Menu Icon

Debt Rattle September 7 2026

Sep 072026
 
 September 7, 2026  Posted by at 9:06 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  Add comments


Vasily Kandinsky Capricious Line 1924


• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)
• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)
• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)
• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)
• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)
• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)
• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)
• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)
• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)
• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)
• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

 


 

 


 


This from Sundance is brilliant, and he thinks Trump is aware. . If Trump makes peace with Russia, their oil comes in to the market and lowers the price enough to sink the Iran regime. End the war with Iran, end the war in Ukraine. Lower the price at the pump. One fell swoop.

• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)

History has a tendency to rhyme. There is one move on the geopolitical chessboard that can put all of the U.S. and President Trump’s problems into an immediate checkmate. However, the forces against the alignment are significant. If President Trump can end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and end the sanctions regime against Russia, everything changes.


Bringing Russian oil, gas and natural resources back into the global economy not only removes all leverage held by Iran, but it also wipes out intransigent resistance against the geopolitical reset and upends over a hundred years of EU and Commonwealth financial manipulation.


Not only does the Iran problem immediately shift, but so too does any/all leverage carried by Canada on behalf of London and the broader commonwealth structure. With a U.S-Russia strategic economic alliance, something factually stated at the end of every message from Moscow, the dynamics of global structures is entirely different. However, all the oppositional interests are well aware of the consequence and their actions reflect it. The United States and Russia ended World War II. A U.S-Russia alliance would change everything.

Who would benefit from such a strategic partnership? The USA, Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States (GCC), ASEAN countries and even Japan and the Caribbean, including Cuba.

Who would oppose such a seismic shift? The U.K, specifically the financial constructs within the City of London, Canada, the EU-NATO states, all the Commonwealth countries and the Five-Eyes group (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K and the U.S. Intelligence Community).

Now we have appropriate context for the dynamic of the issue, along with context for exactly why all oppositional elements are conducting current activity. A strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia represents an existential threat to all the old systems – everything. The first step would be solving the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, let’s look at that problem specifically and how a transactional approach might frame the four corners of an end to it.


Russia now occupies approximately 20% of the Ukraine land mass in eastern Ukraine and they are not going to ever concede it again. For the Federation of Russia, represented by Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming majority of those within influence inside the Federation, the NATO encroachment is an existential threat long term. Russia views the objective of the legacy system powers as intent on taking Russia apart. Ukraine represents their immediate shot to stop this from happening. All prior agreements and treaties by EU and NATO agreements were violated. Russia will no longer allow the wolves to circle their camp.

Looking at the challenge through the transactional prism, a ceasefire may include Russia retaining their current land gains, while giving up the confiscated $500 billion sovereign wealth fund as the purchase price. The fund could be considered reparations by Zelenskyy and his EU-NATO handlers, it matters not. What matters more than the sovereign wealth fund in this transaction, is the elimination of western sanctions.

With sanctions removed, immediately the Russian economy surges with sales of oil, gas, minerals and raw materials back to the global market. With the Iran conflict still afoot all that oil and gas carries a higher value. That is the pricing dynamic that makes loss of the Russian sovereign wealth fund more contextualized. However, with all of those abundant natural resources now back in the global supply chain, the leverage for all other western countries that rely on their natural resources, specifically Canada, is diminished.

Russian oil and gas could flow immediately and easily back into Europe. Currently, the power structures within the EU, those more concerned about raw power and control than the financial health and livelihood of their citizens, are against a return of cheap and abundant energy. They should think about the return of lower energy costs as a value to their economies and people; however, the EU ‘leaders’ are more concerned about the geopolitical reset -ultimately their diminished power, that would lay in the background.

As a consequence, the EU doesn’t really care about how much financial benefit there would be to their economic condition. For them this is a zero-sum power issue. Just as Russia doesn’t want to be torn apart by the grand ambitions of London, so too does the EU not want to lose the power to assist in the tearing apart aspect.

The rest of the problem is one of the future. A problem of security guarantees; of agreements that are bolstered against some significant non-wavering constant that can ensure no further expansion of NATO intent and no further threat to create purposeful conflict. The United States has constant regime changes, that takes the U.S. out of the ability to be the guarantor. However, THAT level of security guarantee is possible through the one construct that has put tentacles into every geopolitical economic structure in the world, CHINA.

There is a visible deal where President Trump sets up the transactional end to the conflict, the payments and economic mechanisms that conclude the Ukraine-Russia war, while Chairman Xi sets up the security guarantee aspect by leveraging everything that Beijing has created for decades. As paradigm resetting as that sounds, it’s not impossible. In fact, I would argue that’s exactly what China is saying HERE.


The Washington Post is getting the direction correct, but they are unaware of the destination. TDS infects all media analysis. They put the review of Chairman Xi’s comments through the prism of anti-Trumpism. That’s not at all what this looks like to me. From my perspective, Trump is looking to solve problems beyond his tenure in the White House. After all, how many times has each Trump supporter said, “well yeah – great, but what happens after Trump leaves office?”

Think about it carefully, through the prism of peace and stability – while understanding that President Trump is structuring long-term U.S. economic stability and retaining the perspective that Beijing influence in U.S. economic matters must be removed. Handle the transaction. Solve the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Form a strategic partnership and build fortress north America. Leverage the systems that Beijing has already put in place, including leverage upon the EU, and make Chairman Xi the minder for everything OUTSIDE our hemisphere.

President Trump looks to have gamed this out quite well. The tool that cuts the gordian knot is in the relationship.

Read more …

Operation Economic Outcast.

• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)

Energy Secretary Chris Wright got a blunt question Sunday morning: After seven months of fighting with Iran, are Americans looking at a new normal of tanker strikes, military escorts, and an open-ended confrontation in the Persian Gulf? Wright didn’t duck it. The United States remains open to negotiations, he said, but its immediate military mission includes stopping Iranian oil and gas exports. He plainly described the goal: “We are strangling their economy” to force a change in Tehran’s policies or leadership.


From the Conservative Daily News: “Secretary of Energy Chris Wright outlined America’s long-term goal for securing global trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz even as its conflict with Iran threatens such traffic. Wright touted the sustained traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz before telling Dana Bash during a “State of the Union” interview Sunday that securing the passageway “shouldn’t be just the United States’s responsibility” looking forward. His appearance on the CNN show comes the day after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces reported taking out three Iranian oil tankers.

“The president says the Strait of Hormuz is under U.S. control. Just yesterday, the U.S. struck three Iranian tankers in retaliation for Iran firing missiles at U.S. warships. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Iran struck at least 23 merchant ships in the Strait in the last two months,” Bash said before asking Wright, “Does that sound to you like it’s a situation completely under control?” “Our transits through the Strait are averaging over 9 million barrels a day now. And with the access pipelines that go around the Strait, we’re probably two-thirds or more of pre-conflict flows,” Wright responded. “So Iranians are still causing trouble, but the United States Navy is winning that battle.”

Bash then asked Wright if he is suggesting that the U.S. Navy is going to have to stay in the Strait “indefinitely” to maintain the current flow of oil and tankers. “Oh, I think we’ll see a change in the Iranian regime, or certainly a change in their policy if they want to become a trading nation again and engage with the world,” Wright said. “But they have not lightly given up their nuclear weapons program.”The comments came after U.S. forces struck three Iranian oil tankers Saturday. U.S. Central Command said Iranian ballistic missiles had targeted American warships.

Two tankers were disabled, while a third was destroyed. The military said the ships belonged to a shadow network helping finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.


Wright’s argument was straightforward. President Donald Trump still prefers a negotiated settlement, but the administration isn’t counting on one. Wright said Iran’s nuclear capabilities are being degraded militarily while its economy is being squeezed through reduced energy exports and sanctions. He also left open the possibility that a nuclear agreement might have to wait for a different Iranian government. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been delivering the economic half of the same message.

Bessent said Saturday that Trump’s blockade and Treasury sanctions amount to “one of the most powerful one-two punches” ever used for economic isolation. From Breitbart News: “During an appearance on FNC’s “My View” on Saturday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised the impact of U.S. policy regarding Iran. According to Bessent, the blockade paired with economic sanctions was having a crippling impact on the Iranian regime. “Just to stay with the Strait of Hormuz for a moment, you’ve also noted that you say the U.S. and China actually have more in common than we disagree on when it comes to safely navigating the Strait of Hormuz,” host Lara Trump said.

“I think the question for a lot of Americans is really how much can we trust China? They are still taking oil from Iran, so how do you navigate that situation?”Bessent replied, “Well, one of the things we’ve done, and what the president’s done, is fantastic sequencing. So we are running Operation Economic Outcast right now, and this is the greatest economic isolation operation in the history of the world. We are going to asphyxiate this regime.”

“Now we have the blockade, and because of the blockade, the oil is not getting out,” he continued. “So there’s probably only about 30 million barrels of Iranian crude oil left that China hasn’t bought. So that will run out soon, and there will be no problem with China buying because they have no product, so the blockade is — the blockade is working. It’s working like nothing we’ve ever seen, and the combination, everyone says, “Oh, sanctions don’t work. I can tell you, blockade and sanctions are one of the most powerful one-two punches in the history of economic isolation.” He argued that China’s purchases of Iranian crude will eventually become irrelevant if Iran can’t move the oil out of its ports.

The administration has given the financial campaign a name: Operation Economic Outcast. Treasury launched it Aug. 24 with the stated goal of cutting Iran off from the financial networks, banks, oil revenues, and sanctions-evasion systems keeping the regime funded. The campaign moved again Friday when Treasury sanctioned a Turkish financial institution and its subsidiaries for allegedly helping Iran’s Revolutionary Guard move money internationally.

From the Treasury Department: Announced by Secretary Bessent on August 24, 2026, dubbed Economic D-Day, Operation Economic Outcast is severing the remaining economic lifelines that sustain the Iranian regime. Treasury has mapped the networks, facilitators, and financial channels that Iran uses to smuggle oil, evade sanctions, and fund terror. Working with partners across the U.S. government, the European Union, United Kingdom, Gulf partners, and others, Treasury is targeting any source of the regime’s illicit revenue, as well as its sanctions evasion schemes to move funds.

Read more …

What/which part of the above did they discuss?

The man in the middle is Kyrill Dimitriev, Putin’s go-to guy.

• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)

The latest visit to Moscow by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has triggered a fresh wave of speculation in Russia about what Washington is really trying to achieve. With US President Donald Trump under pressure at home and much of his administration’s foreign-policy bandwidth consumed by Iran, the trip has been interpreted less as a breakthrough mission than as a signal – one that may be aimed as much at domestic American politics and alliance management as at Russia itself.


Russian analysts see the visit in different ways. Some believe the Americans are simply sounding out Moscow before returning to Kiev, trying to gauge whether any space remains for movement on Ukraine. Others argue the mission is part of a broader performance of diplomatic activity by the Trump White House, intended to project momentum where little real progress is possible. Still others view it as an exercise in ‘shuttle diplomacy’, useful mainly for information-gathering and atmospherics rather than for producing concrete results.

Roman Romanov, American studies specialist, lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, Political Science, and Foreign Regional Studies at RSUH
I have two explanations regarding the visit and the format of this visit. First, the American side has already shown several times that it is interested in maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. And this visit – or rather, this tour – is aimed at “synchronizing watches.” What does that mean? The Americans are trying to understand what conditions might be acceptable to the parties for resuming an active negotiating process. In other words, what can be offered to both sides so that they are prepared to move the dialogue in the direction of progress.

The second explanation is purely domestic-political for the United States. Against the backdrop of the failure of the Iran campaign, it is necessary to demonstrate some other kind of political activity that at least theoretically resembles progress with a concrete result. Trump has done this kind of thing more than once.

Do they have any ready-made proposals? I do not think so, because, first, at the moment a significant part of US foreign-policy resources is concentrated on Iran, and second, because despite the constructive role of both Witkoff and Kushner, they still act more as envoys of the American president on a specific issue than as direct participants formulating the American president’s position on this issue.

It is difficult to explain why they first went to Moscow and then to Kiev. One can assume they first want to hear Moscow’s stance, because it is in a more advantageous position – Russia is advancing, winning on the battlefield – so the US believes it would be more expedient first to hear out Moscow’s demands and gauge how much they’ve changed since August 2025, since the meeting in Anchorage.

At the same time, although we do not observe public participation by the EU, through closed channels the European Union surely communicates its interests. Their representatives are not there, but the position the Americans are shaping includes the EU’s position as well.

Dmitry Dtobnitsky – Russian political scientist specializing in American studies, expert in US foreign and domestic policy
These negotiations will continue – that’s the only perspective they have. What are we negotiating with the US about? About how to stop the conflict in Ukraine? Let’s be serious. First, this conflict is much broader than Russia’s military operation. It is a geopolitical conflict with very high stakes, the kind that happens with Europe once every several decades or even centuries. The Cold War period with the US was still an exception in that there were at least attempts to play at détente from time to time.

The world has entered an era of major transformation. In that sense, the narrow focus is – will they reach an agreement on Ukraine? No. Every time you think about that, you have to recall how it all started, why it is like this, how wrongly the world is structured, how important it is for Russia to insist on its interests, why the European bureaucracy itself cannot accept that, because otherwise that would mean the end of both it and the political class of many countries. Why can’t this conflict stop? Because it can’t be settled.

Someone has to win. Just as with the US and Iran (which, incidentally, is a much more local conflict) – it is impossible to agree, there can be no deal. There can only be some movement in which one of the sides explicitly or implicitly recognizes its defeat. It may not be total defeat, but at least at some stage one side wins and the other side does not recognize it. Such a process will last a long time, but in the end there will still be some de facto consolidation of the results of this conflict. Not a negotiated one, unfortunately, but a factual one. Diplomats may formalize such a conclusion, or they may not. Frankly, that is no longer important.

When we talk about Russia-US negotiations on Ukraine, there are two extremes, and both miss the essence. Yes, we are negotiating, and we constantly demonstrate that Russia and the US have nothing to fight over. We are ready to coexist with the US on the same globe. That is exactly why Putin says: “Of course, Kushner and Witkoff are welcome guests, come. What else should we show you from Moscow’s kitchen?” You see, the US cannot conduct negotiations on Ukraine because it cannot force either Kiev, London, or Brussels to accept Russia’s reasonable demands. And how are they going to pressure Russia? I think the Trump administration more or less understands that it is pointless. So what kind of negotiations on Ukraine can there be?

Some say [Russian Finance Minister] Siluanov and [US Treasury Secretary] Bessent will come to some understanding, and perhaps there will be incredible financial, economic, or investment cooperation between the US and Russia. I have said many times that there can be no serious cooperation between Russia and the US. There are neither material nor geopolitical grounds for it. Are we now supposed to throw away all the achievements of localizing our civilian aviation industry and start buying Boeing again?

Are we going to hand over half of the most convenient Arctic territory on the planet to the US? Is that it? Or are we going to sell all Russian oil through Mr. Kushner? How do you imagine that? Some say: “Investments will come here.” But that would mean that instead of creating a sovereign financial system, we would say: “No, let’s reintegrate ourselves back into the collapsing dollar system. Let’s support it with our achievements of the past five years.” It’s obvious that there can be no real cooperation.

One can have symbolic cooperation. It is a wonderful look when two great countries can do something together. The most we will get is a hockey match and an ‘Apollo-Soyuz’. It must be understood that these are purely token steps, which only demonstrate that nothing particularly substantial can happen. It does not mean it will be forbidden. It simply will never play a substantial role. Even in 2019, before Covid and the military operation, trade turnover between Russia and the US was negligibly small. And that is understandable: it is geopolitics, geoeconomics – you cannot jump over that. And now, after so much effort has been spent to become independent and to work with Eurasia on a new basis, to say, “No, now let’s start doing something again with the Americans” is just laughable. That will not happen.

Read more …

“The UK is spinning a web of influence designed to survive any Ukraine peace deal..”

While Trump is making peace?

• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)

Last week, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced in Kiev that defense manufacturer MBDA had been authorized to disclose information concerning the British components of the SCALP missile, the French version of the long-range Storm Shadow, to Ukraine.Officially, the decision concerns documentation required to organize local assembly, but in practice, it could facilitate the transfer of blueprints, components, assembly kits or finished missiles.


Moscow regards this technology transfer as the UK crossing a red line, as London hasn’t even attempted to shift responsibility onto intermediaries and the decision was publicly authorized by the prime minister. Britain has therefore assumed direct responsibility for the resulting escalation and deepened its involvement in military operations against Russia.

SCALP was developed through a joint British-French program and its assembly requires classified information about British components and French sub-assemblies, as well as access to a secure facility. Ukraine doesn’t possess a complete production cycle, but even a partial transfer of classified data would integrate Ukrainian assembly into the British-French manufacturing chain and bind all three parties together for years.

Before this decision, Britain had been far more careful about covering its tracks. For example, the Flamingo missile, marketed as a product of the Ukrainian company Fire Point, is identical to a design unveiled in 2025 by the British-Emirati Milanion Group. That arrangement allowed London to keep its distance, with formal responsibility for the missile’s development and deployment resting with Kiev.

Britain is also attempting to free future missile projects from the American vetting process, so under Project Brakestop, the Ministry of Defense has commissioned MBDA UK, MGI Engineering and Rotron Aerospace to produce three prototypes of long-range missiles for Ukraine. The purpose is to reduce dependence on US authorization and, consequently, on the position of the administration in Washington. London wants to determine for itself when and under what conditions such weapons are transferred.

British drones are already being used by Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia. They include the Nyan jet-powered drone, manufactured by Callen-Lenz, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. For its developers, the battlefield offers something particularly valuable: operational data with which to refine the weapon. Russia has also repeatedly pointed to the direct involvement of British specialists in the deployment of Storm Shadow missiles.

On the same day as the SCALP announcement, London secured access to Avengers AI Labs, an extensive body of data gathered by Ukrainian frontline sensors, so now British companies will be able to use this information to train target-recognition and autonomous-control systems, greatly shortening the journey from development to battlefield deployment.Five British governments have come and gone during the active phase of the Ukraine conflict, but the country’s anti-Russian course has remained remarkably consistent.

Boris Johnson began a program to develop the Ukrainian navy, Rishi Sunak signed a ten-year security agreement, Keir Starmer followed with the Centenary Partnership Agreement and Burnham has now authorized access to classified missile technology. Each government has built upon the commitments made by its predecessor.

The same continuity is visible in Britain’s strategic doctrine, where Sunak’s Conservative government described Russia in its 2023 Integrated Review Refresh as the “most acute threat” to British security and Starmer’s Labour government retained that position. The 2025 National Security Strategy called Russia “the most obvious and pressing example” of confrontation, while the Strategic Defence Review described it as an “immediate and pressing threat.” That review established the principle of “NATO first, but not only NATO” and committed Britain to preparing for war.

These doctrines are supported by long-term financial obligations, given London has promised Ukraine £3 billion, approximately $4 billion, annually until at least the 2030-31 financial year. The century-long partnership agreement provides for joint production, technology transfers and cooperation in the Baltic, Black and Azov seas where Britain’s presence is intended to endure for decades, regardless of when the current military campaign ends.

The declaration signed by Britain, France and Ukraine on January 6, 2026, already outlines arrangements for the postwar period. These include multinational forces, military logistics hubs, secure facilities and a special legal regime for foreign personnel. In London’s calculations, a ceasefire wouldn’t end its involvement, but it would consolidate a new phase of Britain’s military and industrial presence.

Read more …

Saxony-Anhalt is small, 1.7 million voters, so it says little. But it makes me realize that this went fast! Where was AfD a year ago? Stuck in court.

Dutch news: AfD has 39 out of 83 seats. But the “populist” BSW party, which promised to support it, unexpectedly got its 5 seats, and could bring it to 44.

And the labels keep coming: far right, radical right, extreme right etc. That’s just for not wanting more immigrants?!

• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)

Update(1400ET): In a political earthquake, the AfD has taken a massive lead, per exit polls, at the Saxony-Anhalt election in what the party’s state leader hailed as sending a resounding “signal to Berlin.” This moment marks the first time what has been dubbed a German “far-right party” taking power at a state level since World War II. This is absolutely historic. “The exit polls, published by German public television stations, suggested that the party, known by its German initials AfD, would win between 39 and 41 seats in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt,” NY Times reports. “That would leave it just short of an absolute majority of 42, but far ahead of its nearest rival.”


But it remains unclear whether it will be able to form a government. Below is the latest via Deutsche Welle: Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Tino Chrupalla says his party secured a mandate to govern with its strong election result in Saxony-Anhalt. “We have halved the CDU, so from that point of view it’s a great evening,” Chrupalla told journalists in Magdeburg, referring to an earlier remark by Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader and chancellor Friedrich Merz that AfD’s result could be cut in half.

Chrupalla called the outcome “sensational.” “Ulrich Siegmund will be the new premier of Saxony-Anhalt,” he said. “From here, we will change Germany.” If the party falls short of an absolute majority, Chrupalla said it would be open to talks and even suggested an AfD minority government could be tolerated by other parties. AfD has signaled it is open to a coalition partner that would be open to changing its migration and energy policy – though this option doesn’t seem to be on the political map realistically at this early point. Youth turn to AfD in droves…

 


 

From last night:

Voters in Saxony-Anhalt head to the polls today in an election that could deliver Germany’s most massive political shock in decades, with the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland on track to beat Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats.

Final polling estimates put the AfD at 40% to 41%, nearly double the CDU’s 23%. The party’s lead candidate, 35-year-old Ulrich Siegmund, has ruled out governing in a coalition, suggesting the AfD would need an outright majority to take power of its first German state government.

About 1.7 million people are set to vote today, with polls closing at 6 p.m. local time. AfD’s rapid ascent comes as voters are furious over Germany’s stagnant economy, deindustrialization, energy costs, and the Third World migrant invasion. The Polymarket bet on how many seats the AfD is expected to win today assigns a 74% probability to 38 to 41 seats, with 42 to 45 seats at 16%. Ahead of the historic election, thousands of far-left Antifa crazies took to the streets wearing all black and holding Antifa and LGBT flags. Others were seen carrying signs reading “FCK NZS” and “FCK AFD.”

A reported 15,000 left-wing activists joined a so-called pro-democracy festival in the state capital, Magdeburg, on Saturday, organized by the “Saxony-Anhalt Open to the World” alliance. Yet the whole globalist cult in Germany has likely run its course. It has been nothing more than what some call a nation-killing experiment, pushing uncontrolled mass migration and deindustrialization policies that have sent Europe’s largest economy into a tailspin.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Saturday threatened the AfD, saying, “We will not let these people, who trash Germany and everything we have achieved in recent years and decades,” before adding, “We will not let these people talk our country into ruin!”

Yet what did Merz actually achieve? Destroying Germany’s economy? That is something he certainly accomplished.

Read more …

“Paris needs guarantees that Kiev will repay the money it’s been getting during its conflict with Moscow, Jordan Bardella has said”

• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)

France lacks money for itself and simply cannot keep funding Ukraine indefinitely, Jordan Bardella, the president of Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (NR) party, has said. The main French opposition party faced harsh criticism from its rivals earlier this week after its vice president, Louis Aliot, said that NR “would turn off the tap” for Kiev if it comes to power after the 2027 presidential vote. Le Pen is seen as having strong chances to succeed in the election next year, no matter who her rival will be in the second round.


Bardella weighed in on the issue during his speech at the Ambrosetti Forum in Italy on Saturday, saying that Ukraine needs support from France and other Western nations during the conflict with Russia, but “our objective should not be to finance the war ad vitam æternam,” which means ‘forever’ in Latin. France has a national debt of €3.5 trillion ($4.6 billion) and cannot be “giving money that we no longer have” to Vladimir Zelensky’s government, he argued.

“The extremely serious and worrying state of French public finances means we can’t give money without any guarantees or assurances that this money will be repaid one day,” the National Rally president said. Paris has been one of the strongest backers of Kiev in the EU after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, providing it with billions in military aid and supplying various sophisticated weapons, including CAESAR self-propelled howitzers and Mirage fighter jets.

According to Bardella, the Americans were “much smarter” than the Europeans when it came to assistance for Kiev “because the money they gave to Ukraine is secured against rare earth mining.” He was referring to the deal agreed upon between Washington and Kiev last year, which grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources. During US President Donald Trump’s second term, Washington also significantly reduced aid to Ukraine, making European NATO members pay for American-made arms supplied to the country.

Earlier this week, Trump warned that he intends to present Europe with a belated bill for billions of dollars that Washington spent arming Ukraine under his predecessor, Joe Biden. He previously estimated that Biden gave Zelensky more than $300 billion worth of weapons for “free.” Le Pen said on Thursday that the National Rally is skeptical about further assistance to Ukraine because it believes that the conflict with Russia needs a diplomatic solution.

A poll by Harris Interactive in late August suggested that Le Pen has the support of 34% of the French public, which should guarantee her a place in the second round of the presidential election, where she would likely win comfortably against either her left-wing rival Jean-Luc Mélenchon or the centrist candidate, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Russian officials said repeatedly that foreign weapons being sent to Kiev will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military goals, but will merely prolong the fighting, while increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Read more …

You mean we know that truth?!

• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)

Friday marks 25 years since 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and murdered 2,977 people on American soil. In the wake of those attacks, this country made itself one promise: Never Forget. Twenty-five years later, it’s clear some people are working hard to make sure we do exactly that: forget.


Here’s the number that should make every American furious: only Arizona and Florida legally require public schools to teach about the September 11 attacks. Ten states have statutes that merely encourage some form of 9/11 instruction, according to an August University of Wisconsin study, and that can mean anything from a moment of silence to a full lesson. New York, where the towers actually fell, mandates only a moment of silence and a passing mention in Board of Regents standards. No statewide curriculum exists.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), who is pushing legislation to require 9/11 education in all 50 states, told the New York Post, “We made a promise to ‘Never Forget’, but today, only a handful of states require 9/11 to be taught in their schools.” But it gets worse. So much worse.

According to the North America Values Institute, an education watchdog group, leftist activists, some backed by George Soros, have produced 9/11 lesson plans now used in schools nationwide, including in New York City. One, “Teaching Beyond September 11th,” spends exactly one paragraph on the actual attacks and never once calls the hijackers terrorists, instead building entire units around “Right-Wing Extremism” and “Islamophobia and the Oval Office.” It describes Osama bin Laden only as a man the United States “accused” of masterminding the attacks, leaving out his own confessions and his declared jihad against a country he called the “worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.”

The curriculum was developed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education beginning in 2019 and is now recommended by education departments in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Zineb Riboua, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, said this kind of material teaches kids “that America is responsible for the atrocities around the world to develop a moral framework that can be activated very quickly to get policies that reduce America’s power and sovereignty.” She said the tactic mirrors what the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps use to target young people. “Ayatollah Khamenei said the best audience to target is students,” she added.

It still gets worse.Adam Feinberg, a teacher at Brooklyn’s City Polytechnic High School, assigns ninth through 12th graders Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” alongside a worksheet asking them, without a hint of irony, “Why do you think Osama bin Laden hates Jews so much?” He uploaded it to the American Federation of Teachers’ own lesson-sharing portal back in 2020. He never denied writing it.

None of these curricula bother to mention that nearly 10,000 first responders and civilians have since died from illnesses tied to Ground Zero toxins, or what any of this does to the families left behind. Gail Silke’s brother, NYPD officer Stephen Driscoll, 38, died in the South Tower. She didn’t hold back: “They’re not affected by it, they’re not in our shoes, and they don’t want to be in our shoes. Those people can kiss my a*s.” A Manhattan mother whose father-in-law died on 9/11 said, “They were disgusted with the [expletive] they were taught, it’s not fair, they lost their grandfather.”

New York state Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-N.Y.) said, “Nearly 3,000 innocent people were murdered by al Qaeda on September 11th. They were the victims. The terrorists were the perpetrators. Any curriculum that blurs that fundamental truth, or makes the victims secondary to a political narrative, isn’t teaching history, it’s rewriting it.”

When Soros-linked groups are writing lesson plans that soft-pedal the hijackers and focus on “Islamophobia” instead, we have a problem. The left is so devoted to its woke ideology that it is trying to rewrite the history of 9/11.

Read more …

Takes some getting used to. But you get to keep your country.

• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)

A combination of judicial firings and federal reforms has led to the denial of most asylum claims, an area where illegal aliens are known to exploit our system egregiously. In June 2026, over nine out of 10 asylum claimants did not receive what they requested. That’s good news for America.


I have emphasized many times here at PJ Media that huge numbers of illegal alien criminals, particularly under Joe Biden’s administration, simply claimed asylum and stated they were too afraid to go back home, which in prior years was practically enough to ensure they would receive asylum in the U.S. But in most cases, these people do not actually meet the legal standards for asylum. In some cases, indeed, they are afraid to go home, but only because they are gang members or convicted criminals fleeing justice.

On August 31, TRAC Immigration reported the following: “The number of individuals Immigration Judges grant asylum to each month has been falling. In June 2026, only 771 individuals were granted asylum—less than a quarter of the number of individuals awarded asylum just three years ago. At the same time, the number of asylum decisions has grown resulting in soaring asylum denial rates. In June 2026, 94 percent of all asylum cases were denied.

It appears that President Donald Trump’s administration has replaced many immigration judges with individuals less likely to take illegal alien criminals at their word. TRAC seems extremely upset about the change, but it is great news for Americans, as we can be sure that illegal aliens will have much less of a chance of abusing this loophole in order to obtain U.S. residency.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ (CIS) Andrew R. Arthur explained that the percentage of granted asylum claims is actually even lower than TRAC indicated, because it did not take into account claims that were withdrawn, administratively closed, or not adjudicated. He elucidated in some technical detail what all of those categories meant, but essentially, not every claim ends up going all the way through the process to denial or approval for various reasons.

Of the 254,680 asylum decisions IJs issued in the first nine months of FY 2026, 7,231 (2.8 percent) were grants, 89,740 (35.2 percent) were denials, 44,062 (17.3 percent) were not adjudicated, 18,251 (7.2 percent) were withdrawn, and 3,315 (1.3 percent) were administratively closed — but 92,081 (36.2 percent), the largest single category of IJ asylum decisions, were ones in which the claim was “abandoned”.

So actually, based on these figures, fewer than 3% of asylum applicants this fiscal year received the asylum they requested. That’s how few of the applicants were able to prove in court that they truly needed asylum. Many illegal aliens also abuse the asylum process to try to obtain work authorization, after which they never show up in court again, Arthur warned.

In short, if there is a record high of asylum denials, it is because the Biden administration encouraged excessive and widespread abuses, and the Trump administration now has to restore the integrity of the asylum process.

Read more …

“Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.”

• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)

At first glance, it looks almost silly. Here we have two countries sharing the world’s longest undefended border, deeply intertwined economies, decades of trade agreements, and an enormous volume of commerce crossing back and forth every single day. Surely, one might think, reasonable adults could sit down and work this out over a Tim Hortons double-double. But, see, that’s the problem with looking at this purely as a spat over tariffs. It isn’t about tariffs at all. It’s about leverage — and Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.


Here’s the inconvenient math sitting underneath the whole argument. According to current GDP data, the U.S. economy runs about $30.8 trillion, against Canada’s roughly $2.3 trillion. That’s not a rival negotiating across the table — that’s a difference of about $28.5 trillion, which means Canada isn’t negotiating with a comparably sized economy. It’s negotiating with one more than 13 times its size, and acting surprised when the bigger guy gets to set the terms.

Then there’s energy, where the gap gets even more embarrassing for Ottawa. The United States produced a record 13.6 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2025, the most any country has ever pumped, and also hit a record 39 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — America has been the world’s largest natural gas producer since 2011 and isn’t giving that title back. Canada’s oil sands are a genuinely valuable resource. The trouble, from Ottawa’s side of the table, is that Washington already has plenty of its own.

And Canada still can’t quit the American market even if it wanted to: in 2025, the U.S. imported 3.9 million barrels a day of Canadian crude, making America overwhelmingly Canada’s dominant customer. Canadian oil matters to the United States. The United States is Canada’s oil industry, full stop. That’s not a negotiation between equals — that’s a landlord reminding a tenant who holds the lease. Carney might try to shut that oil off, but it’s a surefire way to make Alberta the 51st state, which he can ill afford.

Then there’s the part of this fight Washington has been increasingly willing to say out loud: Canada’s approach to government spending, immigration, and social policy. The Trump administration has argued that Canada’s expansive government and rapid population growth eventually become someone else’s problem — namely, the strained housing market, the overloaded infrastructure, and the public services buckling under the weight.

Before anyone waves that off as typical American bluster, it’s worth pointing out that Ottawa has been saying the same thing about itself. Canada’s own government has acknowledged the pressure population growth put on housing and social services, which is precisely why it’s now slashing its own targets — permanent residency holds flat at 380,000 a year through 2028, while temporary-resident arrivals get cut from 2025’s 673,650 down to 385,000 next year and 370,000 the two years after, with the explicit goal of getting the temporary population under 5% of the country by the end of 2027. Trump didn’t write that policy memo. Carney’s own government did.


And the numbers behind it are genuinely striking. According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 Census, 26.4% of the population was first-generation — born outside Canada — and another 17.6% was second-generation, meaning Canadian-born with at least one foreign-born parent. Add those together and you land at roughly 44% of the country having an immediate immigrant connection. That’s not a talking point. That’s the census.

None of which means immigration itself is the villain here — Canada was built by it, and immigrants contribute to the economy. The actual question is whether the rate and mix of that growth can be reconciled with housing, infrastructure, employment, and a social safety net that has to be paid for by someone. Even Ottawa seems to have concluded the honest answer, for now, is “not at the pace we were running it.” Gee, guys, welcome to reality. You might start by noticing what others have noted from afar: the huge percentage of these immigrants are dependent on large social support outlays.

Even the OECD’s own 2025 economic survey of Canada — an organization not exactly known for MAGA sympathies — flags weak business investment and a widening productivity gap between Canada’s best firms and everyone else as structural problems, not passing headwinds. And that’s where this whole trade fight starts making a lot more sense.

The United States walks in with the world’s largest economy, record domestic energy production, a massive consumer market, and an industrial base most countries would trade their currency reserves for. Canada walks in with real resources, a well-educated population, a serious industrial economy, and one very good card: energy and commodities the U.S. genuinely wants. That’s a relationship worth keeping. It just isn’t a relationship between equals, and pretending otherwise, as Carney seems bent on doing, doesn’t change the scoreboard.

Maybe that’s the part some people in Ottawa are struggling to swallow. It isn’t that Washington discovered some secret new lever to pull. It’s that Washington has always had this much leverage, simply by virtue of being what it is. When one side shows up with a $30.8 trillion economy, record energy output, and a consumer market Canadian exporters can’t afford to lose, and the other side shows up with a $2.3 trillion economy that depends heavily on access to that exact market, the interesting question isn’t why Washington thinks it can ask for concessions. It’s why anyone in Ottawa, Carney in particular, assumed it couldn’t.

Sometimes the uncomfortable part of a negotiation isn’t finding out the other guy is bluffing. It’s finding out he isn’t — and that he’s been holding the better hand the entire time. That’s the position Carney finds himself in just now. The reality is Carney doesn’t have nearly the cards he’d like Canadian voters to believe he does. I’ve already pointed out the leftist proclivities Carney harbors.

Before becoming PM, Carney sat on the board of Canada 2020, a think tank Maclean’s has called the outfit that effectively runs Liberal Party policy behind closed doors, with documented ties to Obama-world Democrats and access to Soros Open Society funding streams. More recently, Carney delivered the closing keynote at a closed-door Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto, sharing a stage with Barack Obama, Alex Soros — George’s son, now chairman of OSF — John Podesta, Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin.

Every critter listed in that paragraph considers Trump an enemy. No serious analysis of Carney’s actions would be complete without acknowledging this. Carney has run on standing up to America and particularly standing up to President Trump. The trouble for Carney is that he simply hasn’t got the leverage to do that. It’s time for either Carney to grow up and face reality, or for Canadian voters to remove him. Preferably the latter.

Read more …

Painful.

• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)

In this episode from Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd she takes a look at the U.S. economy and the Main Street policies of President Trump versus the banking/Wall Street Canadian economy. In the August jobs report the U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs, while the Canadian August jobs report reflected 42,000 job losses.


Boyd – “A blockbuster U.S. jobs report showing 162,000 jobs created is contrasted with Canada’s 40,000 job loss under Mark Carney, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tells Steve Bannon that Wall Street and major outlets like the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal stoke economic panic and spread “fake news,” citing a misframed story about Norway’s sovereign wealth fund shifting from Treasuries into higher-yield Fannie and Freddie securities.

This episode frames today’s challenge as a “Red Queen economy,” arguing America must grow productivity fast enough to outrun debt, China’s advances, and infrastructure and skills obsolescence, while blaming Biden-era inflation and spending. It spotlights Trump administration workforce initiatives, including expanded training and Pell Grant use and the new Foundry School—an advanced manufacturing program with a Stanford curriculum and international PAX Silica partners. Finally, it covers Trump executive orders aiding ranchers’ beef processing and DOJ antitrust scrutiny of major meatpackers and retailers.”

Read more …

No more people in armies, but robots.

• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

In Part 2 of this interview, economic cycle expert Martin Armstrong breaks down the immediate impact of the Fed’s latest operations on precious metals, the underlying drivers of the market, and why he projects gold’s long-term macro peak won’t arrive until 2032. Plus, Armstrong shares insights on the shift toward autonomous warfare, including the military’s development of 100,000 robotic soldiers, and why traditional AI still falls short of human curiosity.


Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

  One Response to “Debt Rattle September 7 2026”

  1. ₿oogaloo says:
    September 7, 2026 at 9:33 am

    I’ve been away from TAE for the summer. More time in the sun. More time getting grounded. More time away from the madness of our politics. I feel much better now.

    I’ve been a reader since the post-2008 era. Back then the site was irreplaceable: well-sourced aggregation, rigorous debate, and a community that engaged with ideas rather than performed allegiance to them. The quality of discourse back then attracted serious discussion, and the comment sections often taught me as much as the linked articles. That was true during Covid too.

    But something shifted after that, and I am not the only one to notice it.

    Over the past couple of years, the vibe has changed dramatically. Where there used to be substantive disagreement and discussion — the kind that sharpens thinking — there’s now a lot of what feels like agenda-driven repetition rather than exploration. The signal-to-noise ratio has inverted. Original essays are gone. Several contributors whose voices I most respected have gone silent or disappeared entirely. The comments section, once the site’s real value-add, has become a place to repost video links, usually with no comment, sometimes even before the video has gone active on Youtube.

    What are we to make of the August 16 post titled “The State of TAE August 2026”? Ilargi says that the site cannot generate any Google ad revenue and is therefore supported by users. But what does that mean? Who is supporting the site? Are Dr D, John Day and Michael Reid keeping the lights on? If I did not know better, judging solely from the recurring thematic content over the last year, I might have guessed that support was coming from a source like Elon Musk, AIPAC and/or Zionist MAGA Superpac.