

The outbreak was detected in Congo in mid-May, although it is believed to have started weeks or even months earlier. It is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, a rare type of ebolavirus for which there are no approved treatments or vaccines.

"These are people dying. They are dying because we don't have vaccines, we don't have medicine, we don't have funding," Dr. Jean Kaseya, director-general of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a summit in Ghana on Wednesday.

The Africa CDC and other entities have been seeking and have received tens of millions in funding from the United States and other countries to combat the outbreak, but say they need more funds and resources.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters earlier in July that the outbreak was "continuing to outpace the response" and that the response plan needed more than $400 million in additional funds.

Ebola was first identified in 1976 after an outbreak in modern-day Congo. The deadliest Ebola outbreak on record ran for two years starting in 2014 in West Africa, causing 28,610 cases and killing 11,308 people.

That outbreak was caused by the Zaire ebolavirus.

The current outbreak is growing at a much faster rate than that outbreak did, according to Kaseya.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists said in modeling projections released in June that absent "large-scale and sustained public health interventions," the outbreak centered in Congo could become as large as the 2014-2016 outbreak.

"Rapid identification of cases, contact tracing, isolation and treatment of persons with [Ebola], community engagement, and use of safe and dignified burial for persons who die from [Ebola] are necessary to control the outbreak," they said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 17:00

LA Is Finally Cleaning Up Its Infamous "Graffiti Towers" Before The Olympics Arrives

For years, the unfinished Oceanwide Plaza towers have stood as one of downtown Los Angeles' most notorious landmarks. Not because of their architecture, but because of what they became. After construction stalled, the empty high-rises were transformed into a massive canvas for graffiti artists, attracting vandals, urban explorers and thrill-seekers who repeatedly scaled the abandoned buildings.

Covered in colorful tags and visible across the city's skyline, the so-called "graffiti towers" have come to symbolize both the project's collapse and the city's struggle to deal with one of its most recognizable eyesores. But now Los Angeles' infamous graffiti-covered Oceanwide Plaza towers are expected to be cleaned within the next 90 days under a commitment from the project's proposed new owner, according to Mayor Karen Bass' office, according to NBC Los Angeles. 

NBC reports that with the 2028 Olympics approaching, KPC Development Co. has agreed to remove the graffiti from the unfinished skyscrapers, allowing the city to withdraw its objection to the project's revised bankruptcy plan so cleanup can begin before construction resumes.

If the bankruptcy court approves the sale, KPC plans to complete the long-stalled development, which is slated to include apartments, a hotel, restaurants and retail space. The company will pay for the graffiti removal, city officials said.

Residents who have long complained about the vandalized towers welcomed the announcement, saying the cleanup is an important step toward improving downtown Los Angeles before the Olympics.

And hey...cleaning up the towers is a start. Now the city just has to get around to cleaning up the rest of Los Angeles before the world arrives for the Olympics.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:40

"I'm Not Racist": Musk Slams Snooty Leftist Interviewer, Says "I Support The Normal People"

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

During a terse exchange, Elon Musk told the virulently leftist editor-in-chief of The Economist that civil war in Britain is inevitable on current trends - driven by rapid migration of people whose beliefs clash with Western civilisation.

In response, Zanny Minton Beddoes accused Musk of supporting the "far right," and amplifying racists.

Musk called the coming confrontation a "reckoning," rejected the racist smear, and turned the tables on an interviewer determined to paint secure borders and opposition to rape and murder as fringe extremism.

When the interviewer insisted she lived in Britain and called the claim "nonsense," he shot back: "You live a very closeted existence!"

He expanded:

"If you have a large and growing, rapidly growing, group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning."

Musk described the prospect as inevitable and called it a "crying shame" that mainstream outlets refuse to recognise the threat to Western civilisation.

Pressed on whether he was racist or anti-Muslim, Musk answered directly:

"My partner is half-Indian and I have four children with her. One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. So I would say I'm not racist."

He continued:

"If people are coming to a country with antithetical views, I am against that. I'm against rape and murder, I'm against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we've come to accept in the West."

The interviewer's line of attack was clear.

She framed Musk's support for parties defending borders and cultural continuity as backing for the "far right" and even "very fringe parties."

Musk refused the frame.

"No, I support the NORMAL people," he said. "What you call the far right FALSELY."

He pointed out that the same positions - secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending - were mainstream only 10 or 15 years ago.

Speeches by Obama or Hillary Clinton on these subjects would today be denounced as Trumpian extremism by the "lunatic left."

When Beddoes claimed people "loathe" him, Musk was unmoved, firing back "I don't care, but the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realize."

?? Elon Musk just ENDED this snobby British reporter's career !

Question "we started this conversation saying superlatives. It's why people loathe you. Do you understand that?"

Musk "I don't care, but the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me is... pic.twitter.com/kCZ7OPk0jy

— J (@JayTC53) July 23, 2026

OOF. Feel the burn.

WATCH: Elon Musk DEMOLISHES a Reporter to Her Face For Calling Him 'Far Right', DARES Her to Keep it In The Interview: 'DON'T CUT THIS'

"These are the NORMAL people"

"I would like to ADMONISH YOU and the Media"

Absolute Masterclass ? pic.twitter.com/Y481A616k4

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 23, 2026

The pattern is familiar. Positions once held by centre-left politicians are now labelled extreme so that any defence of Western norms can be pathologised. Musk called it out without apology.

She can't comprehend what he's saying. Fascinating. https://t.co/Uy7L0z4jYT

— ??? ??? (@antleary) July 23, 2026

Watching this woman made me glad I cancelled my subscription. You got time with world's most brilliant man and just tried to lecture him. Nobody cares about your woke bullshit

— ClevelandRocks (@cavsfan1983) July 23, 2026

The full interview, spanning AI, Europe, politics and the rest, is available here (for now):

The Economist Elon Musk July 23rd 2026 pic.twitter.com/xti3kXcZFc

— Lord Withers (@_lordwithers) July 24, 2026

Musk's warning with regards to Britain is not abstract theorising. It lands against a backdrop of UK government moves that look like quiet preparation for internal fracture.

Last year Professor David Betz of King's College London warned that official talk of a Russian invasion threat was a convenient cover for hardening infrastructure and building a citizen's militia against domestic conflict.

Low trust, political factionalism and demographic change, he argued, are pushing Britain toward civil strife.

Just days ago the UK government urged households to stockpile long-life food, water, medicines and wind-up radios while announcing the largest home-defence wargame in decades - Operation Albiston Shadow - again framed around hybrid Russian threats. Betz's analysis remains the same: the real concern is internal, not external.

Musk's latest comments connect those dots in plain language.

The UK has seen repeated outbreaks of disorder linked to migration failures - Southport, Southampton and beyond. Official responses have often appeared two-tier. At the same time, the state is stockpiling resilience messaging and running large-scale domestic defence exercises while insisting the danger is primarily Russian.

The academic critique from Betz and others is that this is politically safer language for a deeper problem: a society whose cohesion has been eroded by rapid demographic change and elite refusal to confront incompatible values.

Musk is simply saying the quiet part out loud. Large-scale importation of populations that reject core Western principles - equality under the law, free speech, protection of women and girls - creates friction that does not magically resolve. When media and political classes treat any discussion of that friction as "far right," the pressure only builds.

Britain's leadership can keep pretending the only threats come from Moscow or from citizens who notice the transformation of their own towns. Musk is not pretending. Neither should anyone else who values the civilisation that still, for now, allows such interviews to happen.

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 Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:30

"The Polycrisis Of 2026 Whirls Like A Demon-Infested Storm Overcoming This Human Project..."

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Struggle session

“. . .there is no saving the Left. There is only saving America from them.” — Sasha Stone

The polycrisis of 2026 whirls like a demon-infested storm overcoming this human project of ours like a medieval panorama of the world’s end. Everything is fraught, tilting toward hazard, menace, ruin. Even under a summer sun, the mind sees only darkness everywhere it looks.

Apocalypse now, it seems like.

You almost can’t blame the doomers, the black pill-ers, lost in their transports of dread.

But I tell you, we will get through this.

Is it a surprise that the IRGC has a death wish for its host, Iran? They’ve been advertising it loudly for half a century, yearning for martyrdom, the bliss of paradise, marriage to multiple perfumed virgins, all the pomegranates you could ever want, and perpetual dreamtime beside a gently burbling fountain in the palace of eternity. Trouble is, to get there you must have your head blown off.

That’s exactly what the IRGC is asking for, though the millions of ordinary Iranians probably have their doubts about the ask. They are hostages of the IRGC regime, which refuses to just stop being a problem for the world. Mr. Trump’s proffer for Iran still abides: become a normal nation, sovereign and all, only without atom bombs. Let ships sail through Hormuz unmolested. Sell your oil, make some money, trade with the other fellas across the Persian Gulf, have a nice civilized life with all the refinements of age-old Persian culture, even with its Islamic overlay. Be happy!

The USA does not seek to occupy Iran, steal its resources, subjugate its people, force them to buy Minnie Mouse plush toys, play baseball, eat Jimmy Dean sausage for breakfast, strum banjoes, or wear cowboy hats. Just stop projecting violence and discord all over the Middle East.

You can’t make us, the IRGC says. Yes, we will, the USA replies. And so it goes. Next up: bridges and power plants. Plus, every ship you damage, we’ll deduct the cost of repair from your frozen assets held in our banks. This is where things stand after the thirteenth night of strategic bombing against the IRGC’s launch sites, drone factories, missile storage caverns, and shoreline military installations. Iran prepared assiduously for this death-scene for decades, building hidey-holes here, there, and everywhere. But every time they launch something now, our satellites mark the coordinates, and boom, now there’s one less hidey-hole.

Iran’s currency, the rial, has an exchange rate against the US dollar of about 1,900,000 to one dollar. There is hardly a functioning economy left. The people are flat broke. Everyday life must be hell now. Could be the IRGC was getting tons of munitions and material for free from China, but days ago we blew up the railroad bridge at Aq Tekeh-Khan that was China’s main connection to Iran, so that’s over with.

You must doubt that Russia is capable of sending arms to Iran at this point. Russia needs every drone and missile it can fabricate now that Ukraine is sending drones clear into Moscow and St. Petersburg on a regular basis. Of course, that war is being stoked by NATO, which perforce includes the USA. A bill (H.R. 2913 — the Ukraine Support Act) that would furnish $1.3-1.8 billion in direct security, military, and reconstruction assistance for Ukraine plus $8 billion in loans was passed by the House in June, but languishes in the Senate. President Trump has threatened to veto it, as running counter to the administration’s preference for negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine War rather than extend it.

These two conflicts must seem intractable for now, but the mojo driving them has clear and present limits.

If the USA does not underwrite Ukraine’s war effort, then that leaves the EU nations, who are increasingly broke, and for all their idle talk are really incapable of mounting a major arms production campaign.

The UK especially is skating on thin ice these days as Mr. Trump methodically cancels its long-running command and control of global finance through the City of London (as its “Wall Street” is called). In fact, it looks as if the floundering UK — with dopey Andy Burnham rolling in as Britain’s seventh Prime Minister in a decade — has passed the ball of globalist leadership to its forward striker (and all-purpose fixer) Mark Carney the Prime Minister of Canada.

Carney, who was previously chief of the Bank of England, has played a series of losing games against President Trump the past year, while Mr. Carney is busy wrecking the Canadian economy for the sake of the globalist “green” flimflam, a sustained high volume of third world immigration, and outlandish DEI activism that includes giving vast tracts of real estate back to Canada’s First Nations people, their Indians. Carney has also very actively played footsie with the CCP to a degree that is seriously pissing off Mr. Trump. Among all the other shocks and surprises upcoming, you might imagine him having to send the 82nd Airborne up to Ottawa to inform PM Carney that there will be no globalist seat of operations in North America.

Yes, things are getting that strange. And then, continuing the clean-up operation south of our border, there is Cuba to straighten out. Cuba is obviously next. Our patience with that failing state’s communist export project is particularly thin, now that the Democratic Party here is entertaining Marxist-Leninist dreams of glory.

On top of all that, we have serious concerns with the financial markets and the widening income inequality that drives the younger generations’ yen for “socialism” (free rent, free medicine, free stuff).

Financialization concentrates and compounds wealth while the salary-mule class stagnates, suffers, goes broke, and nurses its grievances.

We’re pushing into the season of financial train wrecks. AI has cornered all the free capital in the land — for something that appears to be an existential menace as much as any potential economic benefit — and it is wildly perverting the equity market. The bond market groans under the debt burden and the impossibility of fiscal prudence. Capitalism that can’t self-correct invites financial and political violence.

It’s probably a greater threat to us than the faraway wars, bad as they are. Mr. Trump, Secretary Bessent, and others in charge surely know this — that the American ownership class has become tiny, and that the cure for that is getting the vast dis-owned, forsaken middle-class back into businesses that they will own, in an economy based on production of real goods, not on playing games with money.

There is so much to be done and we can get it done if we screw our heads back on.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:20