The Automatic Earth

Jean-Michel Basquiat Warrior 1982

I grew up in the biz – my dad produced Independence Day, my mom worked on Seinfeld. I've seen firsthand what it costs to create worlds on screen. This video from the @thedorbrothers below is mind-blowing.

Software is going through the same shift right now. Writing code is no… https://t.co/U1ecogLzqa

— Matt Van Horn (@mvanhorn) February 16, 2026

Ray Dalio just warned everyone…

America is going broke.

Hyperinflation is coming and it’s coming faster than anyone is prepared for.

This is not a drill. pic.twitter.com/uqjDQies4C

— Bark (@barkmeta) February 17, 2026

Ray Dalio just released 500 years of data showing exactly how empires collapse.

His conclusion? America is in Stage 6 of 9.

The dangerous stage.

Here's what his math actually says about where we're headed:

Dalio studied every major empire collapse since 1500.

Dutch. British.… pic.twitter.com/tYDzM5WoFt

— Logan Weaver (@LogWeaver) February 16, 2026

Ray Dalio wrote a long piece. Part of his thesis is that China is ascendant versus US.

Nowhere in his analysis does he mention demographics and the issues China are facing.

In our China report we show that GDP priced in dollars for China was 80% of US in 2019. Today it’s 60%.… pic.twitter.com/kbK4e6UsjL

— Edward Dowd (@DowdEdward) February 16, 2026

Kevin O’Leary says the quiet part out loud about what Secretary Rubio’s speech meant in Munich:

“You’re either with us — or you’re not.”

O’Leary then laid out the nightmarish dystopian future if China were to win global dominance.

This was a direct warning to all of Europe.… pic.twitter.com/JE7WkkZDw0

— Overton (@overton_news) February 16, 2026

Will AI command the military?

• Anthropic–Pentagon Talks Stall Over AI Guardrails (ZH)

Contract renewal talks between Anthropic and the Pentagon have stalled over how its Claude system can be used. The AI firm is seeking stricter limits before extending its agreement, according to a person familiar with the private negotiations and Bloomberg. At the heart of the dispute is control. Anthropic wants firm guardrails to prevent Claude from being used for mass surveillance of Americans or to build weapons that operate without human oversight. The Defense Department’s position is broader: it wants flexibility to deploy the model so long as its use complies with the law. The tension reflects a larger debate over how far advanced AI should go in military settings.

Bloomberg writes that Anthropic has tried to distinguish itself as a safety-first AI developer. It created a specialized version, Claude Gov, tailored to U.S. national security work, designed to analyze classified information, interpret intelligence and process cybersecurity data. The company says it aims to serve government clients while staying within its own ethical red lines. “Anthropic is committed to using frontier AI in support of US national security,” a spokesperson said, describing ongoing discussions with the Defense Department as “productive conversations, in good faith.” The Pentagon, however, struck a firmer tone. “Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight,” spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the relationship is under review and emphasizing troop safety.

Some defense officials have grown wary, viewing reliance on Anthropic as a potential supply-chain vulnerability. The department could ask contractors to certify they are not using Anthropic’s models, according to a senior official—an indication that the disagreement could ripple beyond a single contract. Rival AI developers are watching closely. Tools from OpenAI, Google and xAI are also being discussed for Pentagon use, with companies working to ensure their systems can operate within legal boundaries. Anthropic secured a two-year Pentagon deal last year involving Claude Gov and enterprise products, and the outcome of its current negotiations could influence how future agreements with other AI providers are structured.

“.. a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620.”

• Behind the Burnout and High Turnover Rates in the AI Industry (ET)

Across the artificial intelligence (AI) supply chain, insiders describe a precarious, high-turnover workforce with limited support and stability. This “invisible” human labor that labels data, evaluates outputs, and filters harmful material has become a revolving door of talent that navigates high-pressure gigs and burnout. Moreover, workers and industry experts say this talent churn can degrade the very AI models that workers are paid to improve. Across the board, workers who are hired to support, evaluate, or operationalize AI systems face similar challenges: high-stress environments that often involve complex tasks, unrealistic timelines, job instability, and low wages.

It’s no secret that the tech industry has long suffered from high turnover rates. Numbers vary, but many studies put the average rate of talent churn in the tech sector at between 13 percent and 18 percent. This becomes clear when considering the cost of replacing tech talent, which can be up to 150 percent of a worker’s salary, including recruitment expenses, onboarding time, productivity losses, and effects on customer relationships.Some have said that the loss of institutional knowledge alone makes worker retention critical. “People love to talk about the ‘magic’ of AI, but the work culture behind it is a meat grinder. I’ve seen talent turnover in model evaluation hit record highs because the work is repetitive and psychologically draining,” Barry Kunst, vice president of marketing at Solix Technologies, told The Epoch Times.

“When you lose a lead researcher to churn, you don’t just lose a body; you lose the ‘why’ behind the model’s safety guardrails.” Kunst said this is why he’s adamant about AI workforce stability, which he said correlates directly with model reliability. “If you’re rotating contractors every six months to keep labor costs low, your data governance will fail, period,” he said.Sovic Chakrabarti, the director of digital marketing agency Icy Tales, told The Epoch Times: “Team turnover is more common than people expect. “In some groups, especially those tied to model training, evaluation, or data labeling pipelines, churn can happen every few months.

“Short contracts, project-based funding, and constant reorganization mean people cycle in and out quickly.” Chakrabarti said he has worked on the development and support side of AI systems long enough to see patterns that, as he put it, “rarely make it into public discussions.” “That [workforce] churn absolutely leads to lost knowledge,” he said. “Important context about why a dataset was filtered a certain way, why a safety rule exists, or why a model behaved oddly in testing often lives in someone’s head. ”When that person leaves, documentation rarely captures the full story, according to Chakrabarti. “New hires inherit systems without understanding the original tradeoffs, which can quietly introduce risks,” he said.

Burnout rates among information technology workers are high. LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025 found that 22 percent of the 617 polled engineering leaders and developers felt critically burned out at work. An additional 24 percent of respondents reported feeling “moderately” burned out, while 33 percent reported low levels of burnout. Some of this is driven by job security fears after two years of layoffs at big tech companies, but the pay for many of the workers fueling the AI revolution is often low. The Alphabet Workers Union, Communications Workers of America, and TechEquity led a study on the working conditions of U.S.-based data workers and found conditions similar to those of tech contractors in developing countries.

In a survey of 160 U.S. data workers, 86 percent worried about being able to pay their bills, and 25 percent relied on public assistance to get by. The same group reported a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620. Eighty-five percent of the study group said they’re expected to be “on call” for work, but only 30 percent reported being paid for that time. More than a quarter of respondents reported spending more than eight hours per week on call. “If there’s anything I wanted the general public to know, it is that there are low paid people [in the United States] who are not even treated as humans—just little more than employee ID numbers—out there making the 1 billion dollar, trillion dollar AI systems that are supposed to lead our entire society and civilization into the future,” Kirn Gill II, a search quality rater working on Google products at Telus, told the Communications Workers of America.

Chakrabarti said the work culture behind AI fuels these challenges. “There is real pressure to keep labor costs low,” he said. “I have seen unrealistic timelines, understaffed teams, and expectations to ‘do more with less’ while the stakes keep rising. That tension creates stress, especially when the systems affect millions of users.”

“.. the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.”

• Bill Clinton Just Got Brutally Dissed By His Own Party (Matt Margolis)

The Democratic Party put together a Presidents’ Day tribute on social media that snubbed one of their most electorally successful presidents in modern history. Bill Clinton, the guy who won two terms and left office with a 66% approval rating, got left out of the party’s official image like the creepy uncle no one wants to sit next to at Thanksgiving dinner. The post from the Democrat Party’s official X account showed a “Happy Presidents’ Day” collage featuring JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, FDR, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Notice anyone missing? The only Democrat presidents they skipped were Clinton and Harry Truman. You could probably argue that to today’s Democrat Party, all old white men look alike, but Clinton is still quite active in the party, and probably should have been included.

Naturally, the RNC pounced, retweeting the Democrats’ post with a photo of Clinton sitting next to Hillary, both looking appropriately concerned. “Forget someone again??” the caption reads. It’s the kind of burn that lands because everyone knows something weird is happening here. Fox News Digital reached out to the DNC to ask whether leaving Clinton out was intentional, but they didn’t receive an answer. The Clinton Foundation didn’t respond either. That silence speaks volumes when your own party features Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden—two presidents who collectively gave America stagflation, hostage crises, the Afghanistan disaster, and 40-year-high inflation—yet can’t find room for the guy they used to credit with balancing the budget. However, that was technically Newt Gingrich who did that. So, why did Bill get dissed? Fox News Digital offers a theory.

“Clinton, one of the most popular presidents in recent history, was not without his share of scandal. The late Kenneth Starr investigated Clinton for connections to a controversial 1978 land deal in the Ozarks nicknamed “Whitewater” dating to Clinton’s time as Arkansas attorney general. While Clinton was never charged with wrongdoing, Arkansas business partners Jim and Susan McDougal were convicted in connection with the failed Whitewater deal. Hillary Clinton had previously worked for the law firm that represented Jim McDougal’s bank. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton’s successor, was also convicted. But the Whitewater case led Starr to discover what became the Monica Lewinsky scandal — wherein Clinton allegedly had a sexual relationship with a White House intern. On January 26, 1998, Clinton famously maintained his innocence in the face of impeachment over Starr’s case, declaring at the end of a childcare policy press conference:”

Not buying that. If presidential scandals were enough to warrant exclusion from the image, Barack Obama would never have made it. Many on social media speculate it has something to do with the fact that Clinton’s name appears all over the Epstein files. He flew on Epstein’s private jet at least 16 times between 2001 and 2003. Recently released documents include photos of Clinton with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including one showing a shirtless Clinton in a hot tub with someone identified by the DOJ as a victim of Epstein’s abuse.

Missing someone? pic.twitter.com/Wxp1drXQ47

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 16, 2026

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton recently agreed to testify before Congress about their relationship with Epstein after facing potential criminal contempt charges. Sure, they claim House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is employing dirty tricks. Still, when your party won’t even put your picture on a Presidents’ Day card, the only possible explanation is that the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.

Happy Presidents’ Day, Bill.

“The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

• The Obama Admin’s Prostitution Scandal And The Ruemmler-Epstein Connection (ZH)

Remember Obama’s 2012 Colombian prostitution scandal? Turns out, Jeffrey Epstein was involved… Newly released Department of Justice documents from the Epstein files have exposed a previously unknown connection between a 2012 White House advance-team scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, and Kathryn Ruemmler – the former Obama White House counsel who later became Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer. Ruemmler resigned from Goldman late last week, after the latest Epstein document dump revealed her extensive, affectionate, and years-long correspondence with the convicted sex offender.

The emails show she called him “Uncle Jeffrey,” accepted expensive gifts, and turned to him for advice on sensitive legal and reputational matters – including how to respond to a 2014 Washington Post report that accused her of helping suppress evidence of prostitution involving a rich kid White House aide whose daddy was a huge Obama donor. The WaPo report, by all accounts, cost Ruemmler a job as Obama’s Attorney General.

The 2012 Cartagena Prostitution Scandal
In April 2012, ahead of President Obama’s trip to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, at least 20 Secret Service agents, military personnel, and others were involved in hiring prostitutes. The scandal led to multiple firings and disciplinary actions. A lesser-known element involved Jonathan Dach, a 25-year-old Yale Law student and unpaid White House advance-team volunteer (son of prominent Democratic donor Leslie Dach). Hotel records obtained by investigators showed a prostitute was checked into Dach’s room at the Hilton Cartagena shortly after midnight on April 3, 2012.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan briefed White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on the evidence. The White House conducted a review, interviewed advance-team members (including Dach), and publicly declared “no indication of any misconduct” by White House personnel. Dach was later cleared and went on to work at the State Department. More recently, Dach was found to have ‘chronically violated state rules’ in his role as former chief of staff to Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) by using a state vehicle as his personal car for nearly two years “and driving at speeds constituting reckless driving under Connecticut law.”

The 2014 Washington Post Revival and Ruemmler’s Response
In October 2014, while Ruemmler was in private practice at Latham & Watkins and reportedly under consideration to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General – WaPo published new details. Reporters Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura revealed that the White House had received specific evidence (hotel records and witness accounts) implicating a White House advance-team member but had not fully investigated or disclosed it. On October 9, 2014, Epstein emailed Ruemmler: “Doing fine. Was talking to reporters until late in the morning last night. Trying to isolate/contain wapo.”mOn October 17, 2014, Ruemmler forwarded Epstein a draft of her response to the Post reporter and asked for his input. In the draft she downplayed the allegations, writing:

“The whole thing is ridiculous – they had to obtain the record ‘under the table’ because the last thing the Hilton wanted to do is to voluntarily give over info implicating the privacy of their guests. The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

“When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?“

• Aliens Are ‘Real’ – Obama (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama has said he believes that aliens are “real” but dismissed longstanding conspiracy theories that the US is concealing proof of extraterrestrial life at a secretive military facility called Area 51. Obama made the remarks on the No Lie podcast with Brian Tyler Cohen released on Saturday. Asked whether aliens “are real,” the ex-president replied in the affirmative, adding “I haven’t seen them, and they’re not being kept in Area 51.” “There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States,” he added.

When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?” Area 51 is a highly classified US Air Force facility at Groom Lake in southern Nevada. The CIA officially acknowledged the site’s existence in 2013, when declassified documents revealed it had been used since 1955 to test the U-2 spy plane and other experimental aircraft. The facility’s secrecy sparked decades of speculation about extraterrestrial research, including theories that crashed alien spacecraft were stored there and that it was a venue for meetings with extraterrestrials. There have been a few UFO sightings in the area, but the CIA claimed they were test flights of the U-2 spy plane.

However, conspiracy theories have also been fueled by hundreds of alleged UFO sightings elsewhere. Pentagon officials told Congress in May 2022 that there were nearly 400 reports of unidentified aerial phenomena by military personnel, up from 144 tracked between 2004 and 2021. In 2024, the Pentagon stressed, however, that it had “no evidence to indicate extraterrestrial life has visited the planet.” Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said that he was not a “believer” in extraterrestrial life, adding, though, that he had met with “serious people that say there’s some really strange things that they see flying around out there.”

“..a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.”

• Zelensky Launches F-bomb Laden Rant In Munich (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky delivered a profanity-laden tirade urging Western countries to expel Russian citizens, including students.Speaking to Politico Playbook on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference Saturday, Zelensky called on US President Donald Trump and European leaders to ramp up sanctions against Moscow.“Europeans still didn’t put sanctions on nuclear energy of Russians, on [the state-run energy company] Rosatom, on people, on their relatives, on their children which live in Europe, which live in the United States, which study in the universities of Europe, which have real estate in the United States,” Zelensky said. “So, they have a lot of real estate, they have children, relatives everywhere. F**k away to Russia. Go home,” he added.

Zelensky’s remarks come as the US, Russia, and Ukraine prepare for a third round of three-way talks in Geneva. Moscow has criticized measures targeting Russian nationals and cultural “cancellation” abroad as Russophobia. The trip also comes amid a conscription crisis and ongoing blackouts in Ukraine caused by Russian air strikes, which Russia says aim to weaken Ukraine’s defense production. Zelensky’s reputation has been tarnished by multiple corruption scandals involving his inner circle, prompting the resignation of two government ministers and his longtime chief of staff. On Monday, anti-corruption agencies charged former Energy Minister German Galushchenko with money laundering linked to a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.

Very correct: “Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.”

• The War Party Takes Munich (Kosachev)

This year’s Munich Security Conference was not merely disappointing; it was pointless. It produced no new ideas and no added value. Instead, it resembled a rally of a self-styled “coalition of the willing” for war. That, unfortunately, is consistent with Germany’s long tradition of failing to draw the right lessons from history. Western European leaders spoke almost exclusively about rearmament and the creation of an independent military capability aimed, openly or implicitly, at confrontation with Russia. The tone was unmistakable: preparation for war, not peace. At the same time, participants repeated the familiar mantra that “more must be done” to ensure Ukraine’s victory. The contradiction went largely unnoticed. What emerged instead was a disturbing impression that Western Europe’s war party has overwhelmed everything else, including common sense and the instinct for self-preservation.

There was something unsettlingly familiar about the atmosphere. One could not help recalling Germany in the spring of 1945, when defeat was inevitable yet resistance continued with fanatical intensity, sustained by fantasies of miracle weapons. In Munich itself, Bavarian Gauleiter Paul Giesler crushed an attempted surrender on April 28, 1945 by executing Wehrmacht officers and civilians who wanted to hand the city over to the Americans without a fight. Hitler rewarded this “loyalty” by appointing Giesler interior minister the day before his own suicide. Within days, Giesler shot his wife and then himself. History rarely repeats itself neatly, but it often rhymes, and Munich echoed loudly this year.

On stage, European figures such as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, alongside American voices like Senator Roger Wicker, openly called for supplying Ukraine with ever more advanced weapons, including Tomahawk missiles, described with an alarming casualness as if it were a modern “wunderwaffe.” The old refrain was repeated yet again: Ukraine can win, but Russia is also poised to attack NATO. This logical contradiction has become a permanent feature of Western discourse.

Washington, for its part, played along. But cautiously. This time, it sent the ‘good cop’: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in contrast to last year’s ‘bad cop’, J.D. Vance. Gone were the blunt warnings about Western Europe’s inevitable collapse if it stayed the course. Instead came soothing assurances of American support and solidarity. Yet the underlying message remained unchanged: without the United States, the EU cannot survive. The transatlantic alliance was not restored; it was merely cosmetically repaired. Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.

Germany, meanwhile, declared its readiness to rearm and assume leadership of the Western slice of Europe in a new confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, Emmanuel Macron cautiously signalled that the bloc must eventually negotiate with Russia. Albeit, if only to avoid being excluded altogether while talks proceed in a Russia-Ukraine-US format. He even floated extending the French and British nuclear umbrella to other NATO members. In other words, “all quiet on the Western Front.” Once again, the conclusion is unavoidable: there is little to be gained from dialogue with this EU. And furthermore, one is reminded why it was precisely “civilized” and “enlightened” Europe that became the cradle of the two most devastating wars in human history.

Equally telling were the subjects that never surfaced. Talk of corruption in Ukraine, or of where Western funds are going, or when accountability will begin, was absent. So too was the fate of Venezuela’s leadership and the precedent set for international law. Iran was barely mentioned, despite last year’s US-Israeli military actions and the obvious risks of escalation. Even Greenland appeared only in whispered conversations offstage. Why complicate matters, when invoking the Russian threat remains the safest and most reliable option? That, in essence, is all one needs to know about this year’s Munich Conference. A forum with a promising youth and a respectable maturity, now drifting toward ideological exhaustion.

“Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.”

• The US Wants a Deal. Russia Wants a System (Lukyanov)

After last August’s meeting between the Russian and American presidents in Alaska, a new phrase entered diplomatic circulation: the “spirit of Anchorage.” The substance of the talks was never officially disclosed and can only be reconstructed from selective leaks. The form, however, was striking: a personal greeting, an honor guard, a shared limousine. Symbolism mattered. It was meant to signal seriousness. Yet the question remains: what exactly was born in Anchorage? And does it belong in the lineage of earlier diplomatic “spirits” that once defined entire eras? The term itself is not new. Before Anchorage, there was the “spirit of Yalta,” the “spirit of Helsinki,” and, briefly, the “spirit of Malta.”

All three marked turning points in relations between the great powers during the second half of the twentieth century. Yalta in 1945 laid the foundations of the post-war world order, recognizing the USSR and the United States as its central pillars. Helsinki in 1975 codified that order, even as it quietly set the stage for its eventual erosion. Malta in 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War and, with it, the division of Europe.These meetings differed in format and outcome. Yalta brought together three victorious powers dividing spheres of influence. Helsinki was the product of prolonged multilateral negotiations designed to stabilize a tense status quo. Malta was a bilateral encounter that effectively ratified the retreat of one side under the banner of a “new world order.” But they shared one defining feature: each sought to determine the parameters of the international system itself.

Does Anchorage belong in this tradition? Formally speaking, the Alaskan talks focused on Ukraine. That immediately raises a fundamental question. How realistic is it to reach a durable settlement without the direct participation of one of the warring parties? Such an approach is only viable if one of the interlocutors, in this case the United States, is both willing and able to compel Kiev to accept decisions taken without it. Events since August suggest that Washington lacks this capacity, despite its considerable leverage. A more convincing explanation, however, is that it lacks the motivation. Donald Trump has made resolving the Ukrainian conflict a matter of personal prestige. But prestige is not the same as strategic necessity. For Trump and the narrow circle around him, the precise configuration of a settlement matters less than the avoidance of an outright Russian victory. Beyond that, the exact line of demarcation, and the conditions under which it is maintained, are not critical.

The United States would only deploy the full weight of its political and economic power if it perceived these negotiations as shaping a new world order. That was the case at Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta. It is not the case today. Moscow, by contrast, has invested Anchorage with precisely this broader meaning. From the very beginning of the military operation, Russia has framed the conflict not primarily in territorial terms, but as a question of European security architecture. Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.

Today, this is often described as the question of “security guarantees for Ukraine.” In reality, it concerns the broader system within which such guarantees would exist. This may ultimately prove the most serious obstacle to any agreement. Washington’s approach is different. The current American administration does not think in terms of comprehensive frameworks or shared rules. Its vision of world order is far more fragmented and instrumental. Control is exercised through economic pressure, military presence, and political leverage applied selectively to specific regions and problems. It is a model of targeted intervention rather than systemic design. A kind of forceful acupuncture.

In this context, agreements are not about principles, but about transactions. They are designed to deliver concrete, often mercantile, outcomes rather than to establish enduring rules of interaction. Ukraine, from this perspective, is one issue among many, not the axis around which a new order would be built. If the goal is merely a political settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian-American format is insufficient. Ukraine itself would have to be involved, as would Europe. While Europe’s strategic weight is limited, it retains a significant capacity to obstruct any settlement it finds unacceptable. Ignoring this reality would be a mistake.

For the “spirit of Anchorage” to stand alongside Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta, it would need to aim higher: at the construction of a new global political system to replace the one that emerged after the Second World War and has endured, in various forms, for nearly 80 years. Washington does not see Moscow as a central interlocutor in such a project. At most, this role is tentatively assigned to China. However, even that is far from settled. As a result, the “spirit of Anchorage” hovers uneasily between two incompatible interpretations of what the conversation is actually about.

From the Russian perspective, it is about redefining the foundations of European and global security. From the American side, it is about managing a specific conflict without altering the broader architecture of power. When the parties are not even discussing the same subject, the risk is obvious. In such circumstances, the “spirit” inevitably fades, becoming less a guiding force than a rhetorical shadow. A ghost of an agreement that never quite came into being. Could this change? Possibly, but only if events intervene that force both sides to move beyond regional calculations and confront the need for a more fundamental reordering. Until then, Anchorage remains suspended between ambition and reality, its promise unfulfilled.

Complex.

• The Middle East Is Splitting Into Rival Blocs (Sadygzade)

Across the globe, the post-Cold War settlement that once carried the promise of Western primacy is no longer taken as an unshakeable fact. Its vocabulary remains in circulation, yet real-time history continues to contest its authority. In the space left behind, many states are seeking a different idea of order, one that sounds less like instruction from a single center and more like negotiated balance among several centers. In such a moment, regions that were once treated as arenas begin to behave like authors. The Greater Middle East is one of the first places where this change is becoming visible as a messy strategic recomposition in which security is no longer outsourced and alliances are no longer assumed to be permanent.

For decades, a simple model dominated strategic thinking in the region. Washington would remain the ultimate guarantor, and regional states would calibrate their risks inside the umbrella of American deterrence. That model did not always prevent wars, but it provided a framework for expectation. Even when trust frayed, the underlying assumption was that the US could be induced to act, and that the cost of ignoring its interests would be prohibitive. In recent years, however, the region has experienced a succession of shocks that have made the old calculus feel less reliable.

One of the most dramatic was the Israeli strike in Doha in September 2025, an operation that pushed a long-simmering anxiety into the open by showing how quickly escalation could breach political red lines in the Gulf. If such an event could occur with only limited external restraint, then the notion of an automatic security backstop began to look like a story the region told itself rather than a guarantee the system could still deliver.

It was in this atmosphere that the Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, drew intense attention. It suggested that major regional players were preparing for a future in which protection would be organized through layered partnerships rather than delegated to a single patron. Analysts noted that the pact followed a pattern of disappointment with external responses, including perceptions of American restraint or hesitation when regional allies felt exposed. Whether the agreement functions as a hard war guarantee or as a strategic warning, it belongs to a wider movement in which states are building options.

Two emerging security configurations are now becoming visible across the Greater Middle East, and it is important to name their participants clearly. On one side, a prospective bloc is coalescing around Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Oman, with this core increasingly presented as a sovereignty-driven framework meant to reduce reliance on external guarantees and to deter destabilizing escalation, while Qatar, Algeria, and several other states observe this alignment with growing interest as a possible partner network rather than as a formal membership.

On the other side, a countervailing alignment is taking shape around Israel and the United Arab Emirates, whose partnership is reinforced by defense industrial cooperation and advanced technology collaboration, and whose strategic reach is further strengthened by Azerbaijan, which acts less as a conventional member than as a pivotal partner connecting overlapping networks because it maintains close ties to Türkiye while simultaneously sustaining deep security and energy links with Israel and expanding cooperation with Abu Dhabi.

” In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million.”

• In Defence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Charles Johnson)

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite. Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.

The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously. Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument.

The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here? The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century.

Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples.

Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair.

Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed.

Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country.

“The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. ”

• Trump DOJ Seeks To Dismiss Steve Bannon’s J6 Conviction and Indictment (JTN)

In a stunning reversal, the Trump Justice Department on Monday asked the Supreme Court and a federal judge to dismiss the criminal contempt indictment and conviction of Steve Bannon for refusing to testify in the January 6 investigation by Congress, declaring such a request is in the “interests of justice” after years of politically weaponized lawfare by Democrats. The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. “The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the nine justices, who were reviewing an appeal from Bannon’s lawyers.

“The government has accordingly lodged a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment with prejudice,” the motion also states The filing noted that the law “allows the government to seek dismissal even after a jury finds the defendant guilty and the district court enters judgment.” Separately, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Perro asked a federal judge in Washington D.C. to vacate Bannon‘s conviction and dismiss the indictment. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Just the News that the Democrat-led House January 6 Select Committee was part of a larger weaponization machine that abused the justice system.

“Today the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that Steve Bannon’s conviction arising from the J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena should be vacated,” Blanche said. “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” The request to the two courts to abandon Bannon’s case is the latest twist in a five-year legal saga. The Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena on Sept. 23, 2021, to Bannon demanding documents and testimony related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack.

Bannon, a private citizen, had been a policy adviser to President Donald Trump for approximately seven months in 2017. He declined to produce any documents, and the House voted the next month to hold him in contempt of Congress. On Nov. 12, 2021, federal prosecutors in the Biden administration secured a grand jury indictment against Bannon on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He was convicted and served time in prison.

“I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street..”

“He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand..”

• Trump’s Surpising Reaction to Jesse Jackson’s Death (Matt Margolis)

Jesse Jackson, the polarizing civil rights figure and race hustler, died Tuesday morning at age 84. Though his cause of death was not immediately shared, he had been previously diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder called progressive supranuclear palsy, which is reportedly similar to Parkinson’s disease. While the media will inevitably lionize him as a civil rights icon, Jackson’s legacy is far more complicated—marked by allegations of extortion, self-promotion, the notorious exaggeration of his role in the events surrounding Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, and his blatant attempts to be seen as King’s successor in the civil rights movement. You can read more about that in my colleague Rick Moran’s piece here.

President Donald Trump, who knew Jackson for decades before their political paths diverged, has weighed in on the controversial figure’s death with a lengthy and personal statement on Truth Social, reflecting on their long relationship. And it’s not at all what I expected. Last year, Trump’s reaction to the death of Rob Reiner and his wife was rather — well, let’s just say I wasn’t a fan of it. Naturally, I was expecting something similar about Jackson, and I was surprised to see it wasn’t like that at all. “The Reverend Jesse Jackson is Dead at 84,” Trump wrote. “I knew him well, long before becoming President.” He described Jackson as “a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” adding, “He was very gregarious – Someone who truly loved people!”

Trump also took aim at Jackson’s critics, noting, “Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way.” He detailed several ways he says he supported Jackson and causes important to him. “I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street,” Trump said. He also pointed to his criminal justice reform efforts, writing that he “Responded to [Jackson’s] request for help in getting CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM passed and signed, when no other President would even try.”

Trump further cited his administration’s record on historically black colleges and universities. He said he “Single handedly pushed and passed long term funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs), which Jesse loved, but also, which other Presidents would not do.” In addition, he noted that he “Responded to Jesse’s support for Opportunity Zones, the single most successful economic development package yet approved for Black business men/women, and much more.”

Calling Jackson “a force of nature like few others before him,” Trump also made a striking claim about Jackson’s political influence. “He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand,” Trump wrote. Trump concluded by offering condolences to Jackson’s loved ones. “He loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!”

“My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised.. ”

• Race Hustler or Civil Rights Icon? Jesse Jackson Dead At 84 (Rick Moran)

He was a con artist and a “race pimp.” He was an opportunist, a race hustler, and a corporate shakedown expert who enriched himself by using funds earmarked for “the cause” for his own personal gain. He was an admirer of notorious racist and virulent antisemite Louis Farrakhan.Jesse Jackson, who died on Tuesday at the age of 84, was all of that. He was also one of the greatest orators of the 20th century, a groundbreaking political figure, one of the best political strategists in American history, and a towering figure in local Chicago Democratic politics. You can’t look at Jesse Jackson as a one-dimensional stick figure. Like all humans, especially those who have left their mark on history, he was a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. You can’t simplify his sins or his enormous contributions to American politics. He was a force whose impact will be felt for generations.

There is no doubting Jesse Jackson’s impact on American history. He was the first “serious” black candidate for president in that he energized the base of the Democratic Party in a multi-racial coalition that forced the party to swing hard left. His grassroots coalition, known as “Operation Push,” was the most dynamic organization in the U.S. until a scandal brought it down.He was given the opportunity to speak in prime time in the 1984 and 1988 conventions despite finishing far behind Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the nomination race. Both speeches are considered among the finest convention speeches in American history. “My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised,” Mr. Jackson said at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. “They are restless and seek relief.”

“His transcendent rhetoric was inseparable from an imperfect human being whose ego, instinct for self-promotion, and personal failings were a source of unending irritation to many friends and admirers and targets for derision by many critics,” writes the New York Times. Prominent black social critic Stanley Crouch once said that Jackson “will be forever doomed by his determination to mythologize his life. That mythologizing began in earnest within minutes of the assassination of Martin Luther King in Memphis in 1968. While the rest of King’s inner circle was in shock, Jackson seized the moment, looking to wrest the mantle of “civil rights leader” from any of King’s close associates.

New York Times: “He was one of several aides who rushed toward Dr. King after he was shot. Later that night, Mr. Jackson hurried back to Chicago, parts of which were in flames in the unrest that followed the assassination. The next morning, he appeared on the “Today” show wearing the olive turtleneck sweater, blotted with blood, that he had worn the day before in Memphis. At a memorial convocation of the Chicago City Council that day, he declared, “I come here with a heavy heart because on my chest is the stain of blood from Dr. King’s head.” He added: “He went through, literally, a crucifixion. I was there. And I’ll be there for the resurrection.”

At least once publicly, he indicated that he was the last person to speak with Dr. King and that he had held his bloodied head as Dr. King lay dying. Others who were there said it never happened. Mr. Jackson’s account changed over time, from cradling Dr. King’s head to reaching toward it.If Mr. Jackson had been a figure of suspicion before, he became an object of outrage after Dr. King’s death. Some in Dr. King’s inner circle — including his eventual successor, Mr. Abernathy, and Hosea Williams, both of whom rushed to Dr. King when he was shot — questioned the accuracy of Mr. Jackson’s account and resented what they saw as his calculated grab to seize the spotlight as the First Mourner.

Over the decades, the story Jackson would tell about where he was and what he did during the assassination would go through several iterations. The storytelling revealed Jackson as a man desperate to be seen as King’s anointed successor. “If no one could replace Dr. King, Mr. Jackson was the one who spent most of his life trying,” writes the Times. It was never to be. Jackson couldn’t get out of the way of his own biases and racist dogmas. Where King reached out and begged for understanding, Jackson fueled the fires of racial division, while trying to claim he was a uniter, not a divider. His comments about New York City being “hymietown,” his friendship with Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan, and his insistence on being anywhere and everywhere a racial incident occurred in order to grab the spotlight and try to “racialize” the issue caused resentment and disgust among friend and foe alike. v

His “shakedowns” of corporate America, where he threatened companies with boycotts unless they adopted policies he prescribed (and donated cash to Operation PUSH), were outrageous and bordered on extortion. Jackson’s success as a political organizer was nothing short of astonishing. His 1988 presidential campaign was so successful that the Democrats were forced into trying to sideline him by putting up the white liberal governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis.

He tried again in 1988, and this time he began as a party heavyweight. In the Super Tuesday primary on March 8, he ran first or second in 16 of the 21 primaries and caucuses. Party leaders, fearing they could not win a general election with an assertively left-wing Black presidential candidate, desperately looked for an alternative. In the end, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts won the nomination, even though Mr. Jackson had earned almost seven million primary votes — 29 percent of the total.

No radical left candidate would come close to matching that total until Bernie Sanders in 2016. There is little doubt that Jesse Jackson was one of the primary personalities responsible for dragging the Democratic Party to the far left. Through his rhetoric and consummate organizing skills, Jackson made a huge impact on the Democratic Party and thus, on American history.

“Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. ”

• Regarding the Rev (Christian Josi)

We lost an icon today. While it wasn’t entirely shocking considering his health condition, it certainly shocked me and, I imagine, many of us. He was an icon. Fought for others his entire life. Was at Dr. Martin Luther King’s side as he was assassinated. Did amazing work through Rainbow PUSH. My children watched him when he appeared on Sesame Street and thought he was cool. He was cool indeed. Imperfect? Yes, but aren’t we all… I met and befriended him later in his life. I’ll get to that.

But first, an old memory. It was 1984, and he was running for president. I was in college, living with my mother in Redlands, Calif. There is a place called the Redlands Bowl, which is sort of like a local Greek Theater… an outdoor venue. My mom’s house was a mile away. While at the time I was not a fan, I heard his speech from my bedroom. That powerful voice. And it impressed the young me. That strong, passionate voice… As for the meeting and befriending, I’ve been a longtime conservative (now libertarian) activist, but I have always sought out friends on the other side. My best friend from the other side is Dr. Julianne Malveaux, whom I used to watch on tv and get pissed off at.

When I moved to Washington years ago, a mutual friend put us together, and we became instant pals. Her work and history impressed me. Whilst rarely on the same page ideologically, our passions matched. Passion is power. No one had more passion or power than The Rev. Dr. Malveaux invited me two years ago to his annual MLK Day breakfast event. Before it began, she took me backstage. JD Pritzker was there, other important people, but I didn’t care. I just wanted to see him. In the flesh.

And what a nice visit it was. I introduced myself, and he said, “I know who you are, Josi”… as he looked me straight in the eye and shook my hand tight. It was a moment I will never forget. That’s when he won my loyalty. I saw his soul. The soul was a beautiful one.The look in his eye… the unexpected respect. We are a diverse nation. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot afford to be unkind to one another. Jesse liked everyone, as I saw firsthand. Maybe didn’t always agree, but there was respect. That’s the point. It’s not at all about partisanship; it’s about decency. Respect. Keeping Hope Alive is not a joke. It’s a fact. Now more than ever.

Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. And I owe you as well. Thank you for changing my view, for influencing me, and for your work to make our nation better.

Too much conversation, not enough logic.

• Mr. Wonderful Destroyed CNN’s Anti-SAVE Act Narrative in 30 Seconds (Margolis)

Entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary was on CNN’s NewsNight Monday, where he wiped the floor with the panel over the SAVE Act. This bill does two simple things: It requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to vote. But you know how this goes — the usual suspects on the panel called it “voter suppression.” O’Leary cut through the noise with clean, clear logic, essentially making the point that it is stupid the United States hasn’t already implemented this before. Leigh McGowan, a podcaster you’ve probably never heard of, sparked the debate by declaring, “I think the thing is that the SAVE Act is a voter suppression act wrapped up as a Voter Protection Act. That is not what we’re doing here. We are trying to make it incredibly difficult for certain people to vote.”

She went on about “nationalized elections” and the “federal government taking over what is a state’s job,” invoking “states’ rights,” and lamenting that bills like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act had failed (even though those were actual efforts to nationalize elections). “What we’re doing here is not that,” she said. “We’re talking about having ICE around voting places. We’re talking about taking people and making them afraid.” That has nothing to do with the SAVE Act, but I digress.

Eventually, Kevin O’Leary stepped in and did what leftists dread: He brought up facts. “This narrative has to be bipartisan by every metric,” he began. “Every 24 months, we go through this debate over and over again when every country — in the Nordic countries, in Europe, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia — solved this problem decades ago.” He broke it down to the basics. “You’ve got to be a citizen to vote. You got to prove it. We all agree at the table on that one.”Then he landed the blow. “There’s such advancement in technology to make sure there’s no cheating. We should implement it here and get all this crapola over with. It’s getting almost boring. Every 24 months, ‘Oh, the election’s rigged!’ ‘Oh, this guy’s doing this, this guy’s doing that.’ No other country has this narrative.”

McGowan tried to defuse it with a half-joking concession. “Kevin, I agree with you. It is getting incredibly boring.” “It’s ridiculous,” O’Leary told her. McGowan, likely realizing the hole she’d dug, tried again: “We talk about this all the time. It’s incredibly boring. But it’s also not an actual problem. Like when you look at the statistics, voting — illegals voting — is not an actual problem in this country. You do need to show ID to be able to vote.”That’s not actually true. Only a handful of states actually require a photo ID to vote. Nevertheless, O’Leary replied, “But you agree, if you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote.” That forced McGowan into agreeing with the core principle of the SAVE Act. “I would agree with that,” she said, “but that’s not what the problem is.

The problem is that we have 0.001% of people that are illegally voting.” She rattled off statistics from the Heritage Foundation and the Brennan Center, trying to reduce the whole issue to a rounding error and claim that the SAVE Act is somehow unnecessary. Abby Phillip broke in again, perhaps realizing O’Leary had shifted the debate onto plain common sense. “It’s already illegal,” she reminded. McGowan echoed, “No one is doing that.”“So why don’t you just say if you cheat and steal and you’re illegal, you go to jail?” O’Leary asked. It’s a fair question. The left claims that fraudulent voting isn’t an actual problem, yet they fight like hell to ensure we don’t pass laws to enforce what they claim isn’t even happening. You can’t have it both ways.

Elon Musk warned them three years ago. Today the German government is finally admitting he was right!

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has officially labeled the decision to shut down Germany’s nuclear plants a 'huge mistake’. pic.twitter.com/yrb6REh0zt

— Mars University (@MarsUniversityX) February 16, 2026

THE WORLD ORDER IS OFFICIALLY DEAD

This shift will touch every single market from equities and bonds to real estate and crypto.

The Munich Security Conference just ended and the verdict is in. The post-1945 era is gone.

I spent the last few hours dissecting the "Under… pic.twitter.com/QkpYYskkzb

— Nonzee (@0xNonceSense) February 16, 2026

The smartest age in life may be 55 to 60 – not in your 20s.

Raw cognitive abilities, such as processing speed and memory, often peak early in life. Athletes typically hit their prime before 30, mathematicians make major breakthroughs by their mid-30s, and chess champions rarely… pic.twitter.com/vk7b0Pb7dM

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) February 16, 2026