Authored by Kit Knightly via OffGuardian,

I’ve been documenting the increasingly hysterical coverage of ‘rogue AI’ for the last six weeks, predicting a major psy-op or false flag.

Well, kids it looks like the psy-op part is here. So far no false flag…but with the greatest level of hysteria since the early days of Covid circulating, maybe they won’t need to DO anything.

Maybe insane claims about a phantom threat will be enough.

Oh yes, did you know Artificial Intelligence has a “10% chance of wiping out humanity before the end of the decade”?

That’s the headline on every single mainstream paper, the trending topic on every social media platform, the talking point on every news channel.

Yes, from the producers of long-running hit show “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL!” and the international sensation “COVID WILL KILL US ALL!” comes the latest experience in fear everyone is talking about.

And this latest wave is already being used to push new “regulation”, which should alarm anyone.

It all started with a young man, apparently named Jacob Coxon, who is allegedly a former AI researcher for OpenAI and later Anthropic.

Yesterday he announced his resignation from the latter, citing ethical concerns about the danger of “unregulated” artificial intelligence.

And, as is usually the case when an obscure person resigns from his job for supposed ethical concerns, his resignation was the subject of an exclusive article in the Wall Street Journal,

Oh and a simultaneously published thread on Twitter/X – from what is allegedly Coxon’s own account that had – so far as can be seen – never been used before.

AMAZINGLY, within hours Coxon’s alarming claims had gone “viral”.

Now some old cynics out there will be thinking at this stage “hmmm correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t this look suspiciously like a narrative roll-out”?

But I’m sure the terminally gullible will hasten to reassure you that this is the way real life definitely works.

It’s just a coincidence that everyone across the entirety of the political punditry spectrum is engaged in amplifying one single message.

In another of those startling synchronicities which we don’t need to think about too much, at exactly the same time that Coxon was hitting the mainstream headlines, Joe Rogan – king of the mainstream alternative media – had another AI researcher on his show, spouting his own dire warnings.

AI experts have been crawling out of the woodwork, all keen to endorse Coxon’s position – or even call it an underestimate.

You must have seen Geoffrey “the godfather of AI” Hinton on the BBC, telling Victoria Derbyshire he agreed with Coxon’s risk assessment:

“You just said that 10% doesn’t seem an unreasonable estimate that AI could kill all humans” “Yes” “Wow… oh my God.”@vicderbyshire speaks to Nobel Prize Winner and so-called ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton about predictions by an Anthropic researcher that there’s a more… pic.twitter.com/sGYQI57REF

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) September 9, 2026

A 10% chance of killing every single person on Earth in the next three and a half years.

No, really.

They’re less clear how exactly that’s going to happen – but that’s not the important part. The important part is we need to DO something.

Everyone from Matt Walsh to Glenn Greenwald agrees on that.

And what do we need to DO?

Why, REGULATE of course. That’s what Coxon said in one of his MANY media interviews in the last twenty-four hours (and as someone who has been aware of Coxon’s existence since some time yesterday I can tell you I trust him absolutely):

The guy who helped train the models left Anthropic and said AI is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon. Jacob Coxon spent 3 years at OpenAI and Anthropic. He says the labs think this could kill everyone by the end of the decade and they are still racing each other. His answer…

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) September 10, 2026

He floats an AI non-proliferation treaty “like we have for nuclear weapons” – as if it’s a wildly coincidental brand new idea, and not a paraphrase of the same talking point dozens of people – including Bill Gates – have been suggesting for months.

But what would a global AI treaty actually look like? And what would it achieve? And who will be in control of implementing it?

Well, for a potential taste here’s what US Congressman Bill Foster tweeted:

A “hardened” internet? Is that what we can expect?

No more “untraceable access” to AI facilities? Restrictions on “anonymous payments”? What exactly does that mean?

Perhaps “proof of humanity” or “proof of personhood” should be required to use the internet? Or maybe the internet should have “borders”?

Then there’s the kill switches of course, both the US and UK are close to implementing those:

We need to pass the AI Kill Switch Act NOW. https://t.co/bZYEb8GWIR

— Rep. Ted Lieu (@RepTedLieu) September 10, 2026

Last week, coincidentally, a group of Lords from the UK’s upper house was calling for “kill switches”, not just for AI programs, but for data centres in general [emphasis added]:

A group of peers is calling for the British government to be able to deactivate powerful AI systems and switch off the country’s data centres in the event of the tech posing a threat to national security

And who will have control of these kill switches and other control mechanisms? You? Or the usual suspects?

Of course if you’ve already allowed yourself to be manipulated into believing data centers are the Spawn of Satan, you’ll probably think a kill switch is a great idea – and happily overlook that it’s just putting yet more control into the hands of institutions that already brought you the ‘covid’ scam and 9/11.

If any such people are reading this – does it occur to you yet that THIS was always the end point of those panic memes you hoovered up so uncritically?

Be careful what you wish for.

In this looming world of “regulated” AI, governments could be empowered to shut down access to sites, networks or even the internet as a whole in the event of alleged “rogue AIs” becoming a “threat to national security”.

And if YOU or your output or you interactions get labelled as potential AI, or you have your access restricted purely based on your location or IP address?

Well, good luck telling anyone as you scream inside your soundproof bubble.

This can go further – and we’d be fools to just assume it won’t.

In the name of preventing the spread of “rogue AI” (or “rouge AI” according to half the hysterics on social media), the internet can have information bulkheads which can be used to quarantine sections, nations, networks or individual sites “infected” with digital these digital “invasive species”.

You may have to prove your humanity with face scans or similar, and there may be strict limitations on what regions and/or databases you can reach, how much of your money you can spend without additional checks, etc.

Even the restricted internet of today might look like freedom compared to the’ post-AI-Regulation’ revised world wide web.

And today’s security state might be something to look back on with nostalgia when the ‘post-AI-Regulation’ revised worldwide surveillance and supply line controls kick in.

But don’t think about any of that – that nice guy Jacob you never heard of a week ago is warning you.

Listen to him on the mainstream media platform they gave him.

Demand your government saves you.

I’m sure this time it really will.

By Tom Gantert of Epoch Times

President Donald Trump has called on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to stop targeting Russian diesel fuel as the attacks are causing a global shortage and diesel in the United States has hit a record high.

Trump was asked by a reporter on Sunday if he’d had conversations with Zelenskyy about the issue.

Zelenskyy “has to do one thing. He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia,” Trump told reporters on the sidelines of the Irish Open, adding that he had spoken to the Ukrainian president about it. “There are plenty of other targets. Don’t hit diesel fuel, because that’s hurting, that’s hurting the world.”

Ukraine has targeted Russia’s oil and gas industry for months with long-range attacks and Russia has responded with fuel rationing. In July, Russia banned diesel exports.

Diesel in the United States rose to $6.20 a gallon on average on Sunday, a new record, while regular gas is selling for $4.31 a gallon on average, according to AAA.

Zelenskyy has defended Ukraine’s tactics of striking Russian refineries.

The Ukrainian president posted video on June 28 of a Ukrainian strike on a Russian fuel facility.

“Last night, our long-range sanctions reached two oil refineries in Russia. The Slavyansk oil refinery in the Krasnodar region was hit – about 300 kilometers [186 miles] from the frontline,” Zelenskyy said in the post on X.

“We also reached a refinery in the Yaroslavl region, approximately 700 kilometers [435 miles] from our border. We continue our operations that weaken Russia’s ability to wage this war. Each of our long-range sanctions means fewer resources serving Russia’s war machine, and another step toward peace. We will continue to respond to Russian terror.”

Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has also been attacked by Russia, according to Zelenskyy.

“The Russians are burning warehouses with food and gas stations, pharmaceutical facilities and ordinary passenger trains, residential buildings and civilian businesses,” Zelenskyy said in a Sept. 12 post on X.

The International Energy Agency said in a September 2026 report that diesel and gasoil exports from Gulf countries averaged 390,000 barrels per day in August, just over one-quarter of their levels before the war with Iran began in February. Restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has sharply reduced shipments from the region.

That report said that Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s refining system have compounded the diesel supply issues.

The IEA said U.S. diesel prices surpassed $200 per barrel in early September, which was 94 percent above their pre-war level. Diesel and other similar fuels account for nearly 30 percent of global oil demand.

According to a new report, the Justice Department has expanded its federal criminal investigation into California Gov. Gavin Newsom to include his international travel and personal expenses related to a nonprofit that funds his trips through private donations rather than taxpayer money.

Earlier this month, the US Attorney’s Office served subpoenas asking for about six years’ worth of communications relating to the California State Protocol Foundation, according to the San Francisco Standard. They sought records concerning the foundation’s donors and fundraising, Newsom’s overseas travel and events, and any money that had been used for his personal and living expenses.

The Protocol Foundation exists, on paper, to spare California taxpayers the cost of Newsom’s travel expenses, but it has instead raised other ethical and legal issues.

Since 2019, he has steered more than $7.5 million in outside donations to the nonprofit, with about $5.1 million coming from funds left over from his 2019 and 2023 gubernatorial inaugurations. However, the remaining donor roll includes corporations and foundations that have business before the California state government, creating the appearance of a pay-to-play arrangement in which companies like CVS, Zoox, and a Blue Shield-linked foundation gain access to, or favor with, a governor whose regulatory decisions directly affect their bottom lines.

Newsom also sought money from the left-leaning dark-money outfit New Venture Fund and crypto billionaire Chris Larsen. Foundations tied to philanthropists Susie Tompkins Buell and Lisa Stone Pritzker round out the list, and both have separately bankrolled Newsom’s political operation and his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s nonprofits. Federal investigators are looking at her taxes too, in a separate probe.

Investigators also sought records from several Newsom aides, including Becca Prowda, his chief protocol officer and the aide who manages his overseas trips. Prowda is married to San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, a detail that adds another layer to California’s small and increasingly tangled political class.

Newsom, naturally is playing the victim card, framing the subpoenas as retribution from a president he has spent years attacking. “Governor Newsom went after the king, and as he warned in June, the tyrant is now coming after everyone around him,” Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for his office, said in a statement. “This is what Donald Trump does to his enemies: investigate first, hunt for a crime that doesn’t exist second.”

The problem is that this nonprofit, which is supposedly meant to keep Newsom’s travel off the public books, runs almost entirely on Newsom’s own bench of former staffers. Steve Kawa chairs the shady foundation and previously served as Newsom’s chief of staff during his San Francisco mayoral years. Newsom appointed him to the High-Speed Rail Authority board in May, and Kawa subsequently became its chairman. Jason Elliott, another longtime Newsom advisor, sits on the foundation’s board and also landed an appointment to the Rail Authority. Jim DeBoo, a former Newsom chief of staff, serves as the foundation’s secretary according to its latest IRS filings. Board members were also subpoenaed as part of the investigation.

Meanwhile, the foundation also covered the cost of Newsom’s State of the State speech during the pandemic at an empty Dodger Stadium, and reportedly paid for the burner phones the governor sent to top tech CEOs the previous year. According to IRS records, by the end of 2024 the nonprofit had spent almost $600,000 more than it had received in the two previous years and had a net balance of just $7,790.

A spokesperson for the nonprofit defended the arrangement, saying it “has proudly supported both Republican and Democratic administrations in fulfilling their duties representing all of California through public events and international engagements.”

Authored by former CIA officer Larry Johnson

The 18th BRICS summit opened on Saturday with the bloc taking its most concrete step yet toward loosening the grip of the US dollar, adopting a 45-page New Delhi Declaration on the first day and endorsing a payments architecture built to route cross-border trade around the Western financial system. For most members the move was incremental. For Iran — under sweeping US sanctions, a naval blockade, and roughly six months into a war with the United States and Israel — it was closer to a lifeline.

The declaration and the payment rails

Leaders gathered at the Bharat Mandapam convention center adopted the New Delhi Declaration 2026 unanimously on the opening day, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi emerging from a closed session to report that no member had objected to the text. The economic centerpiece was a commitment to expand trade and investment settled in members’ own national currencies, and to link their domestic payment and messaging systems so that transactions can move without passing through the dollar-denominated SWIFT network. According to the declaration, the bloc’s payment task force had studied cross-border interoperability of those channels and examined using local currencies for trade settlement and investment.

The mechanism drawing the most attention was BRICS Pay, a decentralized payment-messaging framework that stitches together India’s UPI, China’s CIPS, and Russia’s SPFS into a shared interoperability layer — a way to clear payments among members outside SWIFT. The declaration also referenced a pilot for a gold-backed “Unit” token.

Just as telling was what the bloc again declined to do. There was no endorsement of a single common BRICS currency; India in particular has resisted that leap, favoring interoperable national-currency settlement over the political and monetary complexity of a shared unit. The result, as several observers characterized it, is incremental financial de-dollarization rather than a monetary union — plumbing, not a new reserve currency.

Washington’s answer

The response from Washington was immediate. President Trump threatened tariffs of up to 100% on the bloc, extending a pressure campaign he has waged all year against what he calls BRICS’s “anti-American” trajectory. The threat carries genuine weight for export-dependent members that rely on the US market — but its deterrent power erodes with each transaction the bloc succeeds in routing through non-dollar channels.

That is the paradox Washington now faces: the tariffs are meant to punish de-dollarization, yet de-dollarization is precisely what blunts the tariffs.

Iran at the front of the line

No member arrived with more at stake than Iran. President Masoud Pezeshkian pressed the case for national-currency trade, telling reporters that expanding the use of members’ own currencies in intra-bloc commerce was among the most important steps the group could take. Tehran has pushed throughout the summit for mechanisms to insulate members from Western financial pressure — a priority sharpened by the sanctions and blockade it now faces.

Crucially, the summit institutionalizes at the multilateral level what Iran has already been building bilaterally. On January 29, 2026, Tehran signed a trilateral strategic pact with China and Russia, an agreement whose economic core is the construction of alternative financial mechanisms that sidestep SWIFT and reduce exposure to the dollar-centered system. That pact rests on foundations already in place: an Iran–Russia monetary agreement, operational since early 2025, that settles trade directly in rials and rubles and links Russia’s Mir card network to Iran’s Shetab system; a 25-year Iran–China cooperation framework; and the plain fact that China now buys the overwhelming majority of Iran’s oil, much of it settled in yuan.

The implication cuts against the common assumption that Iran is scrambling for a dollar workaround. It already has one. For Tehran, BRICS Pay is not a novel escape hatch but a larger, sanctions-resistant network onto which it can graft trade it is already conducting outside Western channels — and a multilateral blessing for the parallel financial architecture it has spent two years assembling with Moscow and Beijing.

Where BRICS drew the line – and where it didn’t

The declaration’s language on the region’s wars was the most fought-over in the text, and the outcome was uneven: sharp in places, deliberately vague in others. Reaching consensus reportedly required negotiations that ran until 4 a.m., driven mainly by a rift between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

On the US–Israeli war against Iran, the bloc expressed deep concern and called for maximum restraint, dialogue and diplomacy — but it named neither the United States nor Israel, and condemned no country outright. That hedge was the price of unanimity. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had pressed BRICS to condemn what he called unlawful US and Israeli aggression; the UAE pushed back hard, accusing Tehran of using the summit to justify its own missile and drone barrages against Gulf states. India, in the chair, acknowledged “differing views among some members” and steered the text toward common ground. The language was firmer in tone than a bland appeal for peace, but well short of the unequivocal condemnation of the strikes on Iran that Tehran had won from the Rio summit a year earlier — a notable step back on that specific question, not forward.

Yet Iran signed the text anyway, and that was the summit’s quieter diplomatic story. Tehran — which has spent the war firing missiles and drones at the UAE, most recently at the Al Minhad Air Base in late August — put its name to language its Gulf adversary could also accept, while Pezeshkian met the Abu Dhabi crown prince on the sidelines in the two sides’ highest-level contact since the fighting began. Iran’s willingness to sit inside the consensus rather than force a rupture signaled that it read the declaration’s direction — deep concern over the escalation and a call to protect civilians — as acceptable enough, even without the naming it had sought. But the same words served Abu Dhabi: the call to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states pointed as much at Iran’s strikes on the Gulf as at the US–Israeli assault on Iran. The consensus held because the text could be read both ways.

‘Trumpism’ spawns rare unity at Brics summit https://t.co/c7aGUWgJaT

— Financial Times (@FT) September 13, 2026

On Lebanon, the bloc was sharper, and it named Israel directly. The leaders condemned the continued violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, called on Israel to withdraw its occupying forces from all Lebanese territory, demanded full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and condemned all attacks against the UNIFIL peacekeeping force — extending condolences for peacekeepers killed in the south, among them four Indonesians, and demanding accountability. It amounts to some of the most direct criticism of Israel in any BRICS declaration to date, even though Israel is named only three times in the entire 45-page document. The declaration separately took note of the International Court of Justice proceedings brought by South Africa against Israel over Gaza, and rejected any unilateral moves to alter the status of occupied Jerusalem.

For India, the shift is best measured against where Modi stood barely six months earlier. On February 25–26 he made a landmark visit to Israel — the first Indian premier to address the Knesset, honored with its Speaker’s Medal as the first foreign leader to receive it, presiding over the elevation of ties to a “special strategic partnership” and a defense co-production track. When the US and Israel opened their war on Iran forty-eight hours after he left, killing Iran’s supreme leader in an airstrike, New Delhi stayed conspicuously silent — no condemnation of the strikes, no condolence for the killing — and let its own Iran links, from Chabahar port funding to bilateral trade, wither under US pressure. That silence held for months.

It broke at Bishkek. On September 1, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Modi signed a declaration condemning the military strikes on Iranian territory as violations of international law, offering condolences for the slain Iranian leader, and backing Iran’s sovereignty and its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty — the first time India had endorsed language condemning the US–Israeli assault. From the leader who had embraced Netanyahu in February, that was a genuine reversal, not a calibration. The New Delhi Declaration eleven days later was actually softer on Iran than Bishkek, and the reason is instructive: the SCO has no Gulf Arab members, but BRICS has the UAE, which pushed back hard and forced the unnamed “deep concern” formula — even as the bloc kept firm, named criticism of Israel over Lebanon. India’s arc across 2026, from the Knesset medal to the Bishkek condemnation, is the real measure of the move; the hedged Iran passage in the New Delhi text reflects the BRICS bargaining table, not a retreat from it.

What is real, and what is symbolic

Sober assessment is warranted. BRICS Pay is a messaging and interoperability layer, not a replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve asset, and nothing in the New Delhi Declaration displaces the dollar’s dominance in global reserves, commodity pricing, or third-country trade. The bloc’s unity also has limits the declaration papered over rather than resolved: the consensus on the Middle East held only because the text avoided naming the aggressors Iran wanted named, and the Iran–UAE rift that nearly sank the negotiations has not gone away. Grand pronouncements about a post-dollar order have a long history of outrunning the mechanics.

But the asymmetry inside the bloc is the point. What reads as incremental to India or Brazil — countries with full access to Western markets and finance — is closer to existential for Iran and Russia. For a state locked out of SWIFT and dollar clearing, a payment rail that functions precisely because it does not touch the dollar is worth far more than any debate over reserve-currency theory. The New Delhi Declaration will not dethrone the dollar. What it does is hand the bloc’s sanctioned members a collective, expanding, and now formally endorsed alternative to the system Washington has used to isolate them.

Respect for BRICS is GROWING — Putin

‘Many in the world are attracted by our basic values and ideals’

‘BRICS has always stood for including ALL countries without exception’ pic.twitter.com/61To8Bn5ZV

— RT (@RT_com) September 13, 2026

The backdrop

All of this unfolds under the shadow of simultaneous wars — in Ukraine and across the Middle East — and an Iran conflict, triggered by US–Israeli strikes in late February, that has pushed oil above $100 a barrel, disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, and now bleeds into the escalation between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthis. It is an environment that gives the de-dollarization agenda its urgency: the more Washington wields financial and military pressure, the greater the incentive for the targeted states to build channels beyond its reach. Day two of the summit turns to supply chains, energy security, and the bloc’s Economic Strategy 2030.

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

The United States is trying to build up its energy storage capacities at a rapid scale. At the same time, it is trying to wean itself off of Chinese battery tech. In many ways, these two goals are in direct opposition to each other.

China dominates global supply chains for clean energy tech in general, but especially when it comes to lithium-ion batteries, which power everything from your phone to your car. Approximately 80 percent of all battery cells in the world are made in China according to figures from the International Energy Agency. What is more, Beijing controls the production of EV battery cathode active material (85 percent of global production) and anode active material (more than 90 percent), and refines the vast majority of the critical minerals involved in their manufacturing.

The Trump administration is eager to challenge Beijing’s outsized presence in the global energy sector as part of its stated goal to establish “energy dominance.” Toward the end of August, the Trump administration declared a national emergency that effectively bars the use of Chinese-made batteries in grid-scale energy storage systems, pointing to cybersecurity concerns as the rationale. In the same month, the federal government awarded $500 million in funding to seven companies working on battery minerals, manufacturing, and recycling with the express purpose of building up the domestic sector in order to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains.

However, these measures are falling short. Way short. “It takes decades and tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars” to build the kind of supply chains that would be capable of competing with China according to Tu Le, founder and managing director of Sino Auto Insights. “We don’t have decades. We have five, six, seven years to try to become competitive,” he was recently quoted by Quartz.

“We have a ton of innovation coming out of the United States,” Le went on to say. “These small fledgling companies are super innovative, but getting and building prototypes of what they’re trying to sell is one thing. Being able to mass produce them at a high quality level, repeatably in the millions of units is another thing entirely.”

Moreover, critics have pointed out that the August 26 executive order is vaguely worded, calling for the ban of “any foreign-produced bulk-power system electric equipment”, and may only serve to slow down the growth of the domestic energy storage sector. Analysis from BloombergNEF notes that, as a result of the state of emergency and the uncertainty around its terms, battery projects “face near-term delays or cancellations as developers await guidance, reconsider existing contracts, or shift suppliers.”

The effort may also be too little, too late to make up for the damage that the Trump administration has already done to the domestic battery manufacturing sector by rolling back critical Biden-era supportive legislation. Repealing laws supporting domestic manufacturers and the EV sector as a whole (which is far and away the largest market for these batteries on a global scale) has cost U.S. battery manufacturers time and money when both are in short supply.

And then there is another critical dilemma: is the real problem that the Trump administration’s efforts are insufficient, or that they are misguided entirely? “All this tension raises a broader question for me,” Casey Crownhart wrote in an article for the MIT Technology Review this week: “How much should countries take advantage of cheap, available tech, versus cutting off major sources to force development of their own factories even if that comes at a higher cost?”

Of course, allowing for the near-total monopolization of global critical infrastructure in the hands of just one country, and an authoritarian one at that, is also a bad option. It’s a sticky situation that no executive order can solve overnight.

New footage posted on X shows what appear to be protests, with Israeli news organizations saying the anger is erupting because of skyrocketing fuel costs, reminiscent of the Arab Spring food riots 15 years ago.

i24NEWS reports that demonstrations have popped up in parts of Raqqa, Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor provinces, with protesters blocking roads and stopping oil tankers as rising energy costs intensify affordability pressures.

Videos on X, including one from Middle East Observer, show the chaos unfolding.

Protests in Syria following the rise in fuel prices pic.twitter.com/PjOsnIw95s

— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) September 13, 2026

Other footage:

🇸🇾 Protests Escalate in Syria

Large crowds have taken to the streets in Maarrat al-Numan, with protesters blocking the Aleppo–Damascus highway as demonstrations over the Al-Sharaa government’s latest fuel-price increases grow increasingly confrontational.

Diesel prices jumped… https://t.co/9lkTD7Yfh3 pic.twitter.com/5YzAhxCVBx

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) September 13, 2026

🇸🇾 Fuel protests spread to Hama

Protests have erupted again in Hama, where demonstrators are blocking roads around Orontes Square (Sahat al-Asi) and burning tires in response to soaring fuel prices. pic.twitter.com/7ouwK1h91J

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) September 13, 2026

The unrest underscores just how quickly higher fuel costs can ignite public anger and fuel social unrest.

i24NEWS added more color to the situation:

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, security forces affiliated with the Ministry of Interior fired live ammunition while attempting to disperse the demonstrators. Tensions remained high as security personnel sought to reopen the roads and remove protesters from the area.

A separate report from Times of Israel states:

Protests have broken out in different parts of Syria over increased fuel prices, with demonstrators blocking a main highway in Idlib province for several hours.

The government announced what it said were temporary price increases for gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products earlier today, citing rising global fuel prices as a result of the US-Iran war. The price of gasoline increased by about 30% and diesel by 40%.

Syrian Energy Minister Mohammed al-Bashir said yesterday that Syria is producing about 102,000 barrels of oil per day, while it needs about 325,000 barrels per day for domestic consumption and is relying on imports to make up the difference.

Renewed instability in Syria could widen the fallout from the US-Iran conflict, creating new openings for armed groups, straining regional security, and placing pressure on President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s US-aligned government.

By Phil Brink of FreightWaves.com,

Federal prosecutors charged a California restaurant operator after agents seized more than 40 pounds of methamphetamine. Investigators found the drugs inside his residence and Hyundai Sonata, according to a federal affidavit. Searches also uncovered three firearms, a digital scale and $11,800 in cash. The operation grew from a wider organized crime investigation involving long-haul truck drivers.

A federal grand jury indicted Kawal Preet Singh, 50, on Sept. 3. The indictment contains five counts, including two methamphetamine distribution charges from May 12 and July 13. Two additional counts accuse Singh of possession with intent to distribute on Aug. 18. Each drug count involves at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. A fifth count alleges he possessed an Accu-Tek handgun to further a trafficking offense. Singh operated a Round Table Pizza restaurant in Dinuba, California. Authorities claim he distributed wholesale quantities from that business while armed with illegal firearms.

Trucking network moved cocaine across borders

The FBI’s Fresno Resident Agency opened its organized crime investigation during February 2025. Intelligence connected suspected participants with drug trafficking, extortion, human trafficking and cargo theft. Agents received information about a Fresno-area narcotics trafficker called “Camy” during May 2026. An informant described Camy as a Sikh Indian man involved in long-haul trucking.

The source claimed Camy worked with other Sikh Indian drivers who transported narcotics. Investigators later developed evidence concerning hundreds of kilograms of cocaine entering from Mexico. The affidavit attributes those shipments to an unspecified Mexican cartel. Some loads reportedly continued through the United States before reaching Canada.

Court records identify Singh as a subject within that broader inquiry. However, the affidavit never explicitly identifies Singh as Camy. It also does not accuse him of personally hauling cocaine aboard commercial vehicles. Authorities disclosed no carriers, drivers, USDOT numbers, routes or border crossings.

Searches uncover methamphetamine and firearms

A federal magistrate authorized searches involving Singh, his home and restaurant on Aug. 13. Agents watched him drive from his residence to the Dinuba business five days later. They approached after he unlocked the entrance and entered alone. Investigators then executed warrants at both locations around 11 a.m.

Agents seized Singh’s iPhone before interviewing him inside the restaurant. The affidavit states he acknowledged storing methamphetamine for a friend “because of friendship.” He also claimed he had not sold that drug for approximately two months. Investigators later found a photograph showing a white crystalline substance on his device.

The residence contained approximately 13.8 kilograms of suspected methamphetamine, court records show. His Hyundai held another 4.9 kilograms that produced a positive presumptive result. Combined weight reached approximately 18.7 kilograms, or more than 41 pounds. Agents found similarly packaged substances across the searched locations.

Investigators recovered two concealed handguns from the restaurant, including one unserialized weapon. The residence contained an Accu-Tek semiautomatic pistol, digital scale and $11,800 in assorted denominations. Authorities found cash plus that firearm hidden inside clothing within a closet near three methamphetamine bags. An HSI agent called those circumstances consistent with bulk narcotics distribution. Prosecutors also seek forfeiture of proceeds, facilitating property, firearms and ammunition following any conviction.

Major questions remain unanswered

The government has not identified Camy or explained Singh’s possible connection with that person. Officials also withheld the suspected cartel’s name, participating carrier details and shipment routes. Court filings do not disclose whether agents searched or seized any commercial trucks. Records provide no identified cargo theft victims, trafficking survivors or related charges.

Singh faces at least 10 years and potentially life imprisonment following any drug conviction. The firearm count carries another consecutive term between five years and life. A judge released him under home detention, location monitoring and other conditions on Aug. 24. Federal law presumes Singh innocent unless prosecutors prove every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Following a FreightWaves inquiry, the U.S. Attorney’s Office provided the complaint and indictment. Those records did not answer questions about Camy, participating carriers or Singh’s connection to the trucking network. Singh’s attorney had not responded before publication. This story will be updated if additional responses arrive.

Why it matters

Criminal organizations can exploit legitimate trucking activity to move drugs, stolen cargo and trafficking victims across borders. Freight professionals need accurate information about how authorities identify networks operating within commercial transportation.

Authored by Iain O’Brien via RealClearMarkets,

Today’s business ownership landscape is increasingly complicated by financial, voting, contractual and capital arrangements. A direct relationship between ownership and control can no longer be assumed, particularly for strategically important companies.

Sika, a Swiss chemicals company, entered a four-year corporate battle in 2014, when building-material firm Saint-Gobain announced it would buy a controlling majority. Although the Burkard family owned 16% of shares, a dual-class structure granted them over 52% of voting rights. Sika showed why economic ownership does not necessarily equal voting power.

A relevant example took place between American firms Endeavor Group Holdings, now WME Group, and Silver Lake, in 2024. Endeavor agreed to be taken private by Silver Lake, which already controlled over 70% of Endeavor’s voting rights. Silver Lake could therefore approve the merger, effectively controlling the company’s future before owning it. Mubadala, Goldman Sachs and other investors also took part, making a true “owner” difficult to define.

The stakes change when a company is deeply involved in a country’s industrial capacity. Energy infrastructure, semiconductors, and critical-mineral producers introduce geopolitical considerations.

Korea Zinc, among the world’s most prominent refined zinc producers, has seen a dispute with Young Poong putting the history of the two firms and their controlling families in the spotlight. Korea Zinc emerged from a partnership between the Choi and Jang families, who control Korea Zinc and Young Poong respectively. The Choi family has maintained management control despite Young Poong being the largest shareholder, with a stake of 33-37%. In 2024, Young Poong partnered with South Korean MBK Partners, launching a tender offer resulting in joint ownership of over 46% of voting shares.

The transaction created several layers of control. Young Poong agreed to a cooperation agreement to jointly exercise voting rights with MBK Partners. While Young Poong continued to hold shares, MBK acquired a stronger role in deciding how they would be used. On a newly formed board at Korea Zinc, directors nominated by MBK would later outnumber those selected by Young Poong, essentially determining the board’s composition. A call option on Young Poong’s Korea Zinc shares was also granted to MBK Partners. The option has drawn controversy because Young Poong is alleged to have granted MBK highly favorable terms at below market costs, exposing it to significant financial losses.

MBK’s business ties highlight how assigning a single national identity to a modern company may prove difficult. China’s sovereign wealth fund represents roughly 5% of one of MBK Partners’ investment funds. Such ties raised concerns among Korea Zinc management that their firm would eventually come under Chinese control. Concerns about Chinese influence have also been highlighted in relation to Project Crucible, a joint Korea Zinc led venture, which Young Poong and MBK Partners initially opposed because it placed too much control in the hands of the US government, posing a national security risk to Korea. More recently, however, Young Poong and MBK Partners have changed their approach, taking a more supportive public position towards the project. This included hosting a promotional reception in Tennessee during which they sought to give the impression of ownership over the project.

Separate questions have also been raised about Young Poong’s environmental, financial and managerial issues related to a smelting plant project. These concerns gained renewed attention following Korean police’s decision to reopen an investigation into alleged environmental law violations by Young Poong Counsel Hyung-jin Jang.

The cases above illustrate why regulators and investors need to look beyond the registry of shareholders. In Sika’s case, a minority stake could carry majority voting power, while Endeavor controlled votes before owning a majority of economic interests. In Korea Zinc’s case, the battle involves shareholder alliances, control rights and internationally sourced capital with vast potential geopolitical implications.

Traditional concepts of ownership no longer capture where control in companies resides. This matters for governments screening transactions with economic sovereignty, national security and competitiveness in mind. The era of the shareholder may be giving way to an era where control matters more than ownership.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said on Sunday that President Trump’s plan to send $5,000 dividend checks to American adults if Republicans keep both the House and Senate would require an act of Congress. 

“I would assume, yes, he’d need Congress to act, and that’s a creative idea,” Johnson told CNN in a “State of the Union” interview.

Tapper: Where would the money come from for Trump’s $5,000 checks?

Speaker Johnson: “It’s a new, creative idea…We applaud the president for thinking outside the box.” pic.twitter.com/bCXZ3w8izp

— Bulwark Clips (@BulwarkClips) September 13, 2026

“We have to figure all that out. But I think what he was articulating … is that he’s saying that, if you want more money in your pocket, you have to keep Republicans in charge,” Johnson continued. 

Then in a separate interview with NBC‘s “Meet the Press,” Johnson said when asked whether payments would be sent, that he would “commit that Congress will work through it and find consensus on that, like they have to do everything else,” adding that “it takes some time.” 

“I never go out and give big commitments on the front end because I’ve got to work through it, and that’s what we do every single day,” he added. 

Johnson also told CNN that “pro-growth policies” backed by the Trump administration have led to tax cuts.

“They also have in additional take-home pay an average of $8,000 per filer. By the way, 97 percent of tax filers got a tax cut this year. We cut taxes on tips and overtime, Social Security, all those things,” he said.

During a speech Wednesday night at the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Trump proposed sending every adult American citizen a $5,000 “Trump dividend” if Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress in November.

“If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them,” Trump said, “I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

NEW: President Trump makes a major promise at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas: $5,000 for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms.

“I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for… pic.twitter.com/XqiphY7y8a

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 10, 2026

Trump told the audience at the American Airlines Center: “Your vote will decide whether our country stumbles at the starting gate of our next 250 years or surges forward and never looks back.”

A $5,000 payout to 270 million adults would cost the US government approximately $1.35 trillion. The proposal comes as US public debt surpassed $40 trillion for the first time in recent weeks.

Authored by Rob Natelson via The Epoch Times,

This column may provide you with all you need to know about the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). This is the fringe group that the media and a relatively small handful of voters have turned into a supposedly significant force.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have been much in the news lately. Their candidates have won some Democratic Party primaries, and a few have even been elected to local offices.

This article makes two points.

• The first is that the DSA is an extremist organization. It is not “democratic socialist” in the fashion of the British Labour Party or the German Social Democrats. When pundits label the DSA as communist, they are not far off the mark.

• The second point is that the legacy media have covered this tiny group to a grossly disproportionate extent, while leaving far more significant conservative and libertarian organizations in the shadows. As explained below, this is not the first time the media have acted this way.

The DSA’s Extremism

According to the DSA website, it rejects authoritarian forms of socialism. Yet the same website celebrates the career of Fidel Castro, the brutal communist dictator who converted Cuba from a prosperous and rather mild dictatorship into a poverty-stricken concentration camp. If you know nothing more about DSA other than its celebration of Castro’s career, that may be sufficient.

Consistent with the celebration of Castro is that the DSA’s website features sound bites from the writings of Karl Marx and from past communist propaganda campaigns. Examples include “World to win” (from Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’s Communist Manifesto), “international struggle,” “socialist solidarity,” “working class,” and so forth.

Moreover, it is apparent from the DSA website that the organization has no commitment to truth. It falsely accuses Israel of genocide, but nowhere acknowledges the genuine attempts at genocide by anti-Israel groups like Hamas. The website does, however, absurdly charge Secretary of State Marco Rubio with “genocide” because he supports an embargo on Cuba.

Clearly, DSA sees words and concepts as mere political tools.

Similar deception surrounds DSA’s promotion of “democracy.” Israel has an overwhelmingly Jewish majority, nearly all of whom, along with local Druze, Christians, and some Arabs, support the State of Israel. “Palestinians” – a word that refers to those Arabs living in the area – represent only about 21 percent of the Israeli population.

Yet DSA calls for the complete “dismantling” of Israel and its replacement with a “Palestinian” state. This would privilege the will of some fraction of the 21 percent over the desires of everyone else. Is that democracy?

Of course, the abolition of Israel would be more than anti-democratic. It also would be unjust: Jews have only their ancestral homeland, while Arabs have conquered and colonized territories from Iraq to Morocco and beyond.

DSA’s domestic political positions include granting the vote to incarcerated criminals. They also include abolishing the Senate and rendering the executive subordinate to the House of Representatives.

Even more alarming, DSA would subordinate the formerly independent judiciary to the legislative power. In other words, it would eradicate both the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.

This raises the question of how a DSA candidate, even if he wins a general election, can qualify for political office. Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution specifies that all federal and state legislators and officers “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” For a DSA member to take such an oath would be perjury.

DSA not only opposes the Constitution. It seems to oppose the United States itself. It would defund the military and abolish all border controls.

DSA’s economic positions envision a society in which there would be little, if any, role for free enterprise. A key goal is “the end of capitalism,” a phrase that suggests that no private enterprise would be permitted at all.

In DSA’s world, “Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.” So DSA would apparently collectivize farms, socialize medicine, and expropriate businesses – all schemes that have proven disastrous wherever tried.

DSA says that food, education, energy, and so forth are “human rights.” Unfortunately, when a government labels a product a “human right,” it must enslave disfavored people to provide the product to favored people.

In the same category of authoritarianism is DSA’s support for the “Green New Deal.” President Donald Trump once said that the Green New Deal program reads like a bad high school term paper. I agree. But for reasons I have outlined elsewhere, it also reads a lot like fascism.

The DSA’s Insignificance

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) won her first Democratic Party primary in 2018, she garnered a total of less than 17,000 votes. In Denver this year, Melat Kiros did somewhat better, winning her congressional primary with a total of 58,000 votes. On the basis of such anemic results, The New York Times, Time Magazine, National Public Radio, Politico, and other legacy outlets made both of them national celebrities.

As an electoral matter, this kind of media attention makes no sense. AOC’s tally amounted to slightly more than one-10,000th of the 154 million votes cast in the 2026 election. In 2000, I won three times as many votes as AOC – and nearly as many as Kiros – when losing a gubernatorial primary in a low-population state.

Another way to put the DSA into perspective is to examine membership numbers. The group claims 120,000 members. The Libertarian Party, by contrast, has 700,000 registered voters, and that’s counting only the 31 states that permit party registration. If all states permitted party registration, the Libertarian count certainly would be much higher. And yet the Libertarian Party receives almost no attention from the legacy media.

There are 45 million to 48 million registered Democrats in the United States and nearly 40 million registered Republicans. Add those to the 700,000 registered Libertarians, and you find that DSA’s membership nationally amounts to somewhat over one-tenth of 1 percent of those registered voters in the three largest parties who reside in only 31 states.

In other words, in electoral terms, DSA is insignificant. No wonder the liberal Brookings Institute recently concluded that “The DSA’s success this summer appears overstated, given its modest win rate and deep-blue base.”

The Media Have Done This Before

The media’s perverse interest in the insignificant has arisen before. Here’s one example:

During the Vietnam War, the largest student political organization in the United States was the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). It had perhaps 80,000 members at a time when the U.S. population was only 60 percent of what it is today. Thus, on a per capita basis, YAF’s membership, although limited to young people, exceeded that of DSA, which is open to all ages.

YAF was conservative and supported the U.S. commitment to Vietnam.

The largest youth organization on the left, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), espoused socialism and opposed our commitment in Vietnam.

SDS was only half the size of YAF, but the media lionized it while largely ignoring YAF. This is shown by a Newspapers.com search for the years 1965-1975, roughly the period of the Vietnam War. In American newspapers, the abbreviation “YAF” appeared 24,000 times. By contrast, the abbreviation “SDS” appeared 2.1 million times – an astounding imbalance of 875-to-1 in favor of the smaller, left-wing group.

This sort of bias does not arise by accident. The reason appears to be that mainstreaming a fringe group on the far left, while ignoring larger organizations on the right, helps shift the national discussion to the left. In other words, the media were moving the Overton Window – the universe of acceptable options – to portside.

A Warning

The mainstreaming of DSA serves the agenda of the legacy media that is feeding the viper for their own purposes.

But history shows that feeding the viper is not only misleading but also irresponsible. One reason Adoph Hitler rose to power was that certain establishment figures treated him and his Nazi Party as within the respectable range of options, rather than doing what they should have done: isolate them both.

It is time for the media to stop perseverating on DSA and instead focus on movements more responsible, more significant, and more worthy of public attention.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.