Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Last week’s unprecedented NATO downing of Russian drones over Poland, which this analysis here argues was due to jamming causing them to radically veer off course, drew wider attention to the dueling military drills in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE).

The day before the incident, RT informed their audience that Poland, Lithuania, and eight other NATO allies in Latvia were carrying out three separate drills timed to coincide with Russia and Belarus’ then-upcoming Zapad 2025 ones in that latter state.

To illustrate the mismatch between each side, Poland’s, Lithuania’s, and Latvia’s drills respectively involve 30,000, 17,000, and 12,000 for a little less than 60,000 total troops compared to Zapad 2025 only involving 13,000 troops from Russia and Belarus. Observers should also know that Belarus only has around 60,000 servicemen (48,000) and border guards (12,000) in total so these NATO drills on its western and northern borders comprise the same number of troops as its armed forces.

It’s little wonder then that Russia earlier transferred tactical nukes to Belarus with the right to use them in self-defense and is planning to deploy hypersonic Oreshnik missiles there too for deterrence purposes. NATO as a whole and in particular its three aforesaid members who hosted the latest drills believe that Belarus is the “weak link” in Russia’s regional security matrix and thus think they can intimidate it via large-scale drills into “defecting” to the West after summer 2020’s attempted Color Revolution failed.

This plot won’t succeed due to Russia’s Article 5-like mutual security guarantees for Belarus, its abovementioned tactical nuke and Oreshnik deployments there, and President Alexander Lukashenko striking up a surprising friendship with Trump via his role in trying to facilitate a grand deal with Putin. Nevertheless, none of this means that NATO will abandon its intimidation campaign against Belarus, ergo the importance of regular joint Russian-Belarusian drills in order to visibly demonstrate deterrence.

These same drills are then deliberately misportrayed by the West as aggressively intentioned and consequently exploited as the pretext for staging their own much larger ones at the same time for faux deterrence purposes that thinly veil their aggressive motives against Belarus and Russia by extension. This dynamic isn’t new but has been dishonestly dramatized by the West since the start of the special operation for maximum domestic fearmongering purposes that advance the elite’s geopolitical agenda.

Given these stakes, it’s expected that they’ll maintain this dynamic even after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, which’ll keep NATO-Russian tensions high for the indefinite future. The Western elites might also have economic interests in doing so since this’ll serve as the impetus for accelerating construction of the “EU Defense Line” along NATO’s borders with Russia and Belarus. Knowing how corrupt the West is, it should be assumed that some officials have invested in companies involved in this megaproject.

The new normal of dueling military drills in CEE is therefore driven by the Western elite’s geopolitical interests in fearmongering about Russia and their economic ones in enriching themselves from this. Russia won’t unilaterally suspend these drills since doing so could further embolden Western warmongers and inadvertently prompt Belarus into panicking that it might soon be “sold out”. The ball is thus in NATO’s court whether or not to maintain this dynamic, but all indications suggest that it will.

First, earlier this month saw the Trump administration lift some sanctions on Belarus in a surprise move (part of a prisoner return deal) – which opens national airline Belavia to international routes, including to the US – and now Moscow has announced there could be resumption of direct flights with the United States. Next, Pentagon observers showed up in Belarus to observe joint exercises with Russia, which was also a clear sign of improving Washington-Moscow relations.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told a press briefing Wednesday, “For our part, today, on the bilateral track with the United States, we are focused, in particular, on the task of resuming direct flights. Unfortunately, there is no proper response from the American side yet. We are making additional efforts, our relevant departments and structures are involved in this work.”

He added, “We hope that by the time the format that has been called ‘bilateral consultations on irritants’ in recent months is resumed, a more constructive attitude will be formed in Washington and we will make real progress in resolving this issue,” Ryabkov added.

This is happening even as direct Russia-Ukraine talks have clearly stalled, and there’s no forward momentum. But things are still happening directly between the US and Russia, as TASS details:

Russia’s delegation to the first and second rounds of consultations was led by Moscow’s Ambassador to Washington Alexander Darchiev, while Washington’s delegation was headed by US Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Sonata Coulter.

The first meeting, which took place behind closed doors, lasted for over six hours, and the second round of talks lasted for five hours and a half.

Russia’s aviation sector has been under sweeping US and EU sanctions as a result of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. This has unleashed an ongoing crisis for Russian carriers, who are in constant need of parts and proper up-to-date mechanics. 

The growing trend of aviation parts smuggling was documented in US state-funded sources earlier this year as follows:

On February 13, two weeks before Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine reached the three-year mark, the US Department of Justice announced it had arrested three people linked to an Ohio company on charges of exporting $2 million worth of civilian aircraft parts and components to Russia in circumvention of US export laws.

It was at least the fifth time in the past three years that the United States has accused an individual or larger entity of involvement in a scheme to illegally ship aircraft parts to Russia. In the latest case, all three individuals were current and former employees of Flighttime Enterprises, a US subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier.

Like with most Western sanctions on ‘rogue’ states abroad, it is the common people who suffer most. For example, in late July 48 people aboard a passenger plane after it crashed in Russia’s Far East. The ageing plane was Soviet-era twin turboprop.

The same trend has been seen in Iran, which over the last decade has witnessed horrific aviation accidents, including the loss of a sitting president when his military helicopter crashed near Azerbaijan. Getting sanctions lifted on the aviation industry is likely a top priority of Russia’s when it comes to bilateral talks with the US.

Authored by Artis Shepherd via The Mises Institute,

The war of words between President Donald Trump and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has been revealed as largely histrionic. Like their predecessors—Richard Nixon and Arthur Burns—over 50 years ago, Trump and Powell have been acting out a performative charade regarding when and to what extent artificially low interest rates should go even lower in the midst of persistent inflation. The supposed sparring between Trump and Powell merely guarantees the result both want—more easy money.

In a recent speech at the obnoxious Jackson Hole symposium, Powell incredibly stated that current monetary policy was “restrictive.” He followed that up with veritable chum for easy money sharks: “…the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.”

Translation: the Fed intends to resume cutting interest rates at the next September meeting. Per the online betting marketplace Kalshi, the odds of a September rate cut immediately shot up from 59 percent to 81 percent. But whether or not Powell and the Fed cut rates in September is almost irrelevant. One need only open his eyes to see the matter clearly.

Money Everywhere

As of this writing, US stock markets are at all-time highs, with valuations (as measured by the CAPE ratio) at levels only seen once before—during the peak of the dot-com bubble in 1999. Within this milieu, margin debt has also hit an all-time high in July, meaning that investors are taking loans to speculate in stocks while ignoring the magnified risk therein.

Junk bonds—a euphemism for sub-prime corporate debt—trade at spreads as tight as they’ve ever been. In other words, investors in the risky debt of poorly performing companies are willing to accept pitifully meager returns in exchange for excessive credit risk.

The junkiest bonds of all—US Treasuries—yield essentially zero when a realistic measure of price inflation is used as the discount rate. Poorly performing companies at least have a product to offer. The US government, on the other hand, revels in the devaluation of the instrument—the US dollar—with which it pays its debts. For investors in US sovereign bonds, default and repayment are functionally indistinguishable.

Home prices are at all-time highs, with the home-price-to-income ratio near 7.5x, itself an all-time high. As a result of this imbalance, the average first-time homebuyer is now a record 38 years old. Clearly, the young are finding their options limited by home price inflation, which is leading to muted and delayed family formation.

The money supply (“M2”) has grown by 5 percent in the last 12 months, the very definition of inflation. Simultaneously, even government measures of price inflation have accelerated. CPI—the absurdly sandbagged and impractical measure of US consumer price inflation—has been above the Fed’s 2 percent target for nearly five years straight. The most recent reading showed annualized month-over-month CPI at 4.1 percent while the Producer Price Index (“PPI”)—a measure of wholesale price inflation—showed an annualized month-over-month reading of a whopping 11.5 percent.

The True Cost of Cheap Money

In the midst of this rapidly-inflating asset market and the undeniably loose monetary conditions fostered by the US government and the Fed, it behooves the rational observer to ask not just the obvious cui bono questions, but who foots the bill for this policy? Cui malo? The answer is that the average American, or the “middle class,” is the host on which the easy money parasite feeds.

Since 2008, government statistics suggest that median nominal wages have risen at an average annual pace of 3.0 percent, compared to 2.3 percent for CPI over the same period. This indicates that real wages have increased by a meager 0.7 percent annually over that timeframe. But in surveying the major expense categories for average Americans, has anything increased by only 2.3 percent per year over that period?

Apartment rent, measured nationally, has increased by 4.1 percent annually and home prices have increased by 4.2 percent annually, despite dipping significantly from 2007-2011. Home insurance is up 3.0 percent annually. Health insurance is up 5.0 percent annually. Prices for eggs and beef—basic staples of a healthy diet—are up 6.8 percent and roughly 5.0 percent (depending on the type of beef) annually, respectively.

Based on the latest available data, the average cost for a one-week vacation in the US for a family of four is roughly $8,000. That figure also happens to match the median balance of savings in the country. As a result, middle class families have a choice—enjoy a family trip and drain the savings account, or skip the leisure and keep the thinnest sliver of financial cushion in case of emergency.

In the background, the federal government continues to spend and borrow like a deranged madman, ensuring ever more inflation and dollar debasement in the future. The Trump administration is well on its way to a $2 trillion deficit this fiscal year and a $44 trillion debt balance by the time Trump leaves office in early 2029.

This dynamic is not a real problem for the asset-rich, but for the middle class it is an unrelenting pressure. Lacking assets and the resources to acquire them—recall that the median savings balance is $8,000—average Americans face the prospect of falling further behind as inflation tenaciously undermines their quality of life. In a desperate effort to keep up, many have turned to borrowing and then speculating in asset markets with the proceeds.

This toxic combination of leverage, lack of investment risk awareness, and the need to “stretch for yield” in the absence of sufficient savings rates has already led to widespread wealth destruction for average Americans. In the apartment investment market, for example, mom-and-pop investors have lost tens of billions of dollars in equity. After soliciting those funds, unscrupulous “syndicators” combined them with risky bridge loans to buy swaths of apartment properties which immediately collapsed in value when short-term interest rates began increasing in 2022. Other asset markets are in similarly perilous shape, and the average American investor does not have the benefit of a US Treasury bailout. In fact, any bailout will be at their expense.

The Long Con

At this stage, there is little that can be done to avoid a reckoning, but—contrary to popular belief—it is unlikely to take the form of a distinct, sudden crash. Rather, we are in the middle of that reckoning now—a slow and continuous degradation of life quality for the majority of the population.

Much like the similar, gradual-but-undeniable collapse of Britain over the course of the 20th century, the result of this process is a society increasingly devoid of productive virtue, with a contempt for individual freedom. In their place will continue to grow a pernicious central state apparatus obsessed with warfare, “social justice” for pet groups, and economic theories developed by the dimwitted and immoral.

The robbery of the middle class by the political class is not accidental. It is the inevitable corollary of inflation, a policy willfully chosen by the state.

The United States has placed Colombia on its list of countries that “fail to co-operate” in fighting drug trafficking — the first time since 1997 — blaming President Gustavo Petro’s government for record cocaine output, according to the Financial Times.

In a statement to Congress, Donald Trump said Colombia’s “coca cultivation and cocaine production have reached record highs” and that the government “failed to meet even its own vastly reduced coca eradication goals.” He argued Bogotá had undermined “years of mutually beneficial co-operation between our two countries against narco-terrorists.”

Colombia, the world’s top cocaine producer, had 253,000 hectares of coca under cultivation in 2023, yielding more than 2,600 tonnes, according to UN figures.

Petro, a former guerrilla who has floated legalising cocaine, denounced the US move: “Decades of our police, soldiers and civilians [dying] . . . in order to stop drugs reaching North American society,” he said, insisting “Everything we do really isn’t about the Colombian people — even if they get affected. It’s about stopping North American society from smearing its noses.”

The Financial Times writes that while criticising Petro’s approach, Trump praised Colombia’s security forces, who he said “continue to show skill and courage in confronting terrorist and criminal groups.” Washington also issued a waiver allowing continued programs that “advance US interests,” potentially preserving military co-operation.

The move reflects rising tensions. For years, Colombia was Washington’s closest anti-narcotics ally, receiving more than $10bn in US military aid under Plan Colombia (2000–2016). But Petro has shifted focus from eradication campaigns to intercepting drug shipments at sea, while violence and production have grown under his “Total Peace” policy.

The US decision comes alongside fresh strikes on Venezuelan drug cartels in the Caribbean and a broader regional crackdown.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

French Emperor Napoleon III reserved a special set of aluminum cutlery for only his most honored dinner guests.

Ordinary guests had to settle for gold utensils.

In the mid-1800s, aluminum was rarer and more coveted than gold.

As a result, aluminum bullion bars were included among France’s national treasures, and aluminum jewelry became a status symbol of the French aristocracy.

Aluminum—element 13 on the periodic table—is abundant in nature, but it’s typically bound up in complex chemical compounds rather than found in its pure metallic form.

Extracting pure aluminum from these compounds was an extremely costly and complex process, making it harder to produce than gold. The price reflected that.

In 1852, aluminum was around $37 per ounce, significantly more expensive than gold at $20.67 per ounce.

But aluminum’s story was about to change dramatically.

In 1886, a groundbreaking discovery enabled the mass production of pure aluminum at a fraction of the cost.

Before this innovation, global aluminum output was just a few ounces per month.

Afterward, America’s leading aluminum company began producing 800 ounces a day. Within two decades, that same company—later known as Alcoa—was churning out over 1.4 million ounces daily.

The price of aluminum collapsed—from a staggering $550 per pound in 1852 to just $12 in 1880. By the early 1900s, a pound of aluminum cost around 20 cents.

In just over a decade, aluminum had gone from the world’s most expensive metal to one of its cheapest.

Today, aluminum is no longer a prized metal for imperial feasts or national treasuries. It’s a household material, used in soda cans and kitchen foil.

Aluminum’s dramatic fall from luxury to ubiquity highlights a key monetary principle: hardness—the most important quality of a good money.

What Aluminum’s Collapse Reveals About Good Money

Hardness does not mean something that is necessarily tangible or physically hard, like metal. Instead, it means “hard to produce.” By contrast, “easy money” is easy to produce.

The best way to understand hardness is as resistance to debasement—a crucial trait for any good store of value and an essential function of money.

Would you trust your life savings to something anyone can create effortlessly?

Of course not.

That would be like storing your wealth in arcade tokens, airline miles, aluminum—or government fiat currency.

What is desirable in a good money is that someone else cannot make it easily.

Hardness can be measured by the supply growth rate—the amount of new supply created each year divided by the existing stock.

The lower the supply growth rate, the harder the asset.

Historically, gold has been humanity’s hardest asset. Its extremely low and stable supply growth rate has made it the best form of money for thousands of years.

According to the World Gold Council, around 6.8 billion ounces of gold have been mined globally, with roughly 117 million ounces added annually.

That puts gold’s supply growth rate at just 1.7%—a figure that has remained remarkably consistent over time.

In other words, no matter how hard humans try, they can’t increase the gold supply by more than 1-2% each year, a trivial amount.

The chart below illustrates the supply growth rate of various physical commodities.

No other physical commodity comes close to gold’s low supply growth rate and resistance to debasement.

Monetary commodities like gold and silver have relatively low supply growth rates. In contrast, industrial commodities tend to have much higher rates.

A high supply growth rate means new production can significantly impact overall supply—and prices.

For industrial commodities, annual production often exceeds existing stockpiles, resulting in supply growth rates over 100%. That’s because these stockpiles are consistently depleted by ongoing industrial use.

Take copper, for example. According to the International Copper Study Group, annual production is around 21.9 million tonnes, while stockpiles are just 1.4 million tonnes. In other words, yearly copper output is more than 15 times the size of existing reserves.

Because industrial processes consume copper continuously, stockpiles remain low, and new production has an enormous influence on prices.

Here’s the bottom line:

An asset cannot be a reliable store of value if its price is vulnerable to the whims of ever-changing industrial conditions.

That’s why a high supply growth rate disqualifies a commodity from being a good money.

Three key factors can explain gold’s exceptionally low supply growth rate of 1.7%:

• First, gold is indestructible. It doesn’t corrode or decay, which means nearly all the gold ever mined still exists and contributes to today’s stockpile.

• Second, gold has been mined for thousands of years, unlike platinum and palladium, which have only seen a couple of centuries of production.

• Third, industrial processes don’t significantly consume gold, unlike other metals. As a result, most of the mined gold remains in circulation.

These three traits mean gold’s existing stockpiles are massive relative to new annual production.

No one can arbitrarily flood the market with gold, making it a neutral, reliable store of value. This is what gives gold its unmatched monetary properties.

Don’t Confuse Hardness with Scarcity

It’s important to clarify that hardness is not the same as scarcity; They are related concepts but not the same thing.

For instance, platinum and palladium are much scarcer than gold.

Roughly 6.8 billion ounces of gold have been mined throughout history.

By comparison, since platinum’s discovery in 1741, only about 322 million troy ounces have been mined. For palladium, that number is even lower—around 193 million ounces.

There are far fewer ounces of platinum and palladium than gold—so why aren’t they considered better forms of money?

Because despite their scarcity, platinum and palladium are not hard assets. Their annual production is high relative to their existing stockpiles.

Unlike gold, these metals haven’t benefited from millennia of accumulation. And because industrial uses consume a large share of them, new production plays a far bigger role in pricing.

That’s why their supply growth rates—platinum at 178% and palladium at 83%—are so high. These figures underscore their role as industrial, not monetary, metals. It’s no surprise that almost no one uses them as money.

Here’s the key takeaway:

Hardness is the most important trait of a good money. All other monetary characteristics are meaningless if the money is easy for someone to produce.

That’s why, throughout history, the hardest asset has always won. And why gold has always reigned supreme.

The Next Monetary Reset Is Coming—Are You Ready?

Throughout history, the hardest money has always prevailed—and in times of crisis, gold shines.

With global debt soaring, fiat currencies faltering, and trust in central banks eroding, a major monetary reset is no longer a question of if, but when.

I’ve prepared an urgent report breaking down what’s unfolding behind the scenes, how gold is poised to play a pivotal role, and what you need to do right now to protect and grow your wealth.

Click here to download the PDF report on the coming monetary reset.

The defense team for former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is expected to cite his deteriorating health as grounds to request house arrest instead of prison time, following his conviction for attempting to overturn the 2022 election, for which was sentenced by the country’s supreme court to a harsh 27-years and three months, just days ago.

Doctors announced Wednesday that the 70-year old, who has been dubbed the “Brazilian Donald Trump”, has been diagnosed with early-stage skin cancer in two lesions which were recently removed for testing.

Bolsonaro is currently under house arrest in Brasília, but already he’s made two hospital visits since last week’s historic ruling convicted him for alleged coup-related activity.

Sunday saw him undergo a procedure for the removal of several skin legions, while Tuesday saw him rushed back again after his son said he experienced vomiting, low blood pressure, and a bout of uncontrollable hiccups. He has since been released.

His just announced cancer diagnosis is said to be by doctors in its early stages, but will ongoing monitoring and follow-up care. CNN has the following details:

According to results from a Sunday procedure to have skin lesions removed, doctors found squamous cell carcinoma, which starts in cells in the middle and outer layers of the skin.

“Two of the lesions tested positive for squamous cell carcinoma, which is neither the kindest nor the most aggressive, but it is still a skin cancer,” Bolsonaro’s doctor Claudio Biroloni said, according to CNN Brasil.

There’s an appeals process that will play out, and the ex-president’s lawyers are expected to push for him being granted continued house arrest during that period.

The justice overseeing the case, Alexandre de Moraes, had imposed an ankle monitor since August – and has accused him of conspiring with a foreign power to interfere in Brazil’s internal affairs, due to the relationship with Donald Trump.

Bolsonaro has suffered serious health issues ever since he was stabbed while campaigning in 2018. This resulted in several surgeries, and recurring intestinal issues.

The top court had also ruled last week that he’s barred from running for public office until 2060. Likely his political opponents are going suspect that his health saga is but a ploy to avoid serving real prison time – or they’ll accuse him of seeking to gain national sympathy.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An ABC reporter apologized on Sept. 17 after describing text messages authorities say were exchanged between Charlie Kirk’s alleged murderer and the man’s boyfriend as “very touching.”

“Yesterday I tried to underscore the jarring contrast between this cold blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk – a man who dedicated his life to public dialogue – and the personal, disturbing texts read aloud by the Utah County Attorney at the press conference,” Matt Gutman wrote on X.

Watch the original clip here:

WTF?!

ABC’s Matt Gutman says that the messages of the shooter confessing to the m*rder of Charlie Kirk were “VERY TOUCHING.”

What about the confession of an alleged killer is “touching”???

Sickpic.twitter.com/cZb5uOHern

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

“I deeply regret that my words did not make that clear. [ZH: so it’s our fault for misinterpreting him] But let there be zero doubt here: I unequivocally condemn this horrific crime and the pain it caused Charlie Kirk’s family, those who were forced to witness it at UVU [Utah Valley University], and the millions of people he inspired.”

A spokeswoman for ABC did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.

After Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray on Tuesday outlined the evidence supporting the charges against Tyler Robinson, who is accused of murdering conservative commentator Kirk in Utah on Sept. 10, Gutman said during the ABC broadcast that the messages were “very touching, in a way, that I think many of us didn’t expect—a very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect’s roommate and the suspect himself, with him repeatedly calling his roommate, who is transitioning, calling him ‘my love.’ And ‘I want to protect you, my love.’”

Robinson never told his boyfriend that he wanted to protect him, according to messages released by authorities.

“So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd, but was doing it in front of children, which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case,” Gutman continued. “And then, on the other hand, he was speaking so lovingly about his partner.”

Later in the day, Gutman said on ABC that Kirk was brutally murdered but that “on the other hand, there is this duality … a portrait of a very human person, a very human experience from this entire family.”

Gutman noted that Robinson’s mother, according to authorities, recognized her son from the photograph distributed showing the suspect in Kirk’s killing before Robinson was arrested.

“Here we see two lovebirds on a stroll with their dogs. What a touching scene of love.” Matt Gutman if he was a reporter in the 1940’s. pic.twitter.com/QZwBl1VSiM

— Chris Andrews (@ChrisAn41996507) September 16, 2025

“The mother essentially discovered it was her son who had done this—the kid who had got a 34 out of 36 on the ACT, who had a 4.0, who got a full ride to college here. That that kid was the one who allegedly perpetrated. She saw those pictures and identified him, essentially. And then those text messages,” Gutman said.

“I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a press conference in which we’ve read text messages that are, a) so fulsome, so robust, so apparently, allegedly self-incriminating, and yet, on the other hand, so touching, right, with the suspect reaching out to his roommate, who was allegedly his boyfriend.

“And the terminology he used, he was trying to protect him. … So there’s this, this heartbreaking duality that we’re seeing very tragically playing out here.”

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said Wednesday, “We have poured a lot of money into this war. We have to see how we are dividing up the land in percentages” amid the ongoing Gaza military operation. Importantly, he further described “the demolition” of Gaza City as “the first stage in the city’s renewal, we have already done. Now we just need to build.”

But how does Israel’s military plan to do this? First, as we’ve detailed before, the IDF is utilizing airstrikes involving powerful missiles hitting the bases of high-rise buildings in order to collapse them in their own footprint. But for other buildings and structures in tightly-packed urban areas, there’s increased reliance on explosive-laden robots, or something that might look straight out of Terminator 2 and Skynet.

Walla news outlet says “unprecedented” number of explosive-laden, remote-controlled vehicles are being prepared to invade Gaza City alongside the ground infantry troops.

The Israeli military commonly refers to them as “suicide APCs” – and they are capable of being driven deep into urban environments before causing huge explosions.

They’ve been able to cause ‘mega-blasts’ so powerful that in some instances they can be heard as far away as central Israel. Palestinians have described “earth-shaking” explosions, with one eyewitness recently telling Middle East Eye that “they are far more devastating than air strikes.”

Gaza’s Government Media Office has said over one hundred of these explosive robots have been used in about the past month alone. Hundreds of residential units and small business buildings have been destroyed.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor details the following on how large the explosives can get:

Each of these robots is loaded with highly explosive materials, sometimes weighing up to seven tonnes, and is directed to detonate in Jabalia al-Balad and Jabalia al-Nazla north of Gaza City; the Zeitoun, al-Sabra, al-Shuja’iyya, and al-Tuffah neighbourhoods south and east of Gaza City; as well as the al-Saftawi and Abu Iskandar areas northwest of Gaza City.

The unprecedented pace of destruction of residential neighborhoods in Gaza City using explosive-laden robots indicates Israel’s determination to wipe the city off the map. At the current rate, the rest of the city could be destroyed within two months, a timeline that may shorten further given the Israeli army’s massive firepower and the absence of any pressure to halt its crimes against Palestinians.

Often it is outdated M113 armored personnel carriers that are turned into autonomous vehicles and strapped with the large explosives. The fact that they are modified personnel carriers means that they can carry a very large payload.

🚨Horrifying footage captures the very moment an Israeli explosive-laden robot detonates, leveling an entire residential block in Jabalia, northern Gaza. pic.twitter.com/UKqBqmKwhO

— Gaza Notifications (@gazanotice) August 31, 2025

It was only as recently as 2024 that these suicide robots were observed operating and carry out destruction on the Gaza battlefield. Israeli ground troops have been subject of ambushes by well-armed Hamas militants who can swiftly emerge from Gaza’s underground tunnel network. Sending robots to clear areas ahead of time is a tactic Israel’s infantry increasingly relies on.

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The United States should lead an international effort to prohibit the use of solar geoengineering, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Roger Pielke Jr., told members of Congress on Sept. 16.

Pielke testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency during a hearing on weather manipulation, specifically cloud-seeding and geoengineering.

While geoengineering is a broad category that covers processes to intentionally cool the Earth’s temperature—which could even include painting buildings a certain way—the subset known as solar geoengineering or solar radiation modification drew Pielke’s concern.

Those modification techniques involve the dispensing of reflective elements such as sulfur dioxide into layers of the atmosphere to prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the Earth’s surface.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is limited understanding of these techniques, which could have an effect on the ozone layer, crop yields, rain, snowfall, and even respiratory health.

Described as an expert in climate, science, and technology policy—as well as the politicization of science and government science advice—Pielke was one of more than 500 scientists and academics from around the world calling for an international non-use agreement for solar geoengineering.

He argued that no outdoor experimentation of solar geoengineering should be allowed and that governments should work to monitor the atmosphere to track and enforce that ban.

“We have one Earth, and experimenting on it carries considerable risks,” he said in his opening remarks. “I have likened geoengineering to risky gain-of-function research on viruses with uncertain benefits and catastrophic risks.”

Pielke was joined by Christopher Martz, a meteorologist and policy analyst at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, who also saw a need for prohibition.

“Solar geoengineering should be prohibited, given the uncertainties about climate change itself, as well as the uncertainties that geoengineering could have on both the environment and life on Earth,” Martz said in his opening statement.

Martz went on to say that while he believes the planet got warmer over the past 100 years, he still saw uncertainty in how much of an impact humanity has truly had on that.

On top of that, he said there has been no distinction made between humanity’s specific contributions to such change in climate and nature’s own doing, such as through volcanic eruptions and deep-sea vents on the ocean floor.

He later pointed out how quickly people blamed weather modification for disasters such as Hurricane Helene and the Texas floods, despite the lack of evidence, and he argued that any geoengineering used to cool the Earth could face blame for making any subsequent winter even colder.

“These uncertainties need to be resolved in the peer-reviewed literature before world governments try to, much less, consider intentionally altering the radiation balance with novel technologies that have not been tested,” he said in his opening statement.

However, the third expert witness called to testify disagreed with them.

Michael MacCracken has served as the chief scientist for climate-related programs at the Climate Institute on a pro bono basis since his retirement in 2002.

He is on the steering committee of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition, which he said favors climate intervention or geoengineering.

He said that it was evident that changes in the climate seen in the past century were directly caused by humans, and that climate intervention could be examined by studying any cooling that has already occurred naturally.

“Volcanic eruptions put sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said in his opening statement. “It turns to sulfate. It reflects maybe 1 percent of solar radiation. It’s not like it blanks out the sun in any sense, and that can sort of exert a cooling influence.”

MacCracken cited the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which he said caused a momentary climate cooling when the sulfur was mixed in the atmosphere, but it was then naturally removed, and the climate returned to normal.

“Nature has really done the experiments on this, on whether these approaches will work,” MacCracken said.

“That’s not something that science really has to go back and do.

“What we have to do is see if the tailoring and the optimizing … will work. Will it be beneficial or not? So there are a host of questions for research to consider.”

The subcommittee’s chairwoman, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an outspoken opponent to any form of weather modification, called out one company in California called Make Sunsets, which has already decided to start geoengineering on its own by launching balloons that release reflective particles into the atmosphere.

According to the company’s FAQ page, the particles can stay in the atmosphere for between six months and three years, depending on the altitude at which they are released.

The company claimed that its work was legal, falling under the Weather Modification Act of 1976.

Under an FAQ that stated, “I would like you to stop doing this,” it replied with the following: “And we would like an equitable future with breathable air and no wet bulb events for generations to come. Convince us there’s a more feasible way to buy us the time to get there, and we‘ll stop. We’ll happily debate anyone on this, just confirm an audience of at least 200 people, and we’ll find the time to try and convince you.”

Both Martz and Pielke denounced the company’s practice and extreme view of the climate.

Ranking member Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) then turned to Greene and said: “I do believe we have actually discovered the purpose of the EPA.

“Literally, this is why the EPA exists. It is to regulate, study, and understand how modifications to the environment impact human health and the environment, and in fact, that is the primary purpose of the Science Advisory Committee for the EPA.”

Standbury and the other Democratic subcommittee members used a significant portion of their speaking time to criticize the Trump administration for its cuts to the EPA, investments in climate science, and departure from international climate agreements.

Mass firings have commenced in the wake of an online mob of leftists cheering in celebration over the brutal assassination of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk.  The people dancing on TikTok and laughing about the murder come from all walks of life, from teachers to social workers and, of course, mainstream journalists.  The widespread vitriol has debunked the longtime claim that such psychopathy is relegated to a fringe minority. 

In reality, violent bloodlust is a feature of the political left, not an anomaly.  We saw it after the multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump and we see it even more after the dead of Charlie Kirk.  

The justifications are rampant, with leftists claiming (falsely) that Kirk was a “fascist, misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc.”, thereby absolving themselves of their elation over his shooting.  The real issue is that Kirk told the truth, on DEI, on transgender cultism, on feminism – And because they could not win against him in open debate, they wanted him dead. 

Well, it would appear that the woke movement greatly underestimated the effects of Kirk’s assassination because they are now facing swift consequences for their ghoulish jubilee.  By some estimates, thousands of progressives have now been fired from their jobs as companies seek to clean house and avoid being associated with potential lunatics.  There is also the underlying concern among these businesses that continuing to employ these people puts the rest of their workers are risk.

One higher profile firing is that of Washington Post Columnist Karen Attiah, who has a long running record of blurring the lines between factual reporting and woke propaganda.  The Post cut Attiah loose this week over two specified comments on Blue Sky in which she stated:

“Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.”

“Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”

Being a left-wing journalist, Attiah’s comments are strategically open to interpretation.  In the worst case, she appears to be justifying Charlie Kirk’s killing because continuing to allow him to live is the same as absolving “white” American violence.  In other words, Kirk’s words are the same as violence, therefore killing him is an act of self defense.

However, like most leftists in the media, Attiah is unable to produce any examples of Charlie Kirk actually espousing violence, or calling for violence.  Her comments constitute potential defamation, which is likely the reason why she was fired from her job.  The Washington Post decided to interpret the comments with the worst case in mind.

Supporters argue that the reporter’s firing is part of a larger conspiracy to remove black people from influential positions.  The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, has been cleaning house of far left activism in recent months as the outlet faces dwindling readership.  The reality is that woke does not sell.  The purge has nothing to do with skin color.

Woke activists have been scrambling to control the narrative on Kirk’s assassination for the past several days, at first applauding the incident as righteous vengeance, then claiming that the shooter was “right wing” (which is proven false), and now calling for conservatives to “cool things down” as if conservatives are the source of the problem.

They have also condemned the mass firings as a violation of their free speech rights, which is mind boggling considering how they cheered the cancellation of conservatives for questioning the covid lockdowns and mandates only a few short years ago. 

The difference is obvious:  Conservatives were cancelled for telling the truth.  Leftists are being cancelled for telling lies and celebrating murder.  There is no comparison.

Furthermore, in legal terms there are no 1st Amendment protections against being fired by a private employer (unless the government pressured that employer to do the firing).  The 1st Amendment applies to government retaliation against speech; it does not apply to any other entity. 

If an employee can be identified online, then they can be considered a representative of their employer.  Thus, they can be fired by that employer if they do or say something heinous on social media.  By extension, why would any employer want to continue to keep a verified psychopath on the payroll and in the office? 

The murder of Charlie Kirk by a leftist extremist follows a decade of increasing violence on the part of the woke movement, from politically motivated assaults to riots to assassination attempts to murders.  Most of these events have gone largely ignored by the corporate media, the SPLC and the ADL.  But, conservatives and moderates remember.  The time for a reckoning has arrived.