Menu Icon

Debt Rattle September 11 2026

Sep 112026
 
 September 11, 2026  Posted by at 9:40 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  No Responses »


Roy Lichtenstein Femme d’Alger 1963


• Trump Floats $5,000 For Every US Adult Citizen If GOP Holds Congress (ZH)
• ‘The Greatest Evangelist for American Liberty,’ Charlie Kirk (Salgado)
• Tributes Pour in on Anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s Martyrdom (Salgado)
• European Leaders Trying To ‘Buy Time’ For Kiev With Ceasefire Calls – Lavrov (RT)
• ECB Raises Interest Rates to Avoid Settling Ukraine-Russia Conflict (CTH)
• Democrats Asked for It, and Trump and the GOP Delivered (Eric Florack)
• Bessent: ‘Nothing Else Matters’ If China Pulls Ahead of US in AI (ET)
• New Four-hour Elon Musk Documentary (BBC)
• The US Has Entered Stage 3 in the Trade War With Canada (Victor Davis Hanson)
• The Story of Slavery Told Correctly (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Jamaica Demands Answers On Slavery (Egountchi Behanzin)

 


 

 


 


“Stimmy” Checks?!

• Trump Floats $5,000 For Every US Adult Citizen If GOP Holds Congress (ZH)

During a speech Wednesday night at the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, President Trump proposed sending every adult American citizen a $5,000 “Trump dividend” if Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress in November. “If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them,” Trump said, “I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”bHe continued, “It will be called the Trump dividend,” adding, “Now all we have to do is win.”


Trump told the audience at the American Airlines Center: “Your vote will decide whether our country stumbles at the starting gate of our next 250 years or surges forward and never looks back.” nQuick math: A $5,000 payout to 270 million adults would cost the US government approximately $1.35 trillion. The proposal comes as US public debt surpassed $40 trillion for the first time in recent weeks.mBloomberg strategist Mark Cudmore warned that a large fiscal injection could intensify existing market pressures, including weaker Treasuries, dollar depreciation, and demand for commodities and other real assets.

“The general reaction from markets is very muted precisely as everyone sees almost zero chance of this happening. The US economy is strong and already at risk of running too hot, so pumping in so much extra fiscal stimulus when under funding pressure will exacerbate all the dynamics we’re already focused on in markets: weaker Treasuries, a depreciating dollar and a rush to commodities and real assets,” Cudmore said.

The proposal also arrives as Trump acknowledges that significant fuel-price relief may not come until after the midterms. The national average for gasoline remains above the politically sensitive $ 4-per-gallon level, while diesel prices are at record highs. Trump also indicated that the Iran conflict could continue beyond the elections. President Trump’s approval rating is around 38%, according to reporting by The Guardian.

Vice President JD Vance said that these proposed post-election direct payments to Americans could be funded by revenue from Trump’s wide-ranging tariff program.

Read more …

He gave Trump young America. And now?

• ‘The Greatest Evangelist for American Liberty,’ Charlie Kirk (Salgado)

Exactly a year ago today, an LGBTQ radical assassinated Charlie Kirk with one shot, taking away in a split second a man who could have been the next great leader of America’s Patriots for decades to come. At the Republican midterm convention, President Donald Trump paid tribute to Charlie, and the White House released a video in his honor.


The White House video combined clips of Charlie himself, including from that morning at Utah Valley University just before he died, along with clips from Charlie’s funeral and Trump‘s eulogy. “On that terrible day, Sept. 10, 2025, our greatest evangelist for American liberty became immortal; he’s immortal now for American freedom,” Trump had praised Kirk. Do we remember what Charlie stood for enough to carry on his legacy with enthusiasm and courage?


With his speeches and debates around the country from the time he was a teenager, Charlie Kirk was able to electrify young people in a way the most conservatives never have. “Do you know you are part of something bigger than yourself?” the White House clip of Kirk asked. “Do you know that you are part of the most exciting, diverse, powerful movement in the history of this country? This movement is about the citizens versus the oligarchs. This movement is about We the People versus the ruling class. This movement is about America versus the globalists. This movement is about all of us against them.”

Kirk loved the Biblical saying, “Here I am. It means, ‘Lord, use me.’ Abraham, at the binding of Isaac said, ‘Lord, here I am.’ Moses at the burning bush,… Samuel, Isaiah… It means, ‘give me the orders,’” he said. Erika Kirk has harkened back to this attitude of her husband’s and how he had offered himself to God, without realizing that he was going to be a martyr.

Trump made a point of honoring Charlie Kirk at the midterm convention on the evening of September 9, just before the anniversary of his death. “In Charlie’s honor, I just want to say we love you, Charlie, and Erika is here someplace,” Trump said, urging Charlie’s widow to stand up. The packed crowd gave Erika Kirk a standing ovation, and then broke out into chants of, “Charlie! Charlie!”


During the speech, Trump reflected, “It was actually one year ago tomorrow, a far-left extremist assassinated my great friend and conservative voice, Charlie Kirk, because Charlie Kirk spoke the truth.” And of course, it was precisely Kirk‘s success at what he did, and his unfailing charity in doing so, that made him such a promising candidate for president in the future and a particular target of leftist hatred. Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, and countless leftists celebrated the assassination because Kirk was too persuasive with the truth.


Trump referred to this reality. “What shocked millions of Americans was not only the fact that Charlie was murdered, as bad as it was, but also how many people made an excuse for it or cheered for it. They were cheering, some people, sick people. For a brief moment, the mask came off the radical left, and you saw what they were… all about. And now those same people are trying to get power over you in this election, and they are all voting Democrat.”

We cannot bring back Charlie Kirk, but we can try to continue the work that he began so successfully of bringing young people back to a love for country, faith, and family. Winning this midterm election is what Charlie would want, but it is only the beginning.

Read more …

9/11 commemoration turns into Charlie Kirk memorial.

• Tributes Pour in on Anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s Martyrdom (Salgado)

“One year ago, our nation witnessed pure evil when Charlie Kirk was taken from us,” Attorney General Todd Blanche declared September 10. But as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared, “I miss my friend, and I’ll honor him by never backing down… Charlie will never be forgotten.”


President Donald Trump paid tribute to Kirk both at the Republican midterm convention Wednesday night and in a video the White House released to “the greatest evangelist for American liberty.” Trump urged Americans to vote against the party that celebrated Kirk’s death. “It was actually one year ago tomorrow, a far-left extremist assassinated my great friend and conservative voice, Charlie Kirk, because Charlie Kirk spoke the truth,” the president emphasized. Many members of his administration also praised Charlie and mourned the anniversary of his death. Secretary of State Marco Rubio illustrated how he is trying to implement policies that would make Charlie proud.


HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote, “One year ago, a bullet silenced one of the most eloquent truth-tellers of our era. But it could not silence the principles Charlie Kirk stood for. Today, we honor Charlie’s devotion to God, to our country, and to the Constitution. We carry his legacy forward by summoning his best virtues in ourselves—and living with the courage, conviction, and faith that defined his life.” Similarly, Bishop Robert Barron praised Charlie‘s ability to see every human being as a beloved creation of God. Like the White House, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth used the biblical commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”


White House advisor Stephen Miller exclaimed, “Charlie was a beloved friend, an unflinching ally, and an indispensable warrior for America. He was murdered not only by an evil assassin but an entire ecosystem of far-left extremism that normalizes, justifies and glorifies violence against its political opponents. The success of America depends upon the dismantlement of these violent networks. As we grieve an unimaginable loss, we pledge ourselves to accelerate the work for which Charlie gave his very life. No one can remain on the sidelines when the stakes are so vast.”


One artist is honoring Charlie with a statue in New York City, and there is also a new statue of Charlie in Phoenix.


Charlie’s own Turning Point USA and his widow Erika released heart-breaking homages. “We have had to learn how to carry on without the person who was at the center of everything we do,” the TPUSA team said soberly. “We have celebrated milestones that Charlie should have been here to celebrate. We have stood on stages where his voice should have been heard. We have watched his children grow without their father there to see it. And we have felt the weight of his absence in ways that never seem to get easier.” Indeed, “For the people who knew and loved Charlie, September 10 will never simply be an anniversary. It is the day our lives were changed forever.”


The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro warned against conservatives splitting into hate-filled and conspiratorial factions, urging a united front against all the leftists celebrating “Kirkiversary.”

There were even international tributes. Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa posted, “A man of strong faith, a husband and a father, Charlie believed that political and ideological differences should be confronted through argument and democratic debate – never through hatred or violence… Charlie Kirk is no longer with us, but the values he stood for – freedom of expression, faith, courage and peaceful political debate – remain. They deserve to be defended.”

But the greatest tribute that any of us can ever give Charlie Kirk is to continue the work that he started and refuse to let the radical, godless left take over America.

Read more …

“Russia will not accept as a neighbor a nation ruled by a “Russophobic and aggressive neo-Nazi regime,” the top diplomat has said ..”

• European Leaders Trying To ‘Buy Time’ For Kiev With Ceasefire Calls – Lavrov (RT)

Zelensky and Finnish President Stubb, Kiev, Ukraine, August 24, 2026

European leaders calling for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict are seeking to preserve the government in Kiev in its current aggressive anti-Russian form, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Even politicians who acknowledge that Kiev cannot militarily retake the former Ukrainian regions that have joined Russia since 2014 and now advocate a truce are pursuing an agenda that threatens Russia and its citizens, the top diplomat said. Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Lavrov named Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as examples.


The proposed ceasefire “is also just a way to buy time, as everyone knows,” Lavrov said, adding that Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “makes no secret of that” as he seeks additional weapons supplies. mAccording to the Russian minister, the goal of this ploy is to preserve and keep in power “the regime currently ruling in Kiev,” whose defining traits he described as “Nazism, aggressive Russophobia, violations of human rights, language rights and religious freedom.” As for Europe, it wants to preserve that openly Russophobic and aggressive neo-Nazi regime. It is the European plan. I don’t see how the Russian people can accept this outcome.

Moscow’s objections to freezing the conflict remain unchanged, as does its opposition to proposals to deploy troops from NATO member states in Ukraine following a potential peace deal, Lavrov said. “Any people in military uniforms and any military facilities will be legitimate [targets] for us, and no scenario under which Ukraine will acquire NATO membership in all but name is acceptable to us,” he stressed.Lavrov was interviewed in Moscow by Russian-American television host Dimitri Simes and visiting US political commentator Andrew Napolitano, better known as Judge Napolitano, after his former role on the New Jersey Superior Court.

Read more …

Good observation. The EU blames Putin AND Trump. And it wants no ceasefire.

• ECB Raises Interest Rates to Avoid Settling Ukraine-Russia Conflict (CTH)

The European Central Bank raised interest rates a quarter of a percent claiming the effort will reduce energy prices. However, the primary cause of higher energy costs is energy policy not monetary policy. As you can see, Europe is blaming the Iran conflict, and by extension blaming President Trump for inflicting higher oil and gas prices. Yet in reality, it was the European decision to cut themselves off of Russian oil and gas that led to their massive price increases.


In essence, if you ask yourself how far the EU collective is willing to go in order to combat the fictitious threat represented by Russia’s conflict with non-EU state Ukraine, it appears there is no upper limit. Rather than assist in a resolution of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, they are willing to keep fueling the war and diminishing their own economy in the process. From the perspective of the welfare of the average European, none of this makes sense. This is bureaucratic ideology running amok.

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — The European Central Bank raised interest rates Thursday to cool inflation that is being fed by high oil prices from the Iran war. The decision was supported by a stronger-than-expected economy that suggests businesses can weather the higher borrowing costs. The central bank for the 21 EU member countries that use the euro currency raised its benchmark rate by a quarter percentage point to 2.50% at a meeting held in Berlin, away from the bank’s Frankfurt headquarters.

Bank President Christine Lagarde said at her news conference that “the conflict in the Middle East continues to generate inflation pressures, and inflation is set to remain well above target for an extended period.” “The outlook remains highly uncertain, with risks to the upside for inflation and to the downside for economic growth,” she said, adding that the bank would make future rate decisions meeting by meeting based on incoming data. She said the central bank would not commit to any particular path for rates before seeing the data. (read more)

It is ironic his announcement comes from Berlin as the German economy announces the loss of 100,000 auto workers while the EU Central Bank says, “a stronger than expected economy.” Ever the faithful leftist WEF member, Poland Prime Minister Donald Tusk notes that Poland is paying the highest energy prices in the world, but he faithfully supports the EU agenda. Because it’s Russia’s fault, and of course he does.

Read more …

“Stopping him from doing what, exactly?” That’s the question Democrats don’t want asked, because it’s where their whole strategy comes apart.”

• Democrats Asked for It, and Trump and the GOP Delivered (Eric Florack)

Ever the consummate showman, President Trump invented the concept of the midterm convention, and he stepped right in to headline it. But there’s a perfectly legitimate argument that Republicans should run on what they’ve actually accomplished rather than turning this election into another referendum on one man. I made exactly that argument myself, at column length, yesterday in the VIP article, “So, What Has Donald Trump Actually Accomplished?” (If you’re not a VIP member yet, why not?)


Elections ought to be about results, policy, and competing visions for the future — not another round of “Trump good” versus “Trump bad.” That’s the ideal. Unfortunately, politics doesn’t happen in the ideal. It happens in the real world, and every strategy has to survive contact with the reality surrounding it.

And here’s the reality Republicans can’t wish away: Democrats have already made Donald Trump the centerpiece. They’ve been doing it for over a decade. Since he first came down that escalator, Democrats and most of the institutional media have treated virtually everything in American life as somehow being about Donald Trump — his personality, his tweets, his speeches, his insults, his policies, his supporters, his opponents, his legal troubles, his victories, his defeats.

Did the cat hack up a hairball on your pillow while you were sleeping? Trump’s fault. Car won’t start? Trump’s fault. Kid brought home a report card that reads like a cry for help? Also, somehow, Trump’s fault. At this point, Democrats have done everything but formally rename the San Andreas Fault “Trump’s Fault.” For years, Democrats told voters, loudly and on an endless loop, that the defining issue facing the country is Donald Trump. They made him the issue. They made him the villain. They made him the explanation for everything they didn’t like.

They made him the explanation for everything that happened after he left office. They made him the explanation for everything that’s happened since he came back. bAnd now, having spent years insisting Donald Trump is an existential threat to the Republic, they apparently expect Republicans to politely agree that maybe we shouldn’t bring him up too much this fall? That’s adorable.

Sorry. That’s not how this works. Republicans can certainly choose to talk about something else — but that strategy has a fatal flaw: you don’t get to unilaterally decide what the other side’s campaign is about. If Democrats plan to spend the whole cycle talking about Trump (and obviously they do), pretending he isn’t part of the election just hands them the subject uncontested. Not answering them isn’t strategy. It’s surrender with better lighting.

There’s also a real difference between making Trump the centerpiece and simply recognizing that the opposition has already made him the centerpiece. Those aren’t nearly the same move. Republicans don’t have to make every speech about Trump. They don’t need his face on every mailer. They don’t need every candidate sounding like they were personally deputized by Trump to defend Western civilization before breakfast. But they do need to recognize the political battlefield they’re standing on.

The question isn’t whether Republicans should crown Donald Trump the centerpiece of the midterms. It’s whether they’re willing to fight on the battlefield that already exists — which is exactly what I did in yesterday’s column, and from what I saw, what they did last night, in Texas. If Democrats are going to campaign on stopping Trump, Republicans have every right, and frankly an obligation, to ask voters a simple follow-up: “Stopping him from doing what, exactly?” That’s the question Democrats don’t want asked, because it’s where their whole strategy comes apart.

It’s one thing to tell voters that Donald Trump is an awful human being, a threat to democracy, a fascist, a dictator-in-waiting, or whatever label happens to be trending that week. And as they’ve demonstrated, you don’t even need to have any proof of any of it. Simple repetition does the work. However, it’s an entirely different thing to explain why the actual policies voters are living under should be thrown out. Democrats have clearly demonstrated that they can’t do the second part. They’ve never had to — they’ve spent a decade coasting on the former.

Read more …

“There Is No Day After Tomorrow”; Bessent Warns Of Consequences To Losing AI Arms Race To China,

• Bessent: ‘Nothing Else Matters’ If China Pulls Ahead of US in AI (ET)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States cannot afford to fall behind China in artificial intelligence, warning that a Chinese lead would outweigh other U.S. advantages. “Beating China – there is no day after tomorrow if China wins at this,” Bessent said on Sept. 9 at Breitbart News’s “State of the Economy” event in Washington. “If they were to pull ahead of us on AI, then nothing else matters.” Bessent made the remarks while answering a question about opposition to data centers and the need to expand the infrastructure required for AI development.


On the same day, the National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and FBI issued a joint advisory accusing six China-based AI companies of conducting industrial-scale campaigns to extract capabilities from U.S. frontier AI models. The agencies named DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, Alibaba, MiniMax, StepFun, and Z.AI, saying the companies had extracted billions of tokens through millions of requests to frontier models including Claude, GPT, Gemini, and Grok since at least late 2024.

Agencies Detail Model Distillation
Knowledge distillation is a machine learning technique in which one model is trained using the outputs of another. The technique is commonly used legitimately, including to develop smaller or less expensive models. The advisory alleged, however, that the six companies engaged in “aggressive, malicious, and targeted” distillation at an industrial scale to extract restricted proprietary functions and capabilities from U.S. models. The NSA said the companies were systematically extracting U.S. model capabilities to train their own systems.

According to the advisory, the companies distributed their activity across model providers, cloud platforms, and other infrastructure to avoid detection. Some used third-party services to relay requests to U.S. models, allowing them to bypass geographic restrictions and other safeguards, the agencies said. The agencies assessed that the alleged activity took place “likely with Chinese government awareness.” The advisory did not state that Chinese authorities directed the individual campaigns.

It said DeepSeek had allegedly conducted an organized campaign since at least late 2024 to obtain reasoning capabilities, specialized optimizations, and other functions for use in its R1 and V3 models. The agencies also attributed large-scale distillation activity to Alibaba’s Qwen models and to models developed by the other four companies. The agencies said such activity could allow Chinese AI developers to narrow the technology gap while avoiding some of the computing power, electricity, foundational research, and other costs required to independently develop frontier models. The advisory stated that advances in Chinese AI models could also expand military and cyber capabilities.

Beijing rejected the allegations on Sept. 9. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said China’s AI development came from domestic technological development and international cooperation. The Sept. 8 advisory urged American AI companies and infrastructure providers to improve detection of suspicious activity and strengthen coordination across model developers, cloud providers, and application programming interface providers to counter large-scale distillation campaigns.

Earlier Warnings From US AI Companies
The federal advisory follows earlier accusations by American AI developers. Anthropic said in February that it had identified industrial-scale campaigns by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax involving more than 16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts. The accounts violated its terms of service and regional access restrictions, Anthropic said. It also said that while distillation is a legitimate training method, competitors can misuse it to acquire capabilities developed by other companies without bearing comparable development costs.

OpenAI separately told the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party in February that it had observed activity indicating continued attempts by DeepSeek to distill capabilities from OpenAI and other U.S. frontier models, including through increasingly obfuscated methods intended to make the activity harder to detect.

Data Centers and the AI Race
Bessent tied the competition with China to the U.S. buildout of data centers and other infrastructure needed for AI. He said the United States currently has the lead because of its technology companies, advanced chips, financing, and startup ecosystem, but argued that development could not be paused. “We can’t pause,” Bessent said. “You can’t, because the Chinese won’t pause.”

He criticized technology companies for failing to engage adequately with communities affected by new data-center construction. Bessent also alleged that some opposition to data-center development involved Chinese “agitprop.” He did not identify specific examples for that assertion during the discussion. He gave data-center developers, hyperscalers, and major AI companies a “D-minus” for community outreach and said they needed to do a better job explaining their projects and potential benefits to residents.

Read more …

Missed chance,.

• New Four-hour Elon Musk Documentary (BBC)

The Venice Film Festival has hosted the premiere of major documentary-maker Alex Gibney’s epic and provocative new profile of the richest man on Earth, which has been years in the making. Here are five key takeaways from the film.


Alex Gibney, the Oscar-winning director of Taxi to the Dark Side and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, has made documentaries about some of the richest and most powerful people on Earth. But none of them has been as rich and powerful as Elon Musk. Maybe that’s why Gibney’s profile of the tech entrepreneur and SpaceX boss is such an epic. Musk, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, has a running time of 225 minutes, and will be released with a 10-minute intermission – so that’s almost four hours on the life and work of the world’s richest man.

Still, the time rockets by. There is little in the film that isn’t already on record, but Gibney gathers all the extant reporting into one breathlessly fast-moving, largely negative, and terrifyingly apocalyptic profile. Here are five things you should know about the documentary – just in case you don’t have four hours to spare.

1. Musk himself isn’t interviewed – but appears as an AI avatar
Gibney initially tried for an interview with Musk, but when the project was announced back in March 2023, Musk declared on social media that it would be a “hit piece”, to which Gibney responded, “How would you know?” The director’s solution is to have an AI-generated avatar of Musk repeat things that he has said in public. This is apt, says Gibney in his voiceover, because Musk believes that we might all be living in a simulation – a video game being played by our descendants in the future.

2. David Byrne helped write a theme song
David Byrne has co-written Let Me Sell You a Dream for the film’s closing credits, which has lyrics consisting entirely of phrases spoken by Musk in the past. The title is appropriate, according to some of Gibney’s interviewees, who say that Musk tends to attract investment by promising that imagined future accomplishments – such as cities on Mars and completely safe self-driving cars – are imminent or already realised.

“That’s not happening,” says Adam Becker, an author and astrophysicist, about Musk’s scheme to colonise Mars. “The gravity is too low, the radiation is too high, there’s no air, and the dirt is filled with poison.” Musk has consistently defended his visionary philosophy however: “I’m very good at predicting the future,” he told The Economist in a July interview. “I’m not perfect but I’m very good… people don’t realise that what I’m saying will come to pass – maybe not exactly in the timing that I thought, but it will come to pass.”


3. Musk’s time in the White House is scrutinised The film suggests that Musk dealt with the US government the way he dealt with Twitter. Zoë Schiffer, the author of Extremely Hardcore: Inside Elon Musk’s Twitter, says that after Musk bought the social media platform, what she refers to as his “goons” pushed out the majority of the staff without pausing to learn what they actually did. Later, as the head of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge, Musk followed “the Twitter playbook”, Schiffer says, describing how he tried and failed to wipe out the US national debt by slashing the budget of numerous departments, this time with the help of a group of assistants in their early twenties who had no government experience. Musk bemoaned that Doge had become “the whipping boy for everything” in an interview with the Washington Post in May last year, just before leaving the Trump administration.


4. An old British film makes a surprise appearance
Gibney uses clips from a British fantasy film, The Man Who Could Work Miracles (1937), to illustrate his very dramatic view of Musk. In this black-and-white classic, based on an HG Wells story, a celestial being bestows an ordinary man (Roland Young) with infinite powers. The man eventually demands that the world’s leaders change society instantly, but he ends up accidentally destroying the planet.

5. The film has had a strong reception so far
Reviews from the Venice premiere have so far been largely positive. Variety called it “a lacerating and important watch, grounded in Gibney’s supremely insightful but user-friendly mastery of the documentary form”, while in a four-star review, The Telegraph dubbed it “a chillingly forensic hatchet job”. Unsurprisingly, Musk himself has not been one of its admirers: on X on Wednesday, among other comments, he described the film as “a hit piece that misses, and makes the fatal sin of being boring for 4 hours”.

Read more …

“They’re fed up with countries that said for 30 years they were gonna protect themselves and help NATO, and the most egregious offender in the last 15 years has been Canada.”

• The US Has Entered Stage 3 in the Trade War With Canada (Victor Davis Hanson)

The philosopher Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher, once said that you don’t step into the same river twice, meaning the river flows. Other people look at that quote and said he meant panta rhei, everything flows or changes, although he didn’t necessarily say that himself. Everything changes. That applies to our current U.S.-Canadian spat. We were given an initial description in the media, and then we had some clarification, and now we’re in what I would call Stage Three.


Stage One was outrage at Donald Trump and the United States, and this is the narrative that we got from one side, from Mark Carney. He said the Americans are at it again, and Trump in particular. They’re bullying us. They’re demanding that they’re gonna take away our sovereignty, and they’re saying to whom, and with whom we can trade and with whom we can’t. And then, they wanna squash Canadian nationalism, and they want to suppress indigenous reading, literature, influence in the French language, and we’re not gonna do that. So we had to back out.

So, everybody got very angry. The Wall Street Journal said: This is a silly Trump spectacle right on the eve of the midterms. This is crazy. nAnd then we went into Stage Two: clarification. People in Canada, 90%, supported Carney. They were booing the American “Star-Spangled Banner” when it was played at sporting events in Canada. And they started to informally boycott U.S. products.

And then they stuck out their chest and said we might not give four million barrels of oil to the United States from Canada. We may stop our pipeline. We can do all of these things to the United States. They need us. And the world is against Trump. And our prime minister can deal with China if he wants. He prefers China. bSo, we heard all that, and then we found out that the deal was almost cemented, and Carney brought up his objections at the last moment.

Then we found out the United States did not wanna suppress the French language or Indigenous culture in Canada. It just said our digital media companies operate worldwide. Why, in this particular country of Canada, should they pay a 5% surtax on top of charge, in addition to income tax, just to subsidize for the particular agendas of the Canadian government? We don’t do that to Canada. We don’t say, “If you come into the United States and you have a product or a media conglomerate, we’re gonna slap a 5% so we wanna promote DEI, we want to promote poor white people in East Palestine.” We don’t do that.

Then we find out that we don’t want to take away Canada’s sovereignty. We are in an existential struggle to save the West from Chinese mercantilism. They have been dumping product. They have been manipulating currency. They’ve been stealing patents. They don’t respect copyrights. They run up trillion-dollar surpluses with us, half a trillion with Europe, and we’re saying no more. We want symmetry.

And [China], to get around that, is dumping cheap steel and aluminum and saying to Canada, “You can buy our product very cheap, much cheaper than you can produce it. Then you can use it in your assembly of cars and trucks and other manufactured goods and send it into the United States and undercut American producers. You win, and then we get around the American tariffs.” And Trump and his team said, “No, we know what you’re doing.” So, that was a clarification that didn’t look too good.

Then people said, “Well, wait a minute. Canada can’t even send its oil, highly sulfurous and thick tar sands, to Ontario or to British Columbia because the provinces are so at each other’s throats under this weird system that they don’t. They have almost autonomy with one another, and they won’t let pipelines be built. But the Americans will let it be built.” So, they need the 4 million-a-day export. After all, if Canada’s doing so well, why don’t … Alberta said, “We can’t give you our oil. We need it. We’re booming. That’s what we’ve been told.

“Why would we give it to a booming United States that already is the greatest producer of gas and oil in history and self-sufficient, unless it’s in our interest? It’s right across the border. The United States treats us better than our other provinces treat us. They allow a pipeline into a foreign country, i.e., the United States. Our other provinces don’t allow Alberta to do that. “And, by the way, they allow a pipeline then to go into Quebec and Ontario. If we cut off their pipeline, they’ll cut off two of our provinces.”

And then the jobs report came out. We’ve only been at this 10 days, but it already affected the August jobs report. They said, “We didn’t need the United States.” Well, they’re down 41,000 jobs. And we can hurt the United States? The United States is up 160,000 jobs. And so now we’re in a crisis. How does Canada get out of this situation? Because they walked out of a deal that was better than basically any other deal the United States had cut with other countries, and it was only one of two countries. The other in the same league was communist China that retaliated against the United States.

The others admitted, “Aw, shucks. We know we’ve had asymmetrical tariffs with you for a long time. We understand this is a reckoning. Let’s kind of moderate it and don’t get too hysterical that we’ve been taking you to the cleaners on trade.” OK. Not Canada. Canada immediately started retaliating like China. OK. And now they’re in Stage Three. What is Stage Three? Stage Three is the Americans are saying to themselves:

Well, we have 13 times the economy that Canada does, and we have nine times the population, and we have one state, California, that has about the same population as all of Canada. And of all of our states, it’s the worst run, the most socialist, with the most inept governor, and usually with the highest social welfare costs, the highest taxes, the highest unemployment, the highest inflation, the highest power. And guess what? It has double the gross domestic product of Canada, even though there’s the same population. Double.

And then the Americans are saying: “We don’t want—we don’t need your oil. We can produce your oil. We’d like your oil. It helps you. It helps us. But if you don’t wanna cut us off, cut us off. And we’d like to trade with you, but you know what? If you don’t wanna—if you wanna help Canada get around our tariffs, and we understand that, just don’t do it. And the subtext behind all of this is the United States is fed up. They’re fed up with countries that said for 30 years they were gonna protect themselves and help NATO, and the most egregious offender in the last 15 years has been Canada.

Read more …

High time this story was told.

• The Story of Slavery Told Correctly (Paul Craig Roberts)

For several decades I have emphasized that black slavery was a product of black slave wars in Africa for which no white person has any responsibility. It was black African rulers, such as the King of Dahomey, who enslaved and sold black Africans to Arabs and to British and European colonies in the New World where there was abundant resources and fertile land but no work force. This is an indisputable fact. Some of the most famous leftists in history, such as Karl Polanyi, have documented this fact.


Today as I write there stands on the Atlantic coast of Africa three miles south of Ouidan in Benin, the former Kingdom of Dahomey, the Gate of No Return, a memorial erected to mark the departure point where Africans enslaved by Africans were loaded aboard ships to be marketed to Arabs and to British and European colonists in the New World. The Gate of No Return sits at the end of a road known as the Route of the Slaves. As far as I can ascertain, none of this factual history is acknowledged in any black studies program in any Western university or by any of the black organizations agitating for reparations from white peoples who neither enslaved nor owned a slave.

In the Western World the entire story of slavery is a total fabrication. It is important to understand that no white Southerners or white anyone went into Africa to round up black slaves. The black King of Dahomey was a powerful person. His army was armed with rifles obtained from the Arabs in exchange for slaves. The King had an Amazon contingent, reportedly extremely ferocious. No one was going to poach on the King of Dahomey. Any who wanted slaves paid the King’s price. Dahomey dominated the slave wars, and the captives of Dahomey’s wars were the slaves who ended up in America.

As slaves were the products of slave wars between black Africans, many of the slaves sold to colonists in the British colonies that eventually became the US were themselves warriors engaged in slave wars against other blacks who were defeated in combat. I have often made the point that every collection of slaves on Southern plantations in the American South contained trained warriors captured in combat who greatly outnumbered the number of whites on the “slave cotton plantations.” Any such behavior of slave owners, such as that fraudulently reported by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin would have resulted in a successful uprising.

Plantation owners understood this, and for their own preservation and that of their families did not behave as the lying bitch Harriet Beecher Stowe alleges in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The purpose of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was war propaganda, to stir up hatred of the South by northerners in order to make acceptable Lincoln’s war criminals, Sherman and Sheridan. The south was defeated by the North’s destruction of the South’s livestock and farms, leaving the Confederacy unable to provision the Army of Northern Virginia which in the end was marching in bare feet with no food.

The proof that there was unity between the slaves and the plantation owners was demonstrated by the complete failure of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. This was a war measure that Lincoln intended would draw Confederate soldiers from the front lines to return home to protect their families from black insurrection. But no insurrection occurred, and the Southern soldiers did not leave the front lines.

Lincoln, a war criminal of the highest order, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which as Lincoln’s own Secretary of State pointed out, applied only to slaves under Confederate control, and not to any under Union control, out of frustration that Union general after Union general whose forces were three to four times larger than Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia were repeated defeated by General Robert E. Lee, a leader who steadfastly refused to participate in war crimes.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a complete failure as a war measure. But the white liberals misrepresented a war measure as the freeing of the slaves from “Southern oppression.” What are we to think of northern liberals this totally dishonest, this totally devoid of all integrity, of all respect for historical truth? I won’t print the expletives that come to mind. The “freedom” left former slaves without homes and food. Many were raped by Union soldiers. “Liberated” blacks followed behind the Union armies hoping their “liberators” would provide food and water and medical care. But as the Union soldiers did not own the former slaves, no one had an investment or interest in them.

“Liberation” was chaos for the “liberated.” Many of the “liberated” experienced devastating hardship and death. Historians have documented that the contraband camps that were set up by the Union were characterized by overcrowding, poor sanitation, meager food rations and by massive outbreaks of diseases such as smallpox and dysentery. The brutal conditions killed a large percentage of the Southern black population. The consequence of “emancipation” was genocide. The former slaves who survived did so by performing manual labor for the Union occupying army.

A country with a high percentage of people as dishonest as white liberals has no chance of being great if it is to be a multicultural society. No multicultural society can exist when the disparate interests are turned against one another in hate, which is what the white liberals have done to America.

The alleged American “civil war” is another fabrication. The war was the result of the North, which Lincoln called the Union, invading a separate country, the Confederacy, which had exercised its constitutional right to exit the United States in order to avoid being economically exploited by northern manufacturing which insisted on a tariff to be paid by the South on its exports and imports. The day before Lincoln’s inauguration the Northern Congress passed the Morrill Tariff that imposed massive economic cost on the South. Simultaneously Lincoln and the Northern Congress offered the South Constitutional protection forever of slavery if the South would stay in the Union and pay the tariff.

The South replied that their concern is the tariff, not slavery. Despite all evidence the white liberals claim without a shred of evidence that the Union cause was to deliver blacks from slavery. Clearly, people as unworthy as white liberals desperately need to be replaced by immigrant-invaders. I was delighted when I read that the white liberal government in Massachusetts had decided to replace themselves with Muslims. Perhaps there is some virtue in The Camp of the Saints. The white liberals will be the first to go, just as they are in The Camp of the Saints.

Read more …

“Egountchi Behanzin, founding president of the international African Black Defense League, spokesperson for the Pan-African Brothers, political analyst, and pan-African activist..”

• Jamaica Demands Answers On Slavery (Egountchi Behanzin)

Knocking on the king’s door: Decades in the making, the September 7 filing brings a direct legal challenge against the British Crown for its ties to the slave system


On September 7, 2026, a high-level Jamaican delegation delivered a historic legal petition to Buckingham Palace addressed to King Charles III. Its objective was to compel the monarch, as Jamaica’s head of state, to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the island’s highest court of appeal, three questions that have haunted the British Empire for centuries. Was the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica and their subsequent enslavement lawful? Did this system constitute a crime against humanity? Does the United Kingdom bear an obligation to make reparation for slavery and its enduring consequences?

Culture Minister Olivia Grange, who led the delegation, shared a photo on X of herself holding the document aloft, captioned: “The petition has been filed.” King Charles III was not present at the handover. British media reported he was on vacation at the time, though Buckingham Palace said it had worked closely with the Governor General of Jamaica to ensure the petition was properly lodged.

Why the date is no coincidence
The day before, on Sunday, September 6, the delegation had taken part in a church service in south London under the theme of “remembrance, justice and repair,” ahead of the formal filing the following day. This timing is no accident: September 6 commemorates the 1781 departure of the slave ship Zong, aboard which more than 140 enslaved Africans were thrown into the sea so their owners could collect an insurance payout. That crime, unpunished for 245 years, now stands as the symbol of a justice the diaspora refuses to let fade into oblivion.

“In relation to the wrongs that were done, we want answers,” Grange told the Associated Press the day before the filing. “Once we get those answers, then our attorneys will determine what the next move is.” This petition is part of a strategy, built step by step by Jamaica’s National Council on Reparations chaired by Laleta Davis Mattis, with the support of a legal subcommittee led by attorney Bert Samuels, and a team of UK lawyers. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has thrown its full weight behind the effort proof that this question reaches beyond the borders of a single island. The entire post-slavery Caribbean is rising behind Jamaica.

The UN slavery resolution as a first step
But it is precisely here that Jamaica’s fight joins Africa’s own, and this link must now be made visible, since Western media have worked hard to keep it quiet. On March 25, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, on Ghana’s initiative, resolution A/RES/80/250 – the very first resolution in UN history devoted exclusively to slavery and the transatlantic slave trade.One hundred and twenty-three states voted in favor. Only three opposed it: the United States, Israel, and Argentina. Fifty-two countries, mostly European including the United Kingdom itself, chose to hide behind abstention.

The resolution designates the transatlantic trafficking of Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as the “gravest crime against humanity.” Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, speaking on behalf of the African Group of 54 states, the UN’s largest regional bloc, declared that voting for the text meant standing on the right side of history. It calls for the restitution of looted cultural property, formal apologies, and opens the door to the consideration of financial compensation. This is an international normative framework, patiently built by the African Union since February 2024, when it proclaimed 2025 the “Year of Justice for Africans through Reparations for Slavery, Colonialism, and Apartheid.”

Jamaican jurist Bert Samuels was not mistaken when he stated that this UN resolution strengthens Jamaica’s legal position against London. Here is the thread that binds Accra to Kingston, the African motherland to the diaspora torn from it. A single struggle is fought on two complementary fronts – one continental and diplomatic, the other insular and judicial, both aimed at the same goal of making the former empire pay for four centuries of human plunder.

A history of reversed debts
To grasp the full weight of this gesture, one must recall that Haiti, the first free black nation of the modern era, was forced in 1825 to pay France a colossal indemnity to “compensate” former slave owners for the loss of their “human property” – a debt that bled Haiti’s economy for more than a century. History, as written by the colonial powers, long decreed that it was the enslavers who deserved compensation, never the enslaved.

Jamaica’s petition overturns this criminal logic. It is no longer the victims who owe the executioner, it is the executioner who must now answer to its victims. This reversal builds on groundwork laid over more than a decade by the CARICOM itself, which as early as 2013 adopted its own ten-point plan for reparatory justice, demanding formal apologies, debt cancellation, technology transfers, and public health programs to offset the health devastation bequeathed by slavery.

The September 7 filing is therefore the legal culmination of a long matured Caribbean strategy that has now chosen to confront head on, in a court of law, the very institution that sanctioned and protected the slave system: the British Crown.

What it means for the diaspora
For the African diaspora across Africa, the Americas, Europe, and the Caribbean alike, this filing is experienced as a long-deferred reckoning. For generations, our elders awaited a political gesture of this magnitude – a formal legal demand addressed directly to the head of the house that organized, financed, and profited from the trade.

Reparations movements that once fought each in their own corner Caribbean organizations, Afro-descendant collectives in the Americas, African diasporas in Europe, activists on the continent itself are beginning to speak with a single voice, carried by recognized institutions: the African Union on one side, CARICOM on the other, and now the UN as a global sounding board.

In West Africa, Jamaica’s move is being followed with particular attention, seen as the natural extension of the fight President Mahama carried to the UN stage. The Africa that watched its children leave in chains is, four centuries later, reunited with a part of its diaspora now come to knock, together, on the same imperial door. In Southern Africa, where the memory of apartheid remains raw, many Pan-African organizations see in this filing further proof that struggles for historical justice slavery, colonialism, apartheid can no longer be treated separately, but must be understood as a single, unified case against the West.

In Europe, among Afro-descendant communities in France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom itself, Jamaica’s petition serves as both a signal of hope and a painful reminder: That our own states of origin or residence still drag their feet on these questions, while little Jamaica, with its modest means, dared to carry the fight directly to the monarch’s door. In the Americas, Afro-descendant movements from Brazil to Colombia are also watching this case closely, seeing in it a potential legal precedent that could be mobilized for their own claims against the former Iberian colonial powers.

This convergence is visibly rattling Western capitals. The United Kingdom’s vote – an abstention, that is, a refusal to choose – speaks volumes about the quiet panic setting in London. One can sense, in the remarks of certain British political figures, particularly within Euroskeptic and identitarian factions, a desire to ridicule Jamaica’s move, to dismiss it as an expensive whim or a political stunt.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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