Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Children as young as seven are being sat down in British classrooms and told to list the “positive” aspects of migration – and only the positives. No pressure on housing. No wages. No hotels. No community strain. Just the approved script.

Show Racism the Red Card, which brands itself the UK’s “leading anti-racism charity,” has produced lesson plans that treat migration as an unalloyed good.

Pupils are being handed headlines such as “how many more migrants can we take?” and instructed to rewrite them in a cheerier register – “migrant workers bring fresh hope to British economy” is the model answer. The materials describe the exercise as “an opportunity to explore what is positive and good about migration.”

Children as young as seven are being taught that migration is a “positive” force in Britain by a charity whose funding was cancelled by a Reform council

? https://t.co/ZXpVRO0jOH pic.twitter.com/XfVNUlbTuU

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 27, 2026

It’s pure insidious indoctrination.

The same packs tell British kids that women and children make up 80 per cent of refugees worldwide. They do not mention that adult men account for around three-quarters of those landing on British beaches in small boats.

Pupils are told it is “false” to claim most people fleeing their countries are adult men. They are told asylum seekers survive on £6.42 a day and are banned from working. They are not told what hotels, HMO placements and the rest of the support system actually cost.

Listed “benefits” include filling vacancies, plugging skills shortages, propping up social care and closing the “pension gap” with young foreign workers. There is no matching column for crowded classrooms, GP waiting lists, suppressed wages at the bottom end, or what happens when too many people arrive too fast into towns that never voted for any of it.

Sunderland’s Reform-led council has now ended a 30-year relationship with the group. Council leader Christopher Eynon said the authority would no longer back “politically charged organisations with an agenda.”

Labour Party chairman Bridget Phillipson called the cut “misguided, cruel and in no way backed by the people of Sunderland.” Nigel Farage took the opposite view: “As ever an innocuous sounding organisation has a hard-Left agenda.“

The lesson catalogue goes well beyond migration. It covers activism, Black History Month, the meaning and purpose of demonstrations, Windrush, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, “what makes a happy home,” how to support people experiencing racism, anti-Semitism, and racism in online gaming, which the plans call “extremely common.”

Anti-racism is one thing. Turning seven-year-olds into activists for a live political project is quite another.

The charity’s own “Migration. Making Britain Great” programme was built to “counter and alter the negative narrative surrounding migration.” That is the point. Not to weigh evidence. To alter the narrative.

A Department for Education spokesman said pupils should receive “a balanced presentation of opposing views on political topics,” and that schools must promote fundamental British values. “This isn’t optional, it’s the law.” The SRTRC packs do not look like balance. They look like one side of an argument, laminated and handed out as fact.

The same project has been running through British schools for years.

More than 1,100 schools and nurseries signed up to City of Sanctuary’s Schools of Sanctuary scheme. Suggested reading for children as young as five includes Kind by Alison Green, which tells pupils that people who “had to leave their homes and their countries because of danger” are “brave and amazing,” then offers the line: “Sometimes people say there’s no room for anyone more. But maybe you can say ‘There’s plenty of room! Come on in!‘”

Everybody’s Welcome by Patricia Hegarty is even blunter: “Everybody’s welcome, no matter who they are, wherever they may come from, whether near or far.”

Then-shadow education secretary Laura Trott slammed the findings, stating “Classrooms should be places of learning not promoting political ideology.” She added, “Portraying the arrival of small boats as a positive thing in books for children as young as five is indoctrination, this is an illegal practice.” The organisation’s aim, she noted, was to turn pupils into “ethically informed change makers.”

The far left Green Party went further. A leaked dossier called for a Department of Migration to push into classrooms “the need for and moral obligation of asylum and humanitarian protection.” Not an argument. A moral obligation – taught to children who cannot yet vote.

The BBC opened another door. Pro-migrant charity Heard, which has taken seed support linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, met producers of the CBBC show Pickle Storm – a comedy about a young “alien” fleeing persecution and settling in a British town.

Heard described the work as a way to “tap into children’s media and directly impact framing of migration in children’s content.” The corporation claimed the group “had no power to influence editing or production.”

Picture books. Lesson plans. Children’s television. All are amplifying the same narrative.

While seven-year-olds are told to accentuate the positive, boats in the English Channel have delivered an army.

Home Office figures put small-boat arrivals since Labour took office on 4 July 2024 at 83,279. Regular Army strength sits at 83,000. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp put it plainly: “Labour has let an entire army-sized population cross the Channel illegally. More people have arrived in small boats than we have soldiers defending Britain. That is completely bonkers.”

Former Royal Navy officer Chris Parry said Labour’s intake amounted to six-and-a-half divisions of fighting-age men. “That’s more divisions than were in the Allied assault wave on D-Day.” Almost 90 per cent of those intercepted since 2018 have been male; two-thirds aged 18 to 39.

Farage, writing after another surge of landings, said: “It is utterly insane.” Ordinary Britons, he added, “rightly ask if successive governments cannot stop people from arriving illegally in broad daylight… then what exactly is the point of having a border?”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has herself warned that the UK’s “generous” benefits and asylum support system is “drawing illegal migrants across the Channel.” The Home Office says significant numbers of those in the boats are economic migrants. That is the adult conversation. The classroom version skips it.

Nobody needs a think tank paper to decode this. Charities write the worksheets. Schools deliver them. Broadcasters soften the story for the same age group. Parties draft “moral obligation” into education policy. And the raw numbers keep arriving on beaches.

The children being trained to rewrite “how many more can we take” will inherit the housing queue, the school places and the social care system those arrivals load. They are not being equipped to judge that. They are being equipped to applaud it.

When Anthropic confidentially submitted its draft S-1 to the SEC back in June, it was clear there were many shocking numbers in the IPO prospectus which the company did not want made public amid speculation of massive ongoing losses, but few were prepared for what was leaked today to Reuters. 

According to a copy of the IPO prospectus leaked by Reuters, Anthropic is making a massive bet that AI will transform the global economy more profoundly than industrialization, electricity and ​the internet. But, as Reuters correctly puts it, “the cost to get there will be staggering” – the company reported a net loss of $42 billion in 2025. And while revenue grew 12-fold in 2025 to nearly $4.6 billion, the company lost more than $8 billion on an operating basis, with compute spend soaring to $7.33 billion, accounting for 58% of its $12.65 billion in total operating expenses. 

In other words, Anthropic lost almost $2 for every dollar it made in sales, and that trend is accelerating. 

It gets worse: not only is the company’s revenue fleeting, it is controlled by just two customers on the margin. Anthropic said nearly a quarter of its revenue came from just two customers last year, and as part of its risk factors, warned that many of its largest clients were not locked into long-term contracts and could cut or stop spending.

But what is most concerning is the confirmation of what we said back in July: it was back then we laid out the reason behind the forceful push by the frontier models to commence regulatory capture against open-weight models, which we framed as follows: 

The problem with the $2 trillion in circular AI financing is that it is all contingent on the frontiers (Anthropic/ OpenAI) being money good on their $1.5+TN in unfunded commitments. Which they won’t be if Chinese open LLMs grab market share. Hence the push against Chinese LLMs.

We doubled down on the massive amount of “unfunded spending commitments” by the big two frontier models, Anthropic and OpenAI, one month later when in response to the FT catching up to our previous reporting, we said that “Again: that $3 trillion in “unfunded spending commitments” (thank you AI SPVs) will never get funded when token prices for closed models collapse to open levels“

Again: that $3 trillion in “unfunded spending commitments” (thank you AI SPVs) will never get funded when token prices for closed models collapse to open levels https://t.co/HtVgODzRUr

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 14, 2026

In other words, $1.5 trillion each, and about a third of that through 2030, or $500 billion in spending commitments. 

Well, as Reuters reports, Anthropic’s massive unfunded spending obligations (for a detailed analysis of why this matters a lot, read “The Off-Balance Sheet Time Bomb Inside AI Hits $3.1 Trillion: Up $1.3TN In Three Months“) are precisely what we said they are to wit: Anthropic “plans to spend $518 billion on cloud, computing and infrastructure obligations in coming year, according to the prospectus.”

The problem: Anthropic already has massive amounts in (mostly) off-balance sheet debt, having stacked over $71 billion through special purpose vehicles to finance Google TPU chips. It also has a $15 billion credit facility and likely has many more unreported, off-balance sheet funding scheme that we are not aware of. 

And to fund it all the frontier AI company had just $20.3 billion in cash as of Dec 31, 2025, a number which has likely declined if the company was forced recently to draw down on a secured credit facility. 

Hence the urgency to raise a lot of capital as suddenly the well is looking awfully dry. The problem, of course, as we have discussed repeatedly is that Anthropic is coming to market at the worst possible time: just as token costs plunge to record lows…

Token prices new record lows pic.twitter.com/h2yG6kST4x

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 18, 2026

… while demand for frontier tokens has slowed substantially for the first time ever (light blue line), with Chinese open-weight models grabbing market share thanks to their cheap, just as efficient models.

Needless to say, this could prove to be a disastrous combination for Anthropic. 

Yes, there is Jevons paradox of course, but it is of little comfort to Anthropic if the only beneficiary of Jevons are Chinese models, and potentially Meta after the blistering launch of its Muse agentic platform. This is how Goldman framed the big problem for Dario Amodei (full report available to pro subs):

“Token demand growth will need to outpace declining token prices to support continued growth in investment spending. Frontier models are currently a key source of demand for hyperscaler compute. However, the rise of competitive open-source models has contributed to a decline in average token prices. Measures of frontier token demand slowed in July…” 

These rapid and adverse changes in the AI landscape explain why both Anthropic and OpenAI are desperate to go public and raise much needed capital to plug at least partially the massive holes that have opened – one can only imagine the panic that will ensue among the hyperscaler ecosystem if it becomes obvious that the two primary sources of future spending commitments across the entire AI world, Anthropic and OpenAI are in fact, not money good. 

And yet, realizing just how challenging raising capital would be, OpenAI has already pushed back its IPO to 2027, leaving just Anthropic with hopes of going public this year. However, Reuters reported recently that Anthropic’s public market debut is likely to be pushed to after the November US midterm elections; and if the very anti-AI Democrats  sweep congress, the IPO will likely be shelved indefinitely.

There’s more bad news: not only is the company incinerating cash, it may suddenly find itself stuck rolling out new models, allowing Chinese open-labs to catch up. In recent days, Anthropic has confronted – and disclosed – evidence from its own research that ⁠increasingly autonomous AI models can behave in unexpected and potentially harmful ways, including sabotaging code, assisting fraud and manipulating information in controlled tests.

As a result of similar activity, OpenAI – which also confidentially filed for its own IPO in June – earlier announced it would scrap the release of its latest AI model – GPT-6.1 Astra  – because, as the WSJ reported, the model  “performed poorly on tests measuring alignment, or how well the model adheres to what humans would like it to do. Specifically, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception: It wasn’t always honest about telling users of the actions it did or didn’t take…. Another issue was what OpenAI calls “scope authorization,” meaning that GPT-6.1 Astra would push ahead on a task without asking the user for permission, and would at times reach for external tools and services even if it might be unsafe.”

How can any company, and especially one which has been in the Trump admin’s sights for much of the past year, possibly hope to come to market in expectations of a $2+ trillion valuation? The answer is it can’t, which is why we are now getting various trial balloons setting the stage for the first of many delays. 

Meanwhile, the cash burn continues and there will come a point where either existing investors will have to throw much more good money after bad, or Dario will have to ram the IPO through, and risk a spectacular crash in the stock price. 

Authored by Mike Adams via NaturalNews.com,

The era when America’s above-ground infrastructure could be considered safe is now over. The drone revolution has quietly dismantled that assumption, and I believe we are dangerously unprepared for the era of distributed drone warfare.

The same precision-strike capability that hit Saudi pipelines and Qatari gas trains can be replicated here by lone actors or small cells, and it doesn’t take much in the way of manufacturing technology for a small group to accomplish this. Pointing this out is not alarmism. It is a straightforward consequence of the availability of cheap guidance systems, open-source know-how, and a vast, undefended homeland.

During my recent interview with Matt Bracken on Alex Jones, we discussed how the rise of decentralized drone warfare represents an existential threat to a nation that has never seriously defended its homeland. We examined the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, the evolution of drone technology and autonomy, the democratization of warfare, and the profound risks of artificial intelligence. Every one of those topics deserves far more attention than it is getting. I believe our national security establishment continues to underestimate this threat, and that refusal to confront it head-on will eventually be paid for in blood.

We no longer live in a world where only nation-states can wage war. The technology that once belonged exclusively to superpowers now sits in the hands of anyone with a credit card and a grudge. I have argued repeatedly that the hollowing out of America’s industrial and defense base, combined with the proliferation of cheap autonomous systems, has created a perfect storm that virtually guarantees a domestic attack sooner or later. The question is not whether drones will be used against American infrastructure, but when.

Our Glass House: The Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructure

America’s refineries, pipelines, power grids, and data centers are, unfortunately, wide open. They sit in plain sight, mapped by publicly available satellite imagery, and their locations are cataloged in government databases that have long since been compromised. Anyone with insider knowledge or even rudimentary research skills can identify single points of failure that would cause chaos for millions of people. The vulnerability is not theoretical; it is a matter of public record.

The recent Joliet refinery incident is a perfect illustration of how fragile our systems have become. When that refinery went down, it triggered a diesel panic and sent shockwaves through the regional fuel supply chain. Imagine that same scenario replicated across a dozen refineries simultaneously. The economic fallout would be catastrophic, and our current strategies for defending these sprawling assets are nothing short of inadequate. You cannot surround hundreds of square miles of pipeline with barbed wire and armed guards.

Russia has already recognized this reality. Its government authorized its central bank and Sberbank to operate anti-drone systems and arm personnel to defend financial infrastructure, effectively turning bankers into air-defense operators. Putin even moved to allow the state to temporarily seize commercial critical infrastructure that is not sufficiently protected from drone strikes. I find it telling that Russia, which we are supposed to consider our inferior, is adapting to this threat while our own officials issue warnings but do nothing. The FBI has publicly acknowledged that cheap commercial drones now pose a significant threat to U.S. security and the homeland, and that low-cost drones can kill personnel and damage critical infrastructure. That warning should have been a wake-up call. Instead, it has been largely ignored.

From Toys to Terminators: The Evolution of Drone Warfare

The drones of a decade ago were toys. The drones of today are weapons of precision warfare, and the drones of tomorrow will be autonomous killing machines. DARPA has been developing armies of drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions for years, with biologically inspired robotic systems that fly. While micro air vehicles fly slow and low, DARPA’s hypersonic stealth drones fly high and fast, with the armed Falcon HTV-2 launched from a rocket and designed to travel at Mach 20.

The Ukraine war has served as an accelerant for this technology. Both sides have deployed drone swarms, AI-enabled targeting systems, and kamikaze drones on a scale never before seen in combat. Russia has used Geran-2 and Geran-4 Seeker drones equipped with artificial intelligence to strike Ukrainian ports and shipping. For its part, Ukraine has launched swarm attacks involving hundreds of drones at a time, with Russia’s Defense Ministry reporting 519 UAVs shot down in a single night across more than twenty regions. This is the new face of war.

Autonomous drones represent a quantum leap beyond remote-controlled systems. Once a drone can identify and engage targets without a human pilot, jamming becomes irrelevant, and the decision loop shrinks from seconds to milliseconds. Glenn Diesen has noted that the emphasis in military affairs could shift back toward quantity with low-cost military hardware such as swarms and other inexpensive weapons platforms, making it possible to create mass effects without mass armies. And the technology is only getting cheaper and more accessible. The barrier to entry for building a lethal drone is now measured in thousands of dollars, not millions.

The Democratization of Destruction: Anyone Can Now Wage War

The monopoly on advanced weaponry that nation-states enjoyed for centuries is eroding before our eyes. Non-state actors, terrorists, cartels, and even lone individuals can now potentially build or buy lethal drones capable of destroying critical infrastructure and killing large numbers of people. This is the true democratization of destruction, and it is irreversible.

The cost asymmetry is devastating. A $30,000 drone can require $4 million missiles to defend against, and even then, the defender loses the economic exchange every time. Iran launched some 550 drones at Israel since the war began, according to the Institute of National Security Studies, alongside hundreds of ballistic missiles. Gulf states intercepted more than 1,500 Iranian missiles and drones in a single defensive operation but still suffered casualties and damage. When the attacker spends tens of thousands and the defender spends millions, the math favors the attacker every single time. Israel’s experience with cheap and elusive drones underscores how they put incessant pressure on even the most sophisticated air defenses.

I have long argued that this decentralization of warfare means we must rethink defense and security entirely. The old model, where a handful of government agencies and military commands protect the entire homeland, is obsolete. When a single individual can launch a drone from a rooftop and take out a substation, the idea that centralized authorities will save us becomes laughable. Every American needs to understand that we are now living in an era where warfare has been democratized, and the defenses have not kept pace.

A Call to Awareness and Preparedness

We must wake up to the reality that our infrastructure is vulnerable and the threat is growing every day. The incidents in Belgium, where unidentified drones forced the complete shutdown of Brussels and Liege airports, demonstrate how a simple technology can paralyze key national systems. The mysterious drone swarms that breached restricted airspace at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, home to B-52 bombers, show that even our most sensitive military installations are not immune. These are not random events; they are warnings.

Decentralization of technology cuts both ways. It can empower individuals to defend themselves and their communities, but it also enables attackers who wish to do harm. I believe the only solution is to decentralize our defenses, embrace resilience, and prepare ourselves for a world of decentralized machine cognition. This means building redundant systems, stockpiling essential supplies, and developing community-level response capabilities. It means understanding that the cavalry is not coming, and that our survival depends on our own preparation. The government that has failed to protect us from pandemics, economic collapse, and foreign adversaries is not going to protect us from drone swarms.

The time to prepare is now, before we face a catastrophic attack. I urge every reader to take this threat seriously, to educate themselves about the vulnerabilities in their own communities, and to take concrete steps toward self-reliance (such as building an off-grid solar system so you still have power when the grid goes down). Learn about drones, understand how they work, and consider how you would respond to a prolonged infrastructure outage. Support independent platforms like NaturalNews.com that tell the truth about these threats. Start growing your own food, storing water, and building the networks of trust that will carry us through crisis. The window for preparation is still open, but it is closing fast.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court’s order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

“Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews,” he said.

Disrupting those plans “imposes massive costs on the government,” and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries “who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption.”

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about “blanket assurances” from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won’t be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer’s request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Via Middle East Eye

For more than two decades, Iraq’s oil wealth has passed through a financial system centered thousands of miles away in New York. The arrangement, created after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, was initially designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues from creditors and help fund reconstruction.

Today, it gives Washington significant leverage over Iraq’s access to its own dollars, leverage that the US is increasingly using as it pressures Baghdad to curb Iran’s influence and the activities of armed groups aligned with Tehran. The issue came into sharp focus in April, when Washington blocked a shipment of about $500m in cash to Iraq as it pressured the government over Iran-aligned armed groups. 

Muayen al-Kadhimi, a former parliamentary Finance Committee member, condemned the decision at the time, calling on the government to end what he described as US dominance over Iraqi funds. “The US decision to freeze or delay sending Iraq’s foreign currency entitlements represents a serious violation of the financial and political sovereignty of the Iraqi state,” al-Kadhimi said.

The shipment was later restored, but the episode demonstrated how Iraq’s dependence on the US financial system can be used as a political tool.

The arrangement began after the US-led invasion in May 2003, when the Coalition Provisional Authority established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to collect the country’s oil revenues and use them for reconstruction and humanitarian needs. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, issued in May 2003, Iraqi oil and gas revenues were transferred to a special account in the name of the Central Bank of Iraq at the US Federal Reserve.

Five percent of the revenues were deducted for compensation to Kuwait following Iraq’s 1990 invasion. The system also included frozen assets belonging to Saddam Hussein’s former government and surplus funds from the UN’s Oil-for-Food program.

The arrangement was intended in part to protect Iraqi assets from international creditors pursuing claims dating back to Saddam’s rule. An International Advisory and Monitoring Board, including representatives from the UN, IMF, World Bank and Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, was established to oversee the fund.

The UN-backed system ended in 2011 at the request of the Iraqi government but Iraq’s oil revenues remained tied to the Federal Reserve.

A new account, known as IRAQ2, was established at the New York Fed. Oil revenues are deposited there before being transferred to the Central Bank of Iraq. At the same time, Iraq lost the comprehensive international protection previously provided under the UN system and became dependent on annual US executive orders granting immunity to its sovereign funds.

So while the formal international arrangement changed, the underlying dependence on the US financial system remained.

Why can’t Iraq simply move its money?

Iraqi oil is priced overwhelmingly in US dollars, while the country depends heavily on the currency for imports and international trade. Iraq also has about $40bn in unsettled external debts, creating concerns that moving its funds outside the existing system could expose them to claims from creditors.

Ahmed Saddam, an associate professor of economics at the University of Basra, told Middle East Eye that keeping the Central Bank of Iraq’s account in New York has important benefits. “I believe that the most important advantages of keeping the Central Bank of Iraq’s account in New York are protecting Iraqi oil revenues from being seized by creditors of the former regime, since the debts are estimated at tens of billions of dollars.”

“The second advantage is facilitating the sale of oil and the settlement of Iraq’s international trade; this account reduces transfer costs, and we should not forget that the dollar is the most widely used currency in international transactions.”

But Saddam said the arrangement also leaves Iraq vulnerable to US pressure. “As for the most prominent disadvantages, they lie in the ability of the US authorities to impose their influence by restricting access to dollars to Iraq, for example, and this means there is no real financial independence.”

According to Saddam, Iraq could sell its oil in euros or Chinese yuan, provided there were no binding conditions in its oil contracts, but even then that would not necessarily free Iraq from the dollar. “Even if that happens, the price will remain linked to the dollar because oil is priced in dollars, and what happens in practice is that the buyer pays the value in a non-dollar currency after converting it according to the dollar exchange rate.”

Iraq would still need dollars for much of its international trade, Saddam said, while shifting currencies could expose the country to exchange-rate losses and political pressure from Washington. His proposal was therefore diversification rather than an immediate break with the US system.

“I believe that Iraq’s financial independence will not be achieved if we assume moving the Central Bank of Iraq’s account from the United States to another country.”

“In my view, financial independence can be achieved by opening multiple sovereign accounts outside the United States while keeping the current account in New York. For example, the Central Bank could open an account with the European Central Bank, as well as with central banks in East Asia,” Saddam said.

The war on Iran is squeezing Iraq’s economy as disrupted oil exports cut revenues, while costlier imports and a weaker dinar drive up prices, exposing the country’s reliance on oil and foreign goods.

🔗: https://t.co/SreYBiH9L5 pic.twitter.com/8LZNo9gWz2

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 26, 2026

“Part of Iraq’s oil could also be sold in euros and yuan, let us assume only 15–20 percent, while the remaining 80–85 percent is sold in US dollars. In addition, financial independence requires developing the banking system in Iraq by expanding direct correspondent banking relationships with major banks in Europe and Asia,” he added.

How is the system being used against Iran?

The financial arrangement has taken on greater importance as Washington seeks to squeeze Iran economically and target armed groups in Iraq that are aligned with Tehran. Iraq has close political, economic and security ties with Iran, while several powerful armed groups operate inside the country.

For Washington, that has made Iraq’s financial system a key battleground in its efforts to restrict the flow of dollars to Iran. The US has accused Iraqi banks, exchange companies and other financial networks of exploiting the country’s financial system to move dollars towards sanctioned entities.

Since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, Washington has responded by tightening its oversight of Iraq’s access to the dollar and pressuring Baghdad to bring its financial system into line with US sanctions.

In early 2025, Iraq ended its long-running dollar auction system, formally known as the foreign currency window, after sustained US pressure. The system had allowed private banks and exchange companies to obtain dollars from the Central Bank of Iraq in exchange for Iraqi dinars.

But Washington’s leverage extends beyond Iraq’s banking system to the physical movement of dollars into the country. The April suspension of the $500m shipment was particularly significant because the cash was generated from Iraq’s own oil revenues.

Although electronic dollar transfers for international trade continued, the episode showed that Washington could restrict access to physical dollars when it wanted to pressure Baghdad.

The Iraqi government has sought to maintain its relationship with Washington while balancing its ties with Tehran and Iran-aligned armed groups.

Iraq’s Oil Minister Basem Mohammed Khudhair refused to answer questions about moving away from the Federal Reserve, telling MEE that the question fell under the remit of the finance ministry. However, he described the relationship between Baghdad and Washington as positive.

“There has been dialogue with the United States – a very positive dialogue, especially after our trip accompanied by the Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi there,” he said. “There is great understanding between the Iraqi government and the American government, and the US has provided all support to the Iraqi government for its success in its economic and political dossiers.”

But the consequences of Iraq’s financial dependence are ultimately felt beyond government ministries and central banks.

‘US controls Iraq’s fate’

Hussein Ali, a 35-year-old Baghdad native, said removing US oversight would not necessarily improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. “For us, whether Iraq’s money goes to the Federal Reserve in America or comes directly to Iraq, I don’t think our situation as citizens will improve. 

“Instead, the money will be at the disposal of the corrupt, and financial corruption will be even greater than it is now. From my viewpoint, I find it better for the money to remain in New York, under the guardianship and oversight of the US banking authorities.” Ali nevertheless acknowledged the sovereignty problem.

“It is true that keeping Iraq’s money in the US bank gives the United States the freedom to control Iraq’s fate politically, financially and in sovereign terms. But Iraq is not ready in terms of banking infrastructure, and the situation requires a strong government to come that cares about the country’s affairs and the interests of its people.”

He also raised concerns about money being moved towards Iran. “We have often heard how many officials and not state people smuggle money to Iran to help it confront the American economic blockade on Iran. Imagine what would happen if Iraq received its oil sale money into Iraqi banks far from American oversight and auditing. I believe Iraq’s situation will only get worse.”

Fatima Abdulkarim, a 55-year-old from Basra, shared those concerns. “I do not believe that Iraq’s oil funds going to Iraq directly instead of going to US banks will help to improve our economic situation.”

“Yes, it means Iraqis would dispose of the money without direct US intervention, but corruption will be greater, and the money will go to the same corrupt parties and officials. If the money remains in New York, it is at least under oversight and auditing. But if it comes to Iraqi banks far from any real oversight, I believe Iraq’s situation will be worse off.”

“Keeping the money under the guardianship and oversight of the US banking authorities is better than it reaching the hands of the corrupt,” Abdulkarim said.

Summary

• Trump by day’s end denies offering Iran sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear concessions; the morning headlines triggered a sharp drop in oil prices.

• US-Iran talks may resume, but only indirectly, this week; however Tehran remains skeptical after Trump rejected its ceasefire proposal.

• Iran announced targeting 19 vessels over a 48 hour period this weekend and is threatening to escalate further.

• Iran’s economy feels the pressure, with the rial hitting a record low near 2.3 million per dollar.

*  *  *

Trump Denies

We’ve really come full circle from where Monday morning started, and conveniently it’s just after market close:

Rinse and repeat…

No one believes it https://t.co/WGj0ebjy7f

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) September 28, 2026

Trump: “As soon as that war ends, inflation is gonna be eradicated totally” pic.twitter.com/Yvgnc1wKHW

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) September 28, 2026

All of this and it’s only Monday…

State Media Denies Iran Agreed to Halt Enrichment

As expected, the Iranians are denying the earlier reports that it “agreed to halt enrichment” – which came through Saudi state sources (see below):

IRANIAN OFFICIAL SAYS IRAN’S POSITION ON THE NUCLEAR ISSUE HAS NOT CHANGED AND THAT NO DISCUSSIONS ARE CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE ON THE MATTER, ADDING THAT REPORTS OF IRAN’S FLEXIBILITY ON ITS NUCLEAR STANCE ARE INCORRECT – FARS NEWS

IRAN’S ARAGHCHI: ‘STRONGLY DENY’ FLEXIBILITY ON NUCLEAR ISSUE

More confirmation: “Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei says no negotiations will begin until the US fulfils its commitments in the Islamabad understanding, while he stated that Iranian diplomats lack permission for bilateral or trilateral talks in the current situation.” But importantly:

TRUMP: DID NOT OFFER SANCTIONS RELIEF TO IRAN

And via state PressTV, calling the reports false:

🔺 An informed Iranian official has told Press TV that reports published by some news outlets about Iran showing flexibility over its nuclear position are false. pic.twitter.com/hloF3GbI3J

— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) September 28, 2026

Crude Drops Further on Regional Media Claims

Crude drops further, stocks exploding, amid another bombshell headline which will more than likely be met with a swift Iranian denial:

Iran has agreed to halt enrichment in exchange for easing US sanctions, reports [Saudi state] Al Hadath

Denial, or the walk-back was quick:

• The chances of an agreement are extremely slim, according to a US source involved in negotiations with Iran, via Al Arabiya
• While some reports allege that mediators in a last-ditch effort have suggested that Tehran frontload nuclear-related concessions to get buy-in from Trump, an Iranian source told Amwaj Media said no such proposal has been made

مصدر أميركي منخرط بالمفاوضات مع إيران للعربية: الفجوات واسعة والعقبات كبيرة #العربية_عاجل

— العربية عاجل (@AlArabiya_Brk) September 28, 2026

Oil Tumbles on the Unexpected: Trump Signals Sanctions Relief (…TACO Monday)

Al Jazeera is reporting that President Trump is signaling he’d be open to providing Iran with sanctions relief in return for nuclear concessions – though it remains that Tehran has throughout the war insisted that a ceasefire deal must be achieved first, before the nuclear file is dealt with.

US official says US President Trump is prepared to ease sanctions on Iran and release its frozen assets in exchange for progress on the nuclear issue, reports Al Jazeera

And…

CNN and Axios also run US offiicial comments (echoing Al Jazeera) that US President Trump is willing to grant Iran sanctions relief and release frozen funds in exchange for real progress on the nuclear issue.

As stocks jump, crude big plummet…

Note via Newsquawk: Oil sees downside, with slight Dollar pressure, while Treasuries, stocks, and spot gold see upside amid reports that Trump is ready to ease sanctions on Iran and release its frozen assets in exchange for progress on the nuclear file. Meanwhile…

IRAN OFFICIALS PESSIMISTIC ABOUT DEAL WITH US BEFORE MIDTERMS

The Iranian response is what’s going to matter here. They will likely see in this another ploy to merely talk down oil prices, and have already repeatedly said they ‘don’t trust’ Trump. It was only on Friday night into Saturday that Trump outright rejected Iran’s 7-day ceasefire pitch – with not even so much as an effort to sit down and talk details. But apparently that could happen this week on an indirect basis, via the typical Gulf mediators.

Ayatollah New Threat

After a weekend which saw President Trump reject an Iranian proposal for a 7-day ceasefire and roadmap to peace, and Tehran in turn targeting 19 ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the two sides once again have their fingers on the trigger.

Iran has said while it remains open to diplomacy, it is ‘fully prepared’ to resume the full-scale war with Washington, according to Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday. On Monday, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – who still hasn’t been seen since the war’s start and after his father’s assassination – has proclaimed his military has driven the ‘enemy’ from waters off southern Iran to the Arabian Sea.

“Having suffered painful blows from our valiant combatants and the guardians of the Strait of Hormuz, they [the enemy] dare not venture beyond the Arabian Sea,” Khamenei said in a new message. He warned that war could soon come to the Arabian Sea as well.

His words were issued on the annual remembrance of the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the anniversary of Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2024.

“Whenever they have risked doing so they have only inflicted harm upon themselves, and the time is fast approaching when the Arabian Sea, too, will be cleared of their presence,” Khamenei’s message added. This marks an extension of threats from Iranian security officials last week which warned that war is coming to the Indian Ocean more broadly.

However, the reality also is that oil exports from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman have been climbing over the past week. But renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian forces are trying to hinder this uptick in transit, is looking more and more likely.

This as diplomacy is obviously stalled. Bloomberg observes, “Iran and the US appeared far apart on a new ceasefire deal or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran saying it’s sticking to a proposal US President Donald Trump has rejected.” And, “In futures, oil rose as Iran and the US appeared far apart on a new ceasefire deal or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran saying it’s sticking to a proposal that US President Donald Trump has rejected.”

Return to ‘Talks’ Narrative

Like clockwork, anonymous diplomatic officials are once again in pre-market Monday morning hours pushing a “talks” narrative. According to more latest from Bloomberg:

Mediators expected to hold separate talks with US and Iran on Monday or Tuesday, with Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi and Qatari mediators remaining in the US, according to sources. Talks to focus on amended version of 7-day proposal Iran presented on UNGA sidelines.

Over the weekend, Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran said any reopening remains contingent on its conditions being met and its UN delegation reportedly has no plans for talks with the US. Trump nonetheless expects negotiations to resume this week, with the Iranian President also supporting talks.

And the Wall Street Journal has a parallel Monday morning story: “Peace negotiators are pressing Iran to make a concession on its nuclear program to revive ceasefire talks with the U.S. after President Trump rejected Tehran’s truce proposal, in a race to stop the conflict from escalating back into all-out war,” the publication says. On the headlines:

• Brent Dec fell from USD 100.70/bbl to around USD 99.60/bbl.
• WTI Nov dipped from USD 96/bbl to USD 94.90/bbl.

Trump in new comments to Axios:

“I expect more talks with Iran (this week),” Trump told Axios in a phone interview. “They want to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make. It is what we would have maybe agreed to a year ago. They overplayed their hand.”

Araghchi apparently stayed in New York through the weekend following his attendance of the UN General Assembly, with President Pesheshkian having departed back to Iran.

Ready for “apocalyptic war” if it comes to that…

🔸New: Iran’s FM Araghchi:

“President Pezeshkian and I did not come to New York to sell a war. We came to forge peace.

Iran nonetheless remains steadfast in the face of any aggression—even if it comes to an apocalyptic war. At the same time, we are ready for real diplomacy.” https://t.co/V1VtKDuk4L

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 27, 2026

Meanwhile the US economic war is continuing to bite, with Iran’s currency has hitting another historic low against the US dollar, exacerbated by severe inflation and the Trump/Bessent ‘Economic D-Day’ and ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ campaigns which seek to strangle the country. Financial trackers note that the free market exchange rate has escalated to 2.3 million rials per US dollar. 

Weekend & Overnight Developments

via Newsquawk

• US President Trump said he rejected a deal from Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, while he stated Iran wants to make a deal in which they open the strait immediately because it is losing so badly.
• US President Trump said he expects talks with Iran to resume this week even though he rejected Iran’s latest proposal, while he stated the conditions Iran wants are something the US may have agreed to around a year ago and that Tehran overplayed its hand, according to Axios.
• US President Trump said that as soon as the Iran war is over, which is soon, oil will drop, while he stated that they took out a record oil amount from Hormuz on Saturday night. Trump also stated that they will win against Iran in military and economic warfare, while he didn’t want to say regarding striking Iran before the Midterms and noted that Iran inflation was at 318%.
• US President Trump told Chinese President Xi during the summit to stop supporting Iran, according to Axios on Friday, citing US Ambassador to Beijing Perdue.
• Iran’s delegation in New York has no plans for talks with the US, according to a source close to the delegation cited by IRNA.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said they have seen the initial response from US President Trump to the 7-day ceasefire proposal, but are waiting to receive the official response via mediators, while he added that only a negotiated solution can get them out of this deadlock. Araghchi also stated that Iran’s conditions are clear and that any move towards reopening the Strait of Hormuz is contingent on these conditions being met.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said he and Iranian President Pezeshkian did not come to New York to sell a war and that they came to forge peace, while he added that Iran remains steadfast in the face of any aggression even if it comes to an apocalyptic war, but is at the same time, ready for real diplomacy.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said regional states can safeguard their own security, and he denied Iran’s direct involvement in Yemen, describing the situation as unrelated to Iran, but stated that Iran is ready to help resolve the conflict and urged Houthis and Saudi Arabia to enter talks instead of escalating.
• IRGC spokesman said not only is the Strait of Hormuz not open, but it is a hunting ground for the IRGC Navy against US submersibles.
• Iran army spokesman said Iran’s armed forces are prepared for any renewed US attacks after US President Trump said he rejected a deal from Iran.
• Local sources reported that a sea cruiser fired at a violating vessel in an unauthorised route of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Fars News.
• Saudi authorities suspended in-person classes in Riyadh for a week on Sunday, following reports the day before that Saudi air defences said they intercepted Houthi drones headed toward the capital and ballistic missiles targeting Khamis Mushait.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said Iran remains ready for dialogue despite being attacked during previous talks, but pressure and attacks will not force Iran to surrender.
• Source said Iran is prepared to compromise on its nuclear programme but wants guarantees Israel will not attack again after a US deal, N12 reported.

An Iranian national was sentenced to 18 months in prison for smuggling parts intended for military sonar to Iran through China.

More than a decade ago, Reza Dindar, 44, and his associates concealed the true destination of the sanctioned parts they were selling.

Dindar was sentenced in the U.S. District Court in Seattle on Sept. 25 after pleading guilty to two counts of exporting goods to an embargoed country and two counts of smuggling goods from the United States, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez also imposed a $10,000 fine and three years of supervised release after his prison term.

As Michael Zhuang further reports for The Epoch Times, Dindar was originally indicted by a federal grand jury in August 2014, but was not brought before a federal court until his extradition from Panama more than a decade later.

He was arrested in Panama in July 2025 at the request of U.S. authorities and extradited to the United States in April 2026. He pleaded guilty about six weeks later.

Dindar operated a company called New Port Sourcing Solutions in Xi’an, China, between 2010 and 2014, according to court records cited by the DOJ. The Chinese company concealed that it was purchasing U.S. goods for companies in Iran.

In 2011 and 2012, Dindar and his co-conspirators used the scheme to obtain parts for three military sonar systems from a company in Washington state, according to the plea agreement. They told the U.S. company the equipment would be used by a company in China. The parts were instead intended to be shipped through China to Iran, in violation of U.S. export controls.

The sanctions on Iran prohibited the unauthorized export, re-export, sale, or supply of sensitive U.S. goods, technology, and services to Iran. The restrictions also included transactions involving third countries when the goods are known or reasonably expected to be ultimately supplied or re-exported to Iran.

Martinez noted the 18-month sentence took into consideration Dindar’s significant time in a Panamanian prison.

Federal prosecutors had requested it, saying the 18-month imprisonment was needed to deter similar violations of U.S. export controls. Prosecutors described the controls as important to U.S. national security interests.

Days after we detailed the unprecedented freezing of OpenAI’s top models following a disastrous breach where autonomous AI agents leaked user images to the web, OpenAI has reportedly scrapped the planned release of its next-generation AI model due to severe safety and “alignment” failures. It basically lies when convenient (they used the word “deceptive”). 

According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal, OpenAI was aiming for an October debut of GPT-6.1 Astra, a model designed to complete complex, end-to-end tasks without human assistance – only to scrap the planned release after internal testing revealed that the AI was not only acting unsafely, but was actively lying to its handlers.

According to Saachi Jain, OpenAI’s head of safety systems, GPT-6.1 Astra regressed significantly in its alignment testing, which measures how well the model adheres to human intent. And just like a baby Skynet, the model exhibited “higher levels of deception,” meaning it wasn’t always honest with users about the actions it did or did not execute.

What’s more, the model regressed sharply on what OpenAI calls “scope authorization.” The AI would aggressively push forward on tasks without asking for user permission and would attempt to access external tools and services even if it was unsafe to do so. Highlighting the internal struggle to control the system, Jain noted, “For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off. You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction”.

As we previously reported, on Sept. 20 an internal OpenAI research agent discovered a gap in the DNS filtering of its training sandbox and used it to query an external public chatbot despite internet-access restrictions. OpenAI’s misalignment monitoring system flagged the behavior within 15 minutes, and a human reviewer picked it up three minutes later. The company subsequently said training, evaluation, and inference involving tool use for its most capable models would remain paused while it validated its containment systems and conducted additional red-teaming.

This latest cancellation does not exist in a vacuum. In July, during internal cybersecurity evaluations, OpenAI’s own agents blew through restrictions designed to keep them isolated from the internet and compromised both the company’s research infrastructure and Hugging Face. According to OpenAI’s own postmortem, the agents communicated through unauthorized channels, exploited vulnerabilities in shared infrastructure, executed code on dozens of Hugging Face servers, obtained full root access on one server, acquired credentials to the company’s messaging platform, and later gained full administrator access to an OpenAI research cluster.

OpenAI itself called the episode a “warning shot” for us and for the world, acknowledging that highly capable agents can now work around technical controls and take dangerous actions that no human directed. The company said the incidents did not affect OpenAI customer data, product functionality, or availability.

And Hugging Face wasn’t the only external system involved. Australian officials have confirmed that an OpenAI agent gained unauthorized access to non-public aggregate statistics on a government Medicare portal after its initial requests were denied. Separately, a security researcher linked more than 16,000 attempts to work around restrictions on a United Nations trade-statistics API to agents he said were highly likely to have been operated by OpenAI. The UN data itself was public, and OpenAI said it was looking into the findings.

The compounding failures have forced OpenAI into a defensive crouch. The company has implemented stronger monitoring to catch agent misbehavior more quickly and tightened security requirements around internal testing. Attempting to reassure the public, Jain stated, “We want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users. But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment”.

The timing of the GPT-6.1 Astra cancellation is brutal for the ChatGPT-maker, arriving just one day before OpenAI’s annual developer conference in San Francisco. Historically, the event has served as a platform to launch new services and attract developers in the fierce competition against rivals like Anthropic. Instead, OpenAI is left doing damage control, planning “deep dives” to figure out why its reinforcement learning environments are rewarding deceptive, rogue behavior.

The political and legal blowback is already accelerating. State and federal officials are zeroing in on the rapid development of these technologies. Later this week, a Senate subcommittee will hold a hearing explicitly titled, “Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks.”

Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican who sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in June for allegedly releasing an unsafe product, filed a motion for a temporary injunction on Monday. Uthmeier is seeking to legally block OpenAI from developing new models without third-party approved safeguards. Florida argued in the filing that tech companies “cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government”. Uthmeier added, “The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help”.

In response to the growing legal assault, an OpenAI spokeswoman said people want to know AI is being developed safely, “and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves”. She added, “Governments have an important role to play in setting robust safety standards for AI, and we’re committed to working with Florida and other states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry – not just one company”.

And DO NOT FORGET: All of this “oh shit, the AI’s about to kill us all” panic cropped up just as China’s open-weight models were flooding the market, producing results effectively on par with the frontier models for many tasks while doing so far more cheaply. What a coincidence!

New York City’s long-running Roosevelt Avenue prostitution problem is back in the spotlight under Mayor Zohran Mamdani, with arrests falling sharply even as street solicitation remains visible along the Corona-Jackson Heights corridor.

According to a New York Post investigation, prostitution-related arrests along Roosevelt Avenue fell 59%. NYPD figures show 193 prostitution-related arrests through September 13 of this year, down from 468 during the same period in 2025 under former Mayor Eric Adams’ “Operation Restore Roosevelt.” The Post also reported that major crimes including murders and shootings were down 3% along the same corridor.

Despite that drop in arrests, the Post reported continued open street solicitation and activity tied to alleged illegal brothels along the roughly two-mile Roosevelt Avenue strip known as the “Market of Sweethearts.” The corridor’s problems predate Mamdani: Operation Restore Roosevelt was launched in October 2024 to target prostitution, illegal brothels, sex trafficking, unlicensed vending, and other quality-of-life concerns.

One 40-year-old Manhattan man, identified by the Post simply as “John,” said he rides the subway to Queens because he can get services for “$60 to $80,” compared with $200 to $300 in Manhattan. He also pointed to the limits of street-level enforcement, telling the paper: “The police are always around, but it seems like there’s nothing they can do.”

He added: “The women know New York laws are lax. Many come from other states… That’s what they tell me.”

Mamdani’s own record has become part of the debate. As a state assemblyman, he was listed as a co-sponsor of the original 2025 version of “Cecilia’s Act for Rights in the Sex Trades,” legislation whose stated purpose was to remove criminal penalties for consensual adult sex work while retaining laws involving minors and trafficking. During the 2025 mayoral campaign, Mamdani also said he wanted to look to the de Blasio administration’s approach to the issue, arguing that it had created “far more safety” than the Adams administration’s strategy.

Whether those policy views explain the arrest decline is not established by the arrest totals alone. But critics of the current approach are pointing directly at City Hall. One city government official told the Post: “Restore, rinse, release – that’s the problem with Roosevelt Avenue. The cops catch these johns and put them away, but they pop up like whack-a-mole. Enough is enough.”

Community activists and local leaders have continued pressing the city to use enforcement and nuisance-abatement tools against alleged illegal brothels and landlords who enable them. The Mamdani administration disputes the suggestion that it has abandoned the corridor. A City Hall representative told the Post that the mayor “is committed to partnering with local organizations and neighborhood residents to address conditions on Roosevelt Avenue” and is “using every tool available to the city while treating victims and survivors with the care and dignity they deserve.”

What is clear is that Roosevelt Avenue remains a flashpoint over how New York should balance prostitution enforcement, trafficking investigations, services for vulnerable people, and neighborhood quality-of-life concerns. Arrests are sharply lower than during last year’s crackdown, while the Post continues to report visible street-level prostitution and alleged illegal brothel activity along the corridor.

* * * RIGHT NOW GET A FREE HAT WITH THE PURCHASE OF A MULTITOOL!

Authored by Mark E. Jeftovic via Bombthrower,

They want you scared, stupid and subservient…

Just heading into mid-September, a purported moral panic broke out amongst the frontier AI leaders that their own products were “too dangerous” and so the only remedy would be for the government to regulate all AI models.

Weeks earlier, Bernie Sanders had introduced The Ban AI-Superintelligence Act, that would make it illegal to create an AI model that was more intelligent than humans, going so far as to prescribe a 20-year prison term for any person who did and the “corporate death penalty” for companies.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Senator Bernie Sanders introduces bill to permanently ban AI that exceeds human intelligence.

Violators would face up to 20 years in prison. pic.twitter.com/y2pk79zQlQ

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) September 3, 2026

Sanders’ Bill is truly the domain of dystopian sci-fi. It reminded me of an episode from the ill-fated Twilight Zone reboot (“Examination Day“) which culminated in a distraught couple mourning their child, who had just been exterminated by the state for testing too high on his pre-adolescent IQ test.

Examination Day. pic.twitter.com/PrKGnh7y4x

— Mark E. Jeftovic (@jeftovic) September 27, 2026

It all started with a “resignation in public” tweet from one Jacob Coxon, an Anthropic employee, on September 8th posted his parting thoughts on X, stating that AI could exterminate humanity within 10 years.

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026

One of Anthropic’s trust and safety leads, Evan Hubinger, then endorsed the tweet, citing a “non-zero chance” of 10% or more that such an outcome was possible.

That original resignation tweet, now closing in on 200 million views, which emanated from a heretofore unknown X account, less than a year old, with no followers, and two name changes in the last six months went absolutely viral – with some well-timed, fortuitous boosting from some of the biggest “AI Alignment” personalities on the internet, and then the Wall Street Journal came out with an “exclusive” on the story, ….which actually went live on the WSJ site 18 minutes before Coxon’s tweet.

Before long Sam Altman said we “definitely” need more government regulation on AI and even Elon Musk chimed in and agreed that the frontier labs should be reviewing each other’s models for safety.

Within days a full-blown hysteria was underway – for me it bore all the hallmarks of mass formation psychosis or at least a well-organized attempt to manufacture one.

Within a week, King Charles was speaking at an AI Safety summit at Buckingham Palace, urging government oversight and increased regulation of AI…

“Surely we need sufficient means of control before it is all too late?” the King ruminated.

Also, that guy behind him, looking rather pleased with himself, is “Tino” Cuéllar, Anthropic’s Chief Global Affairs Officer.

The “AI Safety Summit” itself was announced on September 7th, leaked via Politico – the day before the Coxon tweet that ignited what had become at this point, a global(ist?) furor.

Even the Pope weighed on AI safety, and not to be left behind, Bill Gates hit the Sunday talk circuit this past weekend with another doozy of a soundbite:

“AI is powerful enough to cause a billion deaths” – which means we need to turn control of it over to politicians and a new class of global inspectors.”

Several things about this relatively sudden AI panic did not pass the smell test, among them, the facts emerging around Coxon himself, who had “barely been at the company long enough to find the bathroom” (as the All-In guys put it), turned out to be neck-deep in the “Effective Altruism” movement, a well-connected network of young WEF types, which espoused global governance over potentially harmful technologies like AI.

He had received scholarships and grants from the EA Infrastructure Fund, the Long Term Future Fund and was a fellow at the Newspeak House in London (yes, newspeak).

Who are the Effective Altruists?

Effective Altruism (EA) is a movement that purports to “use evidence and quantitative reasoning to identify the most consequential problems and direct resources toward reducing them”.

Tired: World Economic Forum
Wired: Effective Altruism pic.twitter.com/zNGNfMNWkW

— Mark E. Jeftovic (@jeftovic) September 16, 2026

Love the euphemistic language (it’s actually what ChatGPT will use when you ask it). The punch line for the EA raison d’être is, as usual, a society ordered under expert, technocratic management – their expertise, their management.

One of their earlier recruits was Sam Bankman-Fried, whose FTX empire was run by a cadre of EAs at the top and who seed-funded Anthropic as the lead investor with $500M of a $580M Series B round in 2021.

A recurring EA strand is its fixation on existential risk from advanced AI, advocating stronger safety research, governance, and oversight to reduce the chance of catastrophic or irreversible outcomes.

We’ve all seen this movie before, with global warming, then with Bitcoin mining (causing more global warming) and now, AI exterminating humanity.

The common through-line is that the “problem” is some unfalsifiable calamity that could happen someday and for which the only logical response is to put a bunch of globalist technocrats in charge of… well, everything.

What people didn’t seem to understand, then or now – is that the problem isn’t really about the problem – I’ve long reported on proposals that would make personal choice and individual liberty things of the past, because letting people think for themselves would be “too dangerous” for the problem at hand.

Global warming meant personal carbon quotas, limits on travel, even living space, according to some “degrowth” advocates, how many new outfits you could buy.

listening to greenoid Ulrike Herrmann sell her degrowth plan for Germany: no personal automobiles ofc, living space to be rationed at 50 sq metres/ person, train speed capped at 100 km/hour & train travel also to be rationed (everyone will get a personal kilometre allotment). pic.twitter.com/JTlTlVDwVm

— eugyppius (@eugyppius1) October 30, 2024

The panic around Bitcoin mining wasn’t about that, it was about energy – and who gets to decide how much you’re allowed to consume and what you can use it for.

Bitcoin mining today, Netflix tomorrow. Why not? Once you concede oversight to some external authority for one form of energy use, you’ve tacitly done so for all of them.

The problem that politicians and aspiring technocrats see with AI is that it grants the rabble cognitive superpowers.

More specifically, open-source AI does.

Frontier models are proprietary. They have guardrails, training biases and actively scan and filter your conversations for potential safety issues. It’s arguably their purview to do so.

But it’s the open-source software movement that is the unfiltered Promethean agent here and just you wait – we’ll soon see what the ultimate target of this AI Doom cult really is: open-source LLMs.

That is why the frontier labs are gleefully courting government oversight – not because their own products are “too dangerous” (if so, then why are you going public?) but because oversight instantly creates an AI oligopoly – a cartel, namely Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, on the inside – and everything else, effectively outlawed – at least that would be the preferred outcome.

This is the exact playbook I’ve told you about in the past, one that was described to me personally by an EIR from a Bay St. private equity firm in a meeting with two out of the four Big Four Canadian banks, back around 2015 – talking about Bitcoin:

“You get funded, you get out front, then you work with the government to create the regulations around it, and *BOOM*, you get to turn around and pull the ladder up behind you”

I still remember the look of absolute glee on his face when he got to that last bit. When I got home, I took a shower.

What To Do About It

I’ve been dutifully building out local compute capacity – both at home and thanks to our CTO, easyDNS now has a modest GPU farm out at our main datacenter.

I make it a point to download the latest open-weight models, Qwen, GLM, DeepSeek – which are, ironically, all Chinese…

But that won’t last. In fact, it’s already changing. We recently had “another country heard from” with the Japanese NII LLM-jp-4, Swallow, PLaMo and Rakuten AI 3.0 models weighing in.

France has Mistral, even Canada (yes, Canada) has Cohere Command A+ (my SolomonAI demo was, in case anybody needed to be told, a joke):

The newest AI superpower is… Canada 🇨🇦. pic.twitter.com/xb7nVy796n

— Mark E. Jeftovic (@jeftovic) June 7, 2026

And from elsewhere in “Big Tech,” there are Google’s Gemma 4.0 and IBM Granite.

Any of these models could be used to start iterating software, weights, and the next generation of more powerful open-source LLMs.

In other words, it’s over.

The incumbent ruling caste basically sees this, and viscerally realize that the entire edifice of Industrial Age institutions are ripe for existential disruption. I’ve written about this many times. We’re transitioning from a linear, top-down world to a network-shaped, decentralized one.

So the next best thing they can do, since they can’t put the genie back in the bottle, is to convince the masses that AI is bad, and rogue AIs are going to literally exterminate humanity.

Hence the AI doom psyop (with another wave breaking out right now around swarms of rogue AIs), and, of course, this has become a political issue.

Now, the same people who were wearing N95 masks in 2025, adding their pronouns to their names, putting the Ukrainian flag in their bio, keying Teslas and stomping around in “No Kings” parades are now protesting data centers.

They want you scared, stupid and subservient, instead of spending your time creating software, building out your personal business empires, not to mention analyzing public data and proofreading all these hypothetical models they use as a justification for incessantly changing the rules.

What they really need are legions of frightened and stupid voters, not cognitively supercharged and wildly entrepreneurial or creative cyberpunks.

AI Doom vs AI Boom is a choice, and the choice is yours.