Authored by Benjamin Bartee via PJMedia.com,

The biggest story in the world over the weekend — on social media, that is; legacy corporate state media ignored it entirely because it’s inconvenient to their narrative — was the unprovoked plunging of a blade into the carotid artery of a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee by a hulking thug with 14 prior arrests for violent crime to his name. 

Unlike the legacy media that refuses to touch rampant and totally disproportionate black-on-white crime on pain of death, Athena Thorne covered the story for PJ Media. 

In more recently released audio to accompany the video, the killer can be heard congratulating himself: “I got that white girl.”

Unsurprisingly, but still shocking to the conscience, BLM-esque activists sympathetic not to the victim but to the cold-blooded murderer launched not one but two GoFundMe fundraisers in the immediate aftermath, even though video of the assault is widely available on social media and depicts a pre-meditated and, again, wholly unprovoked attack on an innocent and defenseless woman who appears to have barely weighed 100 pounds. 

From the first fundraiser for the killer, now deleted but archived here:

 Raising money to assist with legal fees for Decarlos Dejuan Brown JR. anything helps fight against the racism and bias against our people. Thank you for giving us a hand to push against this corrupt narrative

From the second, also deleted but also archived here:

 While what happened on the Blue Line was a tragedy what we mustn’t lose sight of is the fact that Decarlos Brown JR was failed categorically by the Judicial system and the Mental Health Services of North Carolina and as such is not entirely to blame for what happened.

As it is so, we endeavor to raise funds for his legal defense and hope to avoid punitive sentencing and to also get him the aid he requires.

Wow @gofundme is crazy for this pic.twitter.com/j3jHqM3zlI

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) September 7, 2025

The “mental health professionals made him do it” line is so stupid that it’s hard to believe the second fundraiser wasn’t satire. 

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, the company explained that it had removed the pages and refunded donor money:

GoFundMe’s Terms of Service explicitly prohibit fundraisers that raise money for the legal defense of anyone formally charged with an alleged violent crime. Consistent with this long-standing policy, this fundraiser has been removed from the platform and the donors who contributed to the fundraiser have been fully refunded.

In separate but equal news, diverse Charlotte Mayor Vi praised the city’s “media partners” (why should media be in “partnership” with government?) for refusing to air the footage — out of respect for the victim, obviously:

The video of the heartbreaking attack that took Iryna Zarutska’s life is now public. I want to thank our media partners and community members who have chosen not to repost or share the footage out of respect for Iryna’s family.

The hypocrisy is so glaring that it scarcely needs noting, but not one of these DEI public officials — not one — promoted the censorship of the George Floyd overdose video that sparked a summer of rioting from coast to coast.

One must wonder: why the double standard?

Authored by Frank Corva via BitcoinMagazione.com,

In the U.S. Senate Banking Committee’s most recent version of the CLARITY Act, Bitcoin and crypto developers would be protected from being charged with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business moving forward — and retroactively.

Senator Cynthia Lummis and her colleagues in the Senate Banking Committee are heeding the call of the Bitcoin and crypto industry to protect developers.

On Friday, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released its latest draft of the CLARITY Act (CLARITY), in which it proposes an amendment to 18 U.S. Code § 1960(a) stipulates that only crypto developers or providers that “knowingly exercise control over currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency” be treated as money transmitting businesses.

The first page of the Senate Banking Committee’s latest version of CLARITY.

What is more, this amendment would not only protect Bitcoin and crypto developers in the wake of a bill with this language included in its passing, but it would also protect said developers retroactively.

In Section 501 of section Title V of the draft, entitled “Protecting Software Developers and Software Innovation,” it states that “This section, and the amendments made by this section, shall apply to conduct occurring before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.”

A Positive Development for Tornado Cash Developer Roman Storm

If this language is included in a version of the bill that is enacted into law, Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, who was found guilty of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business last month, stands to benefit.

Storm has alluded to the notion that he plans to appeal the guilty verdict, as per reporting by Eleanor Terrett.

If CLARITY becomes law and the language regarding retroactive developer protection is included in the draft of the bill that passes, Storm’s legal team should theoretically have no issue winning at the appellate level.

Unfortunately, if CLARITY passes with the retroactive protections included, this will not help the Samourai Wallet Developers, who accepted a plea deal for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in July.

Further Protection for Developers of Noncustodial Crypto Tech

This most recent draft of CLARITY also stipulates that developers or providers of “non-controlling” (noncustodial) crypto technology shall not be treated as money transmitting businesses under 31 U.S. Code § 5330. This would also be applied retroactively.

Non-controlling developers are defined as those who create or work on “distributed ledger service(s), that in the regular course of operations, does not have the legal right of the unilateral and independent ability to control, initiate upon demand, or effectuate transactions involving digital assets to which users are entitled, without the approval, consent, or direction of any other third party.”

The definition applies to developers of crypto services, software, or hardware that helps customers facilitate the self custody and safekeeping of digital assets.

What Comes Next?

Congress is back in session as of September 2, 2025, and the U.S. Senate Banking Committee plans to continue to prioritize CLARITY, after accepting input on the bill from many members of the crypto industry.

“This legislative draft reflects feedback from hundreds of stakeholders on a wide range of questions as part of the Request for Information (RFI) on the July discussion draft,” a spokesperson from the Senate Banking Committee told Bitcoin Magazine. “Chairman Scott, Senator Lummis, and their colleagues will continue working in a bipartisan way to deliver a final product that will protect investors, foster innovation, and keep the future of digital finance anchored in America.”

No hearings regarding the bill are currently on the Senate Banking Committee’s calendar.

This coming winter could be one of the harshest yet for Ukrainians, given Russia has greatly ramped up it’s nationwide drone and missile attacks, often targeting power and energy infrastructure – likely in response to Ukraine’s own sustained cross border attacks on oil depots inside Russia.

Overnight, Ukraine’s energy ministry said Russian forces struck a thermal power generation facility in the Kyiv region, which suffered some local blackouts and gas outages as a result. While much of the east of Ukraine has seen frequent mass outages throughout the war, this is a more rare occurrence for the capital area.

“The goal is obvious: to cause even more hardship to the peaceful population of Ukraine, to leave Ukrainian homes, hospitals, kindergartens and schools without light and heat,” the ministry wrote on Telegram.

This followed on the heels of the single largest aerial attack in three-and-half years of conflict, which resulted in a serious blaze at a government building (offices of the cabinet ministers) on Sunday. Russia’s defense ministry confirmed that it targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure in this newest strike.

Ukraine’s electricity grid operator Ukrenergo later said several power sites for the country were hit. “Emergency repair work is ongoing, and most consumers had their power restored by Monday morning,” it said.

Gas infrastructure was also damaged, resulting in over 8,000 properties in eight settlements suffering disconnect from their supply.

Serhiy Kovalenko, CEO of the Ukrainian energy company Yasno, wrote on X. “For several weeks now, the enemy has been striking energy system facilities in various regions.” He further warned, “Of course, no one knows what will happen this autumn, but given the recent strikes, there is no particular cause for optimism.”

Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller is also warning of a cold winter full of needless suffering for the EU. Russian media carried his fresh comments as follows:

Citing data from Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), Gazprom said that as of end-August only two-thirds of the gas withdrawn from European storage facilities last winter had been replenished, after five months of injections. The shortfall of 18.9 billion cubic meters was the second largest on record for that date.

Gazprom, once the EU’s main supplier, reduced its exports to the bloc dramatically three years ago, following Western sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. Russian gas exports accounted for 40% of the bloc’s total supply before the escalation of the conflict and the imposition of unilateral sanctions by Brussels.

“We are now seeing the situation steadily worsening. This is what we have been talking about. Another year will pass, and where else can it go? If there is a normal cold winter, this will become a real problem,” Miller told Russia’s TASS news agency on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on Sunday.

This summer has seen several Ukrainian attacks on LNG pipeline infrastructure going to Europe. Also, this weekend another major Russian crude refinery was on fire after direct Ukrainian drone strikes.

The attack unleashed two active fires at the major Ryazan refinery, southeast of Moscow, with witnesses hearing explosions early and overnight last Friday, after which large flames and thick smoke were spotted above the southern outskirts of the city.

Authored b y Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Effective nuclear waste management is a critical global challenge, particularly for countries like the UK looking to expand their nuclear power sectors.

• The UK has a substantial amount of existing radioactive waste and is struggling to implement a long-term disposal solution, with the proposed underground geological disposal facility facing significant hurdles and cost concerns.

• Public and local community pushback against potential nuclear waste sites further complicates the development of new disposal facilities, making finding a solution an ongoing and difficult process.

One of the biggest hurdles to expanding the global nuclear power sector is the concern over how best to manage nuclear waste.

While some believe they have found sustainable solutions to dispose of nuclear waste, there is still widespread debate around how safe these methods are and the potential long-term impact of waste disposal and storage.

In the United Kingdom, the government has put nuclear power back on the agenda, after decades with no new nuclear developments; however, managing nuclear waste continues to be a major barrier to development. 

Nuclear waste remains radioactive for around 10,000 years, meaning it is vital that governments dispose of all waste effectively to ensure people and the environment are kept safe in the long term.

As more governments welcome a new nuclear era, they must address nuclear waste concerns and establish clear guidelines and regulations on disposal to ensure that all nuclear power companies adhere to strong safety standards and practices. 

There are three types of nuclear waste: low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste.

Most of the waste produced at nuclear facilities is lightly contaminated, including items such as tools and work clothing, with a level of around 1 percent radioactivity.

Meanwhile, spent fuel is an example of high-level waste, which contributes around 3 percent of the total volume of waste from nuclear energy production.

However, this contains around 95 percent of the radioactivity, making adequate waste management of these products extremely important. 

In the U.K., the government continues to battle with how best to dispose of its nuclear waste, as it looks to expand the industry over the coming decades. The U.K. has 700,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste from its previous nuclear power activities, a figure that will grow as more nuclear projects come online. The government is now considering the development of a massive underground nuclear dump, known as a geological deposit facility (GDF), to safely dispose of the waste. While no site has been confirmed for development, it is expected to be developed in one of two potential sites in Cumbria, in the north of England. 

A U.K. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson stated, “Constructing the UK’s first geological disposal facility will provide an internationally recognised safe and permanent disposal of the most hazardous radioactive waste.”

They added, “Progress continues to be made in areas taking part in the siting process for this multibillion-pound facility, which would bring thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth to the local area.”

However, the U.K. Treasury believes the government’s plan for the waste dump is “unachievable”, rating the project as “red”, or not possible, in a recent assessment. This means that, “There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need rescoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.” In addition, there are concerns over the projected project cost, which is expected to be anywhere up to $73 billion. 

Richard Outram, the secretary of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, explained, “The Nista red rating is hardly surprising. The GDF process is fraught with uncertainties, and the GDF ‘solution’ remains unproven and costly.” 

At present, the U.K. stores most of its nuclear waste at its Sellafield facility in Cumbria, which is viewed as one of the most complex and hazardous nuclear sites worldwide. However, with the planned decommissioning of several power plants and the development of new nuclear facilities, the government must address its imminent waste issue. This is a long-term problem, with it expected to take until 2150 to dispose of the country’s existing waste into a GDF, if one is developed, before disposing of new waste. 

In June, Lincolnshire County Council withdrew from being a potential site for the GDF after engaging with communities about the proposal. This is a common problem with developing nuclear waste sites, as the pushback in proposed waste regions often prevents development due to a not-in-my-backyard perspective from residents in the area. It is still unclear whether communities in Cumbria will hold a similar opinion. Corhyn Parr, the CEO of Nuclear Waste Services, said, “A GDF requires a suitable site and a willing community and will only be developed when both are in place.” 

Several countries around the globe are battling with how best to dispose of old and new nuclear waste, as a nuclear renaissance is starting to be seen, in line with global aims for a green transition. While nuclear power is now viewed as extremely safe and clean, there are pressing concerns around the adequate disposal of waste, which can be extremely harmful to human health and the environment if improperly managed, that must be rapidly addressed. 

In the past decade, plastic pollution has become one of the most visible environmental issues worldwide. Every year, millions of tonnes of plastic enter the ocean, affecting marine life, coastal communities, and ecosystems.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks the countries responsible for the highest cumulative leakage of mismanaged plastic waste that escaped and washed up on other countries’ beaches from 2010 to 2019.

The data for this visualization comes from the Global Plastic Hub.

Asia Leads in Ocean Plastic Leakage

China is the largest contributor, responsible for over 2.6 million tonnes of plastic waste that ended up on foreign beaches.

It’s followed by the Philippines (1.7 million tonnes), and India (966,000 tonnes).

Rapid economic growth, urbanization, and inadequate waste management systems contribute to these high figures.

Seven of the top 10 countries on the list are in Asia, underlining the region’s central role in the global ocean plastic crisis.

Plastic Waste Doesn’t Stay Local

Plastic debris often travel thousands of kilometers across oceans, carried solely by currents, wind, tides, and time.

For example, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch—a massive swirling zone between California and Hawaii—accumulates plastic from as far as Asia, North America, and South America.

The patch spans around 1.6 million km², comparable to twice the size of Texas.

The annual economic costs due to marine plastic pollution are estimated to be between $6-19 billion. According to the OECD, preventing land-based plastic leakage into the ocean across 38 member countries and 10 major plastic waste emitters in Asia and Africa could cost more than $86 billion.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: The Most Expensive U.S. Wildfires, So Far on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Jake Scott via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Britain was once a giant of car manufacturing. In the 1950s, we were the second-largest producer in the world and the biggest exporter. Coventry, Birmingham, and Oxford built not just cars, but the reputation of an industrial nation; to this day, it is a source of great pride that Jaguar–Land Rover, a global automotive icon, still stands between Coventry and Birmingham. By the 1970s, we were producing more than 1.6 million vehicles a year.

Today? We have fallen back to 1950s levels. Last year, Britain built fewer than half our peak output—800,000 cars, and the lowest outside the pandemic since 1954. Half a year later, by mid-2025, production has slumped a further 12 percent. The country that once led the automotive revolution is now struggling to stay afloat, and fighting to remain relevant.

This is why the news that BMW will end car production at Oxford’s Mini plant, shifting work to China, is so damning, bringing this decline into sharp focus. The Mini is not only a classic British car; Alec Issigonis’s original design made it an international icon. For decades, the Mini has been the bridge between British design flair and foreign investment. Its departure leaves 1,500 jobs at risk at a time when the government is desperate to fuel growth and convince a wavering consumer market that there is no tension between industrial production and Net Zero goals.

It’s a bitter reminder that we in Britain have been here before: letting an industrial crown jewel slip away.

The usual explanations will be offered: global competition, exchange rates, supply chains. All true, in the midst of a global trade war that is heating up and damaging major British exports. But such a diagnosis is incomplete. The truth is that Britain’s car industry is being squeezed by a mix of geopolitical realignment and government missteps.

The car industry has become the frontline of a new trade war. Washington has already moved aggressively to shield its own firms: the Inflation Reduction Act offers vast subsidies for US-made EVs and batteries, an unapologetic attempt to onshore production, and something that became a flashpoint of tension in Trump’s negotiation with the EU in the latest trade deal. On the production side, the Act has poured billions into US manufacturing: investment in EV and battery plants hit around $11 billion per quarter in 2024.

Ripples have been sent across the world in the US’s wake: Europe, faced with a flood of cheap Chinese EVs, has imposed tariffs of up to 35 percent after an anti-subsidy investigation. Talks have even turned to a system of minimum import prices instead of tariffs. Unsurprisingly, China has threatened retaliation against European luxury marques, while experts warn the tariffs may slow the EU’s green transition by raising prices.

This is no longer a free market: cars are treated as strategic assets, the 21st-century equivalent of shipbuilding or steel. Whoever controls the supply chains, particularly for EV batteries and the mining of lithium, controls not only the future of the industry but an important lever of national power.

The results are visible. In July 2025, Tesla’s UK sales collapsed nearly 60 percent, while Chinese giant BYD’s deliveries quadrupled. Europe responded by talking up new tariffs. Britain did nothing. In this asymmetric contest, our market risks becoming a showroom for foreign producers—subsidizing both sides of the trade war without defending our own.

The real danger is not simply that Britain loses factories—that would be lamentable, but new industries crop up all the time. The danger comes if Britain misreads the geopolitics of the moment. Policymakers assume that globalization still works on liberal lines, when in reality industrial competition has become nakedly political.

If the government continues to approach this as a morality play about “green obligations” rather than a contest of state-backed strategies, Britain will find itself outmaneuvered by rivals who are willing to fight dirty. The naivety of this government in the geopolitical realm is already on show—all it takes is an unscrupulous actor to take advantage.

Meanwhile, Britain’s car industry is being crushed under the weight of its own government’s Net Zero agenda.

The most obvious domestic distortion comes from the government’s own Net Zero policies. Ministers have decreed that petrol and diesel cars must disappear by 2035, with quotas forcing manufacturers to sell ever-higher proportions of electric vehicles long before customers are ready—a decision enforced by the current government, but made by its predecessor.

On paper, it looks like progress. Nearly one in five new cars sold in Britain last year was electric. In June 2025, the figure briefly touched 25 percent. But strip out fleet purchases and subsidies, and private demand is anemic. Only about one in ten EVs was bought by a private household.

For manufacturers, the economics are even tougher. Retooling factories for EVs requires billions in investment. Yet the batteries—the heart of the new supply chain—are overwhelmingly produced abroad. China commands over 70 percent of global output, Europe is building dozens of gigafactories, and Britain has just one small facility. No wonder BMW decided that Oxford was not the place to build the future Mini, forced out by the pressures its own government applied.

The intention may be laudable, but the execution is not. Policy is not aligning with either consumer demand or industrial capacity.

Meanwhile, there are very few actual incentives for consumers to switch over: charging network coverage remains patchy; electric models cost £35,000 or more; and consumers already pay the highest energy bills in Europe. The market is being pulled one way by ministers, another by reality.

We’ve been here before. After the war until the end of the 1970s, in the mislabeled “Post-war consensus,” governments tried to micromanage the car industry’s future through subsidies, planning boards and nationalization. The outcome was not at all surprising: British cars and their manufacturers were known for poor quality, collapsing output, and eventual irrelevance.

The risk now is that Net Zero becomes another form of overreach, with governments trying to enforce an industrial transformation without the underlying conditions in place.

Cleaner technologies may be necessary, and the automotive industry has already made huge strides in progress. The irony is that Britain has the engineering talent and know-how to deliver them, but when the state insists on timelines and quotas while failing to invest in the supply chain or shield producers from unfair competition, the result is predictable: decline.

Britain could chart a smarter course. That means lowering energy costs for industry, reforming planning so that battery plants can be built at speed, and ensuring that rules are competitive rather than punitive. Before all of this, it means recognizing that the route to prosperity is getting the government out of the way.

Most importantly, though, it requires recognizing that the car industry is now a geopolitical contest. The US, EU, and China all understand this.

The decline of British car making is not just about economics. These plants are part of our cultural DNA. The Mini isn’t just a car; it’s a symbol of Britain itself. Small, ingenious, stylish, and stubbornly practical. To lose it to Net Zero dogma is an act of national self-harm and a loss of prestige.

Oxford’s closure is not an isolated blow. It is a warning. We can either learn from our own history and build policy around industrial reality, or we can keep writing the obituary of British manufacturing.

Because if Britain continues down the current path, the story of the Mini may become the story of the entire industry: once world-leading, now outsourced, and soon extinct.

Istanbul is on edge and on the brink of more violence amid Erdogan’s ongoing crackdown on the country’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), which on Sunday urged citizens and residents of Istanbul to take to the streets and gather after police set up barricades in areas around its Istanbul headquarters.

Authorities are blaming CHP officials for causing unrest while disrupting the public order, after hours of mayhem. The scene outside CHP Istanbul Provincial Headquarters was of tense police clashes with protesters, after which the court-appointed interim leader of CHP finally entered the party’s office under police protection.

Last Tuesday a top Turkish court annulled the results of the CHP’s 2023 Istanbul provincial congress, over alleged bribery that influenced delegate votes. This resulted in the court-ordered the dismissal of the board members elected at that congress.

The CHP has rejected the ruling and the bribery claims in particular, arguing that the court has no authority to override final decisions made at the party congress.

The court had named former CHP deputy chair Gürsel Tekin as interim provincial head, replacing Özgur Çelik. The CHP plans will hold an extraordinary congress on September 21, to reassert autonomy and fight back against what it says is a politically motivated persecution by Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party).

The state-backed targeting of CHP leadership, by the AKP-stacked courts (among law enforcement institutions and prosecutors as well), has only increased in the wake its widespread success in the 2024 local elections.

Clashes amid the fight to defend CHP HQ from police enforcing court ordered leadership change…

Protests in Istanbul and restrictions on social media in Turkey

➡️Protests took place in Istanbul, followed by restrictions on access to social media platforms on Monday morning. Turkish authorities have yet to issue any official clarification. pic.twitter.com/BC0F3e04NV

— Sprinter Express (@SprinterExpres0) September 8, 2025

CHP leaders have denounced the ruling as “null and void”. However, Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya has denounced those who posted social media content urging crowds to come barricade the CHP building.

“Disregarding court rulings, trying to pour people out onto the streets is openly challenging the law. Nobody is above the law. The state will do what is necessary against any illegal initiative with determination,” Yerlikaya stated on X.

Turkey is facing massive protests after a court removed the local leadership of the main opposition party CHP’s Istanbul unit. The Turkish police fired pepper spray to deter the protesters. Watch out for more. pic.twitter.com/IQDikc9tuR

— Shogri (@shogri786) September 8, 2025

But the opposition party has remained openly defiant, worried that if it is silenced, this could be a final death knell and the start of essentially one-party rule and final total victory for AKP:

Speaking at a CHP event in Istanbul, party chairperson Özgur Özel called on Turks to gather and demonstrate against the court decision and the crackdown against his party, as well as the police measures to set up barricades around the headquarters and restrict public access to it.

“From here, I invite all democrats and CHP members whom my words and voice reach to, to protect the home of Atatürk in Istanbul,” he said, referring to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, modern Türkiye’s founder.

Erdogan resorts to the usual social media censuring, outright banning several popular platforms:

⚠️ Confirmed: Live metrics show online platforms including X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp have been restricted in #Turkey on multiple networks; the incident comes as main opposition party CHP calls for rallies after police blockade its Istanbul headquarters pic.twitter.com/ECVjvWlvzL

— NetBlocks (@netblocks) September 7, 2025

The opposition leaders do have reason to fear, especially after the major escalation of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu’s arrest. The prominent opposition figure could be a potential presidential contender against President Erdogan, but he was detained on March 19. 

CHP sources have denounced the ‘political coup’…

Our Istanbul Headquarters is under siege!

We will never hand over the Republican People’s Party, our nation’s last hope, to coup plotters. Here we remain, united, resisting, and defending our home, our future, and our democracy! pic.twitter.com/JATWsrf1ev

— CHP Youth (@CHPYouth) September 7, 2025

What ensued was a massive crackdown, with authorities arresting CHP mayors, officials, and politicians on various charges including bribery, which may be trumped-up.

Additionally, some 2,000 demonstrators have been arrested, and there’s expected to be more protest action to come centered at the CHP Istanbul headquarters.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Putin elaborated on his master plan for the Russian Arctic and Far East during his keynote speech at this year’s Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok last week.

This piece will summarize what he shared and analyze it in the emerging geostrategic context.

To begin with, he envisages these regions serving as industrial, logistics, and tech hubs due to their location and resources.

Raw materials will fuel industry; rivers and new railways, seaports, and airports will facilitate logistics; and rare earths will drive tech.

Relevant coastal facilities will be constructed in the future, which might be powered by new hydroelectric plants, and these will be connected to one another and hinterland areas (resource deposits and settlements) by an integrated logistics system.

More bridges will be built to China and North Korea too. Existing preferential policies for businesses in some areas and for residents under some conditions will be expanded throughout both regions to stimulate investment and increase the population there.

Reducing population outflow is a priority, as is encouraging the inflow of Russians from elsewhere, which more enterprises can assist with upon the state streamlining last year’s policy of reimbursing them with tax deductions for continuing to build social infrastructure for their employees in remote areas.

The attendant public-private partnership that Putin envisages strengthening can therefore accelerate regional socio-economic development per his master plan for the Arctic and Far East.

The emerging geostrategic context will help achieve these goals. The center of the global economy has shifted from Europe to Asia, and with it, so too has Russia’s overall focus. China, India, and ASEAN (with Indonesia at its core) are considered Russia’s top partners in this regard. The latest updates are that Russia just clinched a long-negotiated deal over the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline; Putin plans to visit India by year’s end; and Russia clinched a strategic partnership deal with Indonesia earlier this summer.

Investments in the Transarctic Corridor (the Northern Sea Route plus planned rail-riparian connectivity to there from Siberia and the Far East) and the Eastern Polygon (the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainland railway) will help Russia tap into these near-limitless market opportunities. It would also ideally benefit from trade with and investments from the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, but these pillars of the “Global West” decided to sanction Russia as punishment for its special operation.

That was counterproductive since China will now likely play an even more outsized role in the Arctic and Far East’s development, especially as regards resource extraction, thus turbocharging its superpower trajectory and hastening their demise. India and Indonesia can help Russia preemptively avert potentially disproportionate dependence on China, which serves all three’s interests, while the “Global West” will continue harming its own interests by eschewing any role in Russia’s geo-economic balancing act.

Absent a policy reversal, even if only in part and from just some of the “Global West” like nearby Japan and South Korea, the implementation of Putin’s master plan for the Arctic and Far East will provide a powerful impetus to BRICS’ and the SCO’s rise as their members seek to transform global governance.

China will lead the way while Russia, India, and Indonesia will play important supportive roles.

The end result might be the world’s bifurcation into the US-led “Global West” and the Chinese-led Global South.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

The news feeds were buzzing last week over the recent meeting between Russia, China and India at the Chinese port city of Tianjin. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi made sure to present a unified front at the event, at least in economic terms, and it’s clear that China and Russia’s military ties are solidifying. The Shanghai Cooperation Gathering is being treated by the media as a warning to the US in the face of accelerating trade tensions.

Western journalists seem rather giddy over the news, suggesting that Donald Trump’s tariff policies are pushing America’s enemies together and forming an anti-US axis. The political left hates Trump so completely that I wouldn’t be surprised to see them cheering for Putin and the BRICS in a year or two.

News flash for those who are unaware: The BRICS have been forming their alliance since the Obama era. It’s nothing new and has nothing to do with Trump.

I’ve been tracking the formation of the BRICS alliance since 2009 and the driving motive behind the economic bloc (on the surface) has always been to break from the dollar as the world reserve currency. BRICS leaders have been calling for the end of the dollar and the introduction of a new global currency system for years. Though, the plan is not as eastern focused as many people assume. That is to say, if you’re hoping the BRICS are going to “end globalism” you are sorely mistaken.

In fact, in 2009 both Russia and China put forward the notion of a global currency managed by the IMF; an organization that many people think is US controlled. The reality is that it is globalist controlled, and globalists have no enduring loyalties to any nation state; they are only loyal to their own agenda.

Some people might argue that the situation has changed dramatically since 2009, but I disagree. China is now inexorably tied to the IMF’s SDR basket and Russia remains an active member of the IMF despite the war in Ukraine. It’s important to understand that there are always two different timelines when it comes to world events – There is the more publicized international theater, and then there are the operations of globalist institutions that exist outside of geopolitics.

In my view, globalists are not necessarily the “engineers” behind every conflict or crisis, but they do position themselves to take advantage whenever possible. And, they do play both sides of every conflagration in order to gain the most benefit. In other words, groups like the IMF, World Bank, the BIS, the WEF, and trillion dollar conglomerates like BlackRock and Vanguard are going to court the BRICS just as much as they court the west when it comes to achieving a centralized one-world economy.

It’s no secret what this “new world order” is intended to look like. The Davos crowd has openly discussed their visions for years and during the pandemic they ripped the mask off and reveled in the “inevitable” implementation of their “Great Reset”. To summarize, this is what the elites want for the future economy:

A global cashless system. A one world digital currency built around a basket of CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies). AI tracking of all financial records. A “sharing economy” in which all private property is abolished. The use of “de-banking” to control civil discourse – Meaning you can say what you want but you might lose access to your accounts, and perhaps even the jobs market. Population control and reduction. Carbon feudalism in which nations pay tribute taxes to globalists in the name of “stopping man-made climate change” (which doesn’t exist).

These taxes are then redistributed to various nations as a way to incentivize their cooperation. And ultimately, they want the introduction of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a way to make every individual dependent on centralized government for their livelihood so that they never think of rebelling.

This is what the Davos elite mean when they talk about the “Great Reset”. I have noted in recent articles, however, that the globalists have grown disturbingly quiet in the past year. They are not so bold anymore in their speeches as they were during the pandemic and their plans do seem to be hitting a wall.

I’ve seen the media, a number of central bankers and political leaders refer to this issue as Donald Trump’s “economic reset” and I find this narrative fascinating. What exactly are they talking about? Are there competing resets in play, and if so, does this mean the globalist agenda has been derailed?

Trump’s Reset And The End Of Bretton-Woods

Trump’s reset, if we’re to call it that, seems to be rooted in the reversal of the post-WWII Bretton-Woods agreement in which the US was made the de facto financial engine of the global economy. This was when the dollar’s status as world reserve currency was solidified, when America became the consumption hub for the west, and when NATO was formed.

It sounds like a sweet deal for Americans, but playing the role is costly. It is, slowly but surely, destroying our economy through debt and inflation.

Many presidents have used targeted tariffs since WWII, but none have enforced sweeping tariffs like Trump. Often compared to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs under Herbert Hoover which are wrongly blamed for the Great Depression (it was actually international banks and the Federal Reserve that caused the Depression), Trump’s import taxes throw a monkey wrench into the gears of Bretton-Woods trade and stifle globalism by forcing large corporations to reduce their foreign outsourcing.

As I’ve noted many times, global corporations are NOT free market entities, they are socialist entities chartered by governments and protected through special legal and economic privileges. If a company is “too big to fail” and is thus entitled to taxpayer cash through bailouts and QE, then they are not a mechanism of the free market. Therefore, we should not care if they get taxed through tariffs.

Frankly, I think corporate globalism and economic interdependency should be abolished, by force if necessary.

Legitimate Decentralization Or Controlled Chaos?

Trump’s tariffs along with his cuts to foreign subsidies and other economic policies could, in a few years, completely disrupt globalism as we know it. So, in a way, it is indeed a kind of “economic reset”. But here’s the rub: Could Trump’s efforts end up accelerating the globalist reset rather than defeating it?

As noted earlier, the formation of close ties between the BRICS nations has been ongoing since 2009 and their key goal has been to end the structures put in place by the Bretton-Woods agreement. They have stated in the past that they want a new currency system run by the IMF. Whether the BRICS know it or not, their efforts to develop CBDCs and unseat the US play directly into the globalist game plan.

The IMF and the BIS have been working diligently (and quietly) to build a cross-border CBDC framework and the IMF has been planning its own global digital currency built around the SDR basket. The BIS sometimes refers to this system as a “Unified Ledger”.

Are the banking elites setting up an alternative to the dollar in preparation for an incoming clash between the US and the BRICS? And is Trump’s “reset” a catalyst for that crisis?

I support Trump’s tariffs for a number of reasons. I think globalism needs to end. I think domestic production needs to return to the US and I think corporations need to pay a price for their outsourcing. I don’t think that Americans should act as the primary consumer hub for the entire world and I don’t think it’s our job to subsidize the planet. I also think that nothing is going to change unless drastic measures are taken in the near term.

But I also understand the reality that if the US stops playing the role it has been playing since WWII, the majority of nations around the planet are facing a shocking disruption. The US makes up around 30% of global consumption. We supply the vast majority of global foreign aid (around $70 billion to $100 billion annually), which many countries have come to rely on. We are the primary export market for the world and there is no realistic replacement. The dollar and the SWIFT system are the key drivers of global trade.

Would Trump’s reset actually force a majority of nations into a desperate situation? A situation that compels them to look for an alternative solution they would not otherwise accept? Are the globalists waiting in the wings to offer that solution in the form of their own “Great Reset” and one-world digital currency system?

One way or another the existing economic interdependency needs to die. Global corporations need to face a reckoning after decades of protection and special treatment. Production needs to return to the US. Americans need to stop paying for the rest of the world through foreign aid. But if we’re going to take this path then we must also dismantle all globalist organizations in the process.

I believe these institutions plan on exploiting the instability caused by the US breaking from the Bretton-Woods structure. I think they have positioned themselves, as always, to take advantage of any potential conflict that might result. They cannot be allowed to use our necessary reforms as as springboard to achieve the evils of their Great Reset.

A true “reset” will require us to make the destruction of globalist institutions a priority.  Otherwise, any economic action we take could ultimately benefit their agenda.

Israel’s skies witnessed a lot of dangerous drone activity out of Yemen on Sunday into Monday. Israel’s Ramon Airport in the south of the country was directly struck by one of the drones, resulting in all flights having been grounded.

What is unusual is that sirens were not sounded ahead of the attack, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are investigating the incident. Ramon primarily serves the city of Eilat at the southern tip of the country on the Red Sea, and it was completely shut down for 90 minutes after the attack.

Videos showed the airport arrivals hall littered with glass as many windows were busted out in the attack. The Houthis owned up to it, stating that its drone “directly hit the airport and caused the airport to shut down, halting air traffic.”

A 63-year-old man was injured in the attack, but no other casualties were reported. It comes after Israel’s main Ben Gurion International Airport has come under repeat ballistic missile attack – though most projectiles have failed to hit the target.

Houthi military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree declared Sunday the Houthis “will escalate their military operations and not back down from their support for Gaza” – and warned that Israeli airports “are unsafe and will be continuously targeted.”

Reports of more hostile drones over Israel on Monday:

❗️NOW: IDF helicopters chasing Yemeni drone for several minutes over Israeli airspace

As Houthis Spox announces launching ‘three drones toward Ben Gurion Airport, Ramon Airport, and sensitive target in Dimona’

Ben Gurion Airport SHUTS DOWN as Israel scrambles fighter jets pic.twitter.com/OYsMrPDVj6

— RT (@RT_com) September 8, 2025

The Ramon airport incident demonstrates that Israel’s celebrated multi-layered air missile defense system is struggling to keep up, as drones and missiles have on many occasions slipped through.

Israeli media reports at least three more drones were intercepted on Monday, which again threatened southern Israel.

The drone threat from Yemen has increased of late, which Iranian sources have positively celebrated…

Israeli helicopters try to intercept a Yemeni drone over occupied al-Quds.

Follow: https://t.co/7Dg3b41PJ5 pic.twitter.com/5CaFwiuVHz

— PressTV Extra (@PresstvExtra) September 8, 2025

“Monday saw another drone intercepted near the airport, the military said, setting off sirens. Several interceptor missiles were launched over the Eilat area — just south of the airport — to shoot down the drone,” reports TOI.