Zero Rss

Why Is China Advertising Insane War Drones On Facebook

The proliferation of low-cost suicide drones and interceptor drones appears to be accelerating as nation-states begin stockpiling these expendable platforms, reflecting a rapid and structural shift in modern warfare toward mass, attritable weapons.

More concerning is that some of these drones appear to be marketed far beyond traditional military channels and potentially sold to the highest bidder.

We have already identified what appear to be Chinese companies advertising advanced dual-use drone systems on Facebook, suggesting that drone warfare technologies could soon be easily accessible on the commercial market.

Various companies on Facebook appear to be marketing low-cost suicide drones and interceptor drones that look on par with those seen in Ukraine, as shown on Reels.

Here are some of those advertising videos featured on Reels:

When reaching out to what appear to be Chinese or Hong Kong-based drone companies selling advanced AI interceptor drones to anyone, you're greeted with a sales document:

Pricing sheet.

The central question is whether these exporters are complying with China’s Export Control Law and the 2024 regulations governing dual-use items. The potential national security risk is clear: low-cost drone systems could be acquired by criminal groups, terrorist networks, or other non-state threat actors with limited technical or financial barriers.

A possible early warning came from Mexico, where authorities recovered a fiber-optic drone. The discovery suggests that technologies refined on modern battlefields, such as in Ukraine, may already be migrating toward the US homeland and other allied countries.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 21:20

Cox Media Heir Turned Communist Financier Arrested In Spain, Faces US Extradition

Jim "Fergie" Chambers, the Communist centi-millionaire and heir to the massive Cox media fortune, was arrested in Ibiza at the request of the US Justice Department and is awaiting possible extradition on federal charges linked to "international money laundering… with the intent to provide material support to and resources to foreign terrorist organizations," according to The Grayzone on Monday, citing new details from the sealed indictment.

The indictment alleges that Chambers transferred funds from US banks to accounts in Tunisia with the intent to support foreign terrorist organizations.

The Grayzone notes that the sealed indictment has little evidence that Chambers has donated any money to "foreign terrorist organizations." It merely states "Chambers made numerous transfers of funds from banks in the US to banks in Tunisia," where he relocated in late 2023.

Chambers is the founder of the Babochki Collective and a major backer of Stop Cop City, Palestine Action US (later renamed Unity of Fields), and related legal defense efforts. He allegedly funded bail, legal fees, and direct-action campaigns targeting police-training projects and Israeli-linked defense firms, while also building networks with far-left activists.

To note: Mirah Wood sits at the center of Babochki Collective as an "Admin" and is the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) Internationalist Committee

A communist and convert to Islam from New York, Chambers has pledged to use his $250 million fortune to fund "revolutionary organizing."

The indictment also alleges that, after fleeing the US in 2023, he transferred about $7.5 million out of the country in order to seek opportunities to provide material support to Hamas, Middle East Eye reported.

There are numerous reports that Chambers has possibly supported or interfaced with designated terrorist groups, including Samidoun, which the US Treasury identified as a "sham charity serving as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization," and Middle East Children's Alliance, which has been cited by US and allied governments for links to the PFLP.

Additional US groups he has possibly supported or interfaced with include China-based Marxist Roy Singham's NGO sphere, including ANSWER Coalition, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Newsclick, as well as student and campus mobilization networks (such as Students for Justice in Palestine) and political prisoner advocacy groups. Chambers' own Berkshire Communists project in Massachusetts has served as a local hub for organizing and arms training within this network.

City Journal's Stu Smith wrote in a recent report, "Chambers is one of the main funders of America's radical Left. His money has flowed to a host of projects in the "anti-imperialism" organizing space," adding, "Chambers claims that he and Singham are effectively the two primary financiers of the US radical left." Despite this, the two have apparently been at loggerheads—a conflict that has now gone public."

🚨 Fergie Chambers, heir to the Cox media fortune and a major funder of militant pro-Palestine groups, was detained in Spain as the Trump administration seeks his extradition on federal charges carrying up to 30 years in prison.pic.twitter.com/4YrIyZSR8q

— Stu Smith (@thestustustudio) July 13, 2026

Chambers' arrest comes ahead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's planned meeting this Thursday of high-level officials from 60 nations that will begin to problem-solve how to curb transnational far-left terrorism across the Western world.

Rubio Convenes 60-Nation Summit To Confront Transnational Far-Left Terrorism https://t.co/lAnQqeBWYL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 11, 2026

Last month, Fox News' Asra Nomani reported that US Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York, authorized by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is examining whether Singham, NGOs he funded, or their leaders committed wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, or other financial crimes.

FIRST ON FOX: A federal grand jury is investigating China-based tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham over alleged financial improprieties involving $278 million that investigators say moved through his financial network over the past decade.

Federal investigators are examining… pic.twitter.com/cqqt9QthU6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 29, 2026

Smith also noted, "Congressional scrutiny of the Singham network has recently intensified. Several House committees have sought documentation from affiliated organizations. Lawmakers have also referred The People's Forum to the IRS, urging review and possible revocation of its tax-exempt status, and have asked then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Singham under the Foreign Agents Registration Act."

Meanwhile, Calla Walsh, a former Democratic Party operative who worked for Democratic Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, met Chambers several years ago while working with Unity of Fields. She was recently seen on Iranian television praising slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as the "greatest anti-imperialist leader" of her lifetime.

"Ayatollah Khamenei was the greatest anti-imperialist leader to have lived during my lifetime," Walsh said.

Former Elizabeth Warren staffer who called for the United States to be abolished as justice for Khamenei, attended his funeral and called him one of the greatest leaders of her lifetime pic.twitter.com/WSzpzcpd1R

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 5, 2026

Walsh shared a message similar to that of the Democratic Socialists: "Death to America"...

Palestine Action US founder Calla Walsh attends Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral and calls him the “greatest anti-Imperialist leader” in her lifetime.

This is the brainwashing going on in the far-left, making them to unite with Islamists and terrorists. pic.twitter.com/N5o0Z3Wrv4

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 4, 2026

Oddly enough, the rhetoric from Chambers, Walsh, Marxist NGOs operating in the US, and the DSA all sounds similar.

Here's the DSA calling for revolution and the destruction of America from within:

Frank, Aaron, Hank and Sam are Communist insurgents, radicalized marxist revolutionaries hiding behind personal ideologies to justfy their 1A expressions of the right to promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America pic.twitter.com/XLzzjisOqd

— AnimalFarm1945 (Moshe) (@Farm1945A) July 6, 2026

Days ago, Mark Penn, the former chief White House pollster and strategic advisor to President Bill Clinton for six years, warned in a Wall Street op-ed titled "The Socialist Threat Is Real" that "Lawmakers, law-enforcement agencies and journalists should investigate the DSA to see if it is being funded by foreign governments and interests."

This all comes as Western leaders are trying to determine where a troubling pattern of left-wing revolutionary activity is originating, amid an alarming rise in far-left activists seeking to kill "capitalists."

Walsh is calling for revolutionaries to attend a rally in front of the courts in Ibiza on Tuesday, where Chambers is being held. 

Noise demo is planned tomorrow at the courts of Ibiza in support of political prisoner Fergie Chambers: https://t.co/q49PwHkKxa

— Calla (@CallaWalsh) July 13, 2026

Perhaps Rubio's upcoming meeting with leaders from 60 nations on Thursday can begin piecing together the puzzle of who is funding the activist groups seeking a communist revolution to destroy America from within.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 20:30

The Latest Model Cars: Big Brother Is Watching You

Authored by Alejandro A. Tagliavini via The Mises Institute,

Big Brother is a character in George Orwell's novel 1984, the entity that governs Oceania, through the tyrannical single party - the Ingsoc. No one knows about it, but it is omnipresent through telescreens with strong propaganda and controlling everything.

An article written by Steve Watson in Modernity.news, gives an account of how the surveillance state has found its new frontier: the dashboard of your car. What was once a symbol of American freedom and independence, automobiles are rapidly transforming into a high-tech cage that watches their every move and can override their decisions at will.

In a post shared on X, users detailed the multiple complaints about Subaru's improved "EyeSight" AI system, which is present in the latest models. According to drivers, the system gets quick glimpses beyond their intentions to plan their route. At the same time, Biden-era federal mandates were put in place to make this level of surveillance mandatory on every new vehicle by 2027.

They even catch a momentary glance to change a song or admire the landscape and activate constant alerts. Thus, its new Emergency Stop Assist with Safe Lane Selection function can detect an "unresponsive" driver and issue increasing alerts through sounds and vibrations at the steering wheel, and then take full control: automatically brake, reduce the vehicle's speed, direct it to the side of the road, and activate hazard lights.

This is not an optional trick but would be imposed by the state. It's being rolled out as standard "safety" technology, but drivers call it a domineering electronic babysitter who treats competent adults like children. It serves as a chilling preview of where the entire auto industry is headed under government pressure.

This type of intrusive surveillance is precisely the tool that a police state would dream of to exert total control over personal movements. If authorities achieve deeper integration with these systems, they could effectively decide when, where, and who can drive.

The launch of Subaru is just the latest sticking point in a broader push toward vehicle surveillance that goes far beyond basic security. A federal mandate - included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 - requires all new passenger vehicles sold in the US to include advanced drunk or drug-impaired driving prevention technology, starting with 2027 model years.

As detailed in the New York Post report, this means infrared cameras and sensors that constantly monitor eyes, faces, head position, and behavior for distractions, drowsiness, or deterioration, with the power to prevent the car from starting or limit its operation. It seems very appropriate, but it implies a great deal of arbitrariness if it comes into the hands of bureaucrats.

Manufacturers are already patenting and deploying even more aggressive systems, including biometric scans that analyze everything from gait to heart rate to AI face scanning, lip reading, and emotional monitoring. The problem is that the data won't stay in the car: it could make its way to insurers for risk scoring, law enforcement, or worse, to the knowledge of Big Brother: as cross-checks of drivers with police databases, before the vehicle is even allowed to move.

Authorities are already showing interest in using these tools as a weapon for broader travel restrictions. In Massachusetts, Democrats introduced a bill aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled statewide to meet climate goals, pushing policies that critics say amount to limiting the distance people can drive in their own cars, clearly limiting their freedom.

Globalist agendas - usually driven by left-wing statists - on climate, excessive big-government intervention, and forced cooperation between business and state converge to strip away the last vestiges of personal autonomy on the roads. What starts as "safety features" and "environmental goals" ends with the car deciding personal freedom, to the point of deciding who can leave the garage.

It is not only the statists of the left who try to monitor in order to control, but also those of the right. For example, the president of Argentina has had meetings with Peter Thiel, surrounded by controversy over the publication of a manifesto by his surveillance company Palantir that summarizes the central ideas of the book The Technological Republic.

Beyond spying on all citizens, it urges the recovery of compulsory military service - a true modern slavery - and the development of weapons with artificial intelligence for states, with technologies for critical military and national security applications for the new era of deterrence built on AI (that) is about to begin.

"The only real answer is rejection: refuse to buy these guarded vehicles... and preserve the used car market as the last refuge of true driving freedom," concludes Steve Watson.

In short, whatever the outcome, you can be sure that, in the end, freedom and private enterprise will always prevail. Despite the fame they have, the truth is that even intelligence agencies such as the CIA, the Mossad, or the Chinese MSS are inefficient to the point of causing hilarity.

On the other hand, private initiatives are impossible to stop by governments that have been trying, even with the help of "private" sectors - the friends of power - such as banking and financial oligopolies protected by the states.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 20:05

These Are America's Most (And Least) Dangerous States

Where you live can significantly affect your likelihood of experiencing violent crime, with reported rates varying severalfold across the United States.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, ranks every U.S. state and the District of Columbia by reported violent crimes per 100,000 residents between March 2025 and February 2026.

The figures include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, using data from the FBI Crime Data Explorer.

Washington, D.C. and Alaska Top the Rankings

Washington, D.C. recorded the nation’s highest violent crime rate at 789 incidents per 100,000 residents.

D.C.’s rate is partly elevated because it is an entirely urban jurisdiction, unlike states that also include suburban and rural areas.

Rank State/District Violent crime rate per 100K people (Mar 2025–Feb 2026) 1 District of Columbia 789 2 Alaska 731 3 New Mexico 645 4 Arkansas 533 5 Tennessee 482 6 Kansas 465 7 Louisiana 461 8 Colorado 429 9 Missouri 428 10 Michigan 426 11 California 417 12 Montana 414 13 Oklahoma 408 14 New York 389 15 Arizona 379 16 Nevada 379 17 South Carolina 376 18 Maryland 353 19 Delaware 345 20 Texas 343 21 Alabama 335 22 South Dakota 322 23 North Carolina 316 24 Oregon 311 25 Washington 290 26 Indiana 289 27 Ohio 283 28 Georgia 281 29 Massachusetts 267 30 West Virginia 260 31 Florida 252 32 Illinois 250 33 Wisconsin 239 34 Iowa 239 35 North Dakota 230 36 Minnesota 224 37 Pennsylvania 222 38 Nebraska 222 39 Utah 220 40 Idaho 218 41 Vermont 212 42 Mississippi 207 43 Kentucky 207 44 Virginia 201 45 New Jersey 194 46 Hawaii 190 47 Wyoming 189 48 Rhode Island 143 49 New Hampshire 121 50 Connecticut 108 51 Maine 92

Alaska ranked second overall, with 731 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. The state’s elevated rate was largely driven by higher levels of rape and aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, New Mexico recorded 645 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, the highest rate in the contiguous United States.

South and Southwest See Higher Rates

The South and Southwest account for many of the country’s highest violent crime rates. Alongside New Mexico, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas all ranked in the upper half of the list, though the underlying factors vary widely by state.

For example, New Orleans has more murders per capita than any other city in the country, contributing to Louisiana’s rate of 461 violent crimes per 100,000 people, the seventh highest in the country.

More broadly, violent crime is shaped by a range of factors, including poverty, policing strategies, substance abuse, and population density.

Northeastern States Report the Lowest Crime Rates

The Northeast dominates the bottom of the ranking. Maine reported the nation’s lowest violent crime rate at just 92 incidents per 100,000 residents, followed by Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

Several other Northeastern states, including New Jersey and Massachusetts, also posted relatively low rates.

Although crime rates differ substantially across states, violent crime in the U.S. has generally declined over the past several decades. This makes today’s geographic differences more notable than the long-term national trend.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Mapped: U.S. Financial Crimes by State on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 19:40

South Carolina's Governor Appoints Lindsey Graham's Sister To Fill His Senate Seat

Update (1900ET): Gov. Henry McMaster (R-S.C.) appointed Darline Graham Nordone, the late senator’s younger sister, to take his place in the Senate until the election in November.

“Lindsey has always been there for me, and now I will be there for him,” Nordone told reporters at a press conference with McMaster on Monday afternoon.

“It is such a privilege to get to finish some of his important work, and I promise to work hard over the next several months to support the president and carry forward the efforts of my brother on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina and the United States.”

“To Lindsey, I miss you more than I can even put into words,” she added. “But I’m going to do this. I got it.”

As Chris Queen reports for PJMedia.com, Nordone’s name came up when President Donald Trump suggested that McMaster nominate her in a post on Truth Social: "I recommended, to Governor Henry McMaster, Lindsey Graham’s wonderful sister, Darline, to serve as interim Senator from the Great State of South Carolina. This would be a fabulous tribute to Lindsey, who loved her dearly! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

CNN reports:

Under state law, McMaster can appoint a temporary replacement to fill Graham’s vacant seat. But because Graham was up for reelection this year, his death will kick off a sprint primary election to replace him on the November ballot.

Ahead of the press conference, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN’s Dana Bash that he spoke Sunday with both Nordone and McMaster.

“I’ll let the governor make an announcement about that, but that certainly in my view makes a lot of sense,” Thune said. “In many respects, it would be a way of extending Lindsey’s legacy here and certainly something that, if that’s what they decide to end up doing, I think there’d be a lot of support for it.”

NewsNation reports that Nordone hasn’t spoken publicly since her brother’s death until the press conference, noting, “Graham Nordone declined interview requests following the news of her brother’s death, saying it was ‘still too raw’ to come out and say anything yet.”

My friend and colleague Sarah Anderson wrote on Sunday night about the wonderful relationship Graham and Nordone have had with each other over the years:

After graduating high school, Graham's college years were wrought with tragedy. When he was just 20 years old, his mother died from Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was the one who had to break the news to his little sister. 

A little over a year later, his father died in his sleep after having a heart attack. Darline, who discovered their father dead, was only 13 years old at the time. Graham rushed home from school to comfort his sister. "Lindsey wrapped his arms around me and promised me he would always be there for me and always take care of me," she once said in an interview. 

He didn't have to do it. What young man, at the age of 21 or 22, with his whole life ahead, wants to put everything on hold and help raise a young girl and take over a family business? But that's exactly what he did. He came from college every single weekend to spend time with his sister and manage the bar. 

Like many others, I had my doubts about appointing Nordone, but as the day has drawn on, I realized that she’s a perfect caretaker for the seat since she’ll fulfill her brother’s vision. Then November's election can take care of itself. Knowing how red South Carolina is, I have no reason to worry whether this seat will stay in safe hands.

*  *  *

While plenty of jaws are still agape following Saturday night's shockingly sudden death of Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, scheming over his vacant seat is already well underway. With Graham having been a chief champion of the West's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, and a zealous collaborator with Israel in promoting American warfare against Iran, it's not just South Carolinians who are concerned about their representation in Washington.  

There are two separate tracks in this succession drama. First, under South Carolina law, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster must appoint someone to represent the state for the balance of Graham's fifth term, which runs through January 3.

As you watch the scramble for U.S. Senate in South Carolina...

Lindsey Graham was sworn on January 3, 2003, succeeding Strom Thurmond.

Thurmond took that seat on November 7, 1956.

That's only two Senators in nearly 70 years.

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) July 13, 2026

Separately, South Carolina Republicans must choose a new nominee for November's general election. Candidates can officially file starting July 21, with the window shutting on July 28. Then, a special primary election will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 11. If no candidate scores not just a plurality but a majority of the votes, the top two vote-getters would advance to a runoff election on Aug. 25. Before Graham's death, the Cook Political Report rated the Palmetto State "safe" for continued GOP control. It's doubtful that status will change no matter whom Republicans pick to go up against Democrat pediatrician Annie Andrews in November. In his 2020 re-election, Graham coasted to a 10-point win over his Democratic opponent.   

McMaster doesn't have a firm deadline for naming a temporary replacement, but choosing someone quickly gives him a potent opportunity to give someone a leg up in the primary race for the term that starts in January. As an alternative, he could go in the opposite direction and appoint a "caretaker" who has no ambition to hold the seat after the end of the year. McMaster, who is term-limited and will stop being governor in January, could conceivably appoint himself the interim senator, which would have Lt Gov Pamela Evette ascend to the governor's desk.  

With Graham's body still cooling, the man he trounced in the June primary -- businessman Mark Lynch -- wasted no time in announcing he will be a candidate in the special primary. On Sunday evening, Lynch committed $5 million to "finish the race we started." Amusingly, earlier in the day, Lynch had said, "today is not a day for politics." 

President Trump, whose endorsement is still powerful within the GOP despite his own crumbling popularity, declined on Sunday to tell NBC News whom he prefers for the seat. “I have somebody that I think would be great, but I don’t want to say it now because it’s just, you know, it’s too soon with Lindsey," Trump said. "I don’t want to even talk about anybody, but I do have somebody that I think is really good.”

“Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in…” pic.twitter.com/1AzRMPAEuc

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) July 12, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelensky are certainly among those most sorry to learn that Graham suddenly died. Graham was easily one of the most hawkish figures in Washington, and was constantly working with both foreign leaders to help keep US money and weapons flowing in their direction. In that light, they may have hoped that former South Carolina governor and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley would pursue the seat. However, a spokesman told Politico's Alec Hernandez that Haley "has no plans to run for office at this time."

Other potential opponents for Lynch include: 

• Rep. Nancy Mace. She's poised to hand over her House seat in January, having foregone reelection for a failed bid for governor this year. She is actively considering a run for Graham's seat, according to Politico and The New York Times. Their reporting is reinforced by Mace's posting of a clip from Godfather III, in which Michael Corleone says the classic line, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

• Rep. Russell Fry. The 41-year-old Trump ally currently represents South Carolina's solidly-Republican 7th Congressional District. In un-Lindsey Graham fashion, Fry was one of a few dozen Republicans who voted in 2023 to direct President Biden to pull troops out of Syria within 180 days.  

• Rep. Ralph Norman. At 73 years old, the hard-right Norman is two years older than the dead Graham and would test America's growing fatigue with Congress being a gerontocracy. Norman reportedly called Trump on Sunday to discuss a potential endorsement. Trump was said to have replied, "Give me a week." Norman's expected to make some kind of announcement about his intentions on Tuesday, and South Carolina outlet FITS News says he's running. 

• Rep. Joe Wilson. Famed for yelling "you lie!" at President Obama during an address to Congress in 2009, Wilson's name has been circulating. However, on Sunday night he signaled that he wouldn't be running. "I was grateful to speak with President Trump today reminiscing about our mutual friend, Senator Lindsey Graham," Wilson tweeted. "I assured him my goal is to remain in the House to keep his two-vote majority for the American people!!!" 

• Lt Gov Pamela Evette. She tried for the governor nomination this year, but lost to Alan Wilson, son of firebrand Rep. Joe Wilson. In an odd move, Trump endorsed both of them for the GOP nomination. 

There could be a crowded field, which would elevate the chances that a runoff would be needed. Within about 30 hours of each other, America saw two Grahams exit their Senate races in a bad way -- Lindsey Graham via heart failure, and Maine Democratic hopeful Graham Platner via being on the wrong end of a sex-assault accusation. Between the South Carolina special primary election and Maine Democrats picking a new candidate at a rushed convention this month, the entertainment is stacking up for political junkies in the dog days of summer 2026. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 19:30

About 2,040 Pounds Of Cocaine, 5,800 Pounds Of Marijuana Seized At Sea

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

U.S. authorities have seized about 2,040 pounds of cocaine and almost 5,800 pounds of marijuana in three separate maritime interdictions carried out with international partners.

Action by JIATF-S and Costa Rican authorities led to the capture of a boat allegedly involved in drug smuggling. Courtesy of the JIATF-S

The most recent interdiction involved the Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) South and Panama's National Aeronaval Service intercepting a go-fast vessel following a rapid aerial and surface pursuit, JIATF South said in a July 10 post on X. The operation led to the seizure of roughly 2,010 pounds of cocaine.

JIATF South, based in Key West, Florida, is an international alliance that monitors and facilitates the interdiction of drug traffickers in maritime and air domains. Operating across a 42-million-square-mile area, JIATF South involves cooperation from 13 domestic and 20 international partners. The task force seeks to disrupt the flow of illegal drugs and dismantle transnational criminal organizations.

In a second interdiction, JIATF South and authorities from Costa Rica cooperated to intercept a drug smuggling vessel and capture a pick-up boat that was fleeing, according to a July 9 X post. The operation led to the seizure of 3,672 pounds of marijuana, with four suspects arrested.

The third interdiction was a joint operation between JIATF South, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Dominican Republic partners that intercepted a vessel in the Caribbean Sea attempting to transport illicit cargo, the task force said in a July 8 X post.

Authorities seized 2,124 pounds of marijuana and about 30 pounds of cocaine, and detained two smugglers in this incident. A smuggling route operated by a major transnational criminal organization was disrupted.

Drug seizures have risen under the Trump administration.

In a June 18 statement, the CBP said it had seized 56 percent more drugs in the current fiscal year through May than during the same period in fiscal year 2024 under the previous administration.

In the four months between February and May, marijuana seizures averaged 37,033 pounds per month, which is 61 percent higher than the same period in the 2024 fiscal year.

For the month of May, the nationwide seizure of cocaine, marijuana, fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine was 32 percent higher than in May 2024.

"CBP remains on the frontline against drug smuggling, seizing dangerous narcotics before they reach American communities," the agency said.

Northern Border Drug Trafficking

Last week, a Canadian national was sentenced to 240 months in prison for leading a criminal organization that trafficked hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and methamphetamine valued at up to $17 million from the United States into Canada, according to a July 9 statement from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The issue of drug trafficking at America's northern border was highlighted by Michael J. Krol, Homeland Security Investigations' assistant director for domestic operations, during a June 30 House committee hearing.

"Unique to the northern border, the flow of illicit drugs reflects both inbound and outbound dynamics," Krol said.

A key concern "is the drug flow moving through the United States into Canada. Cartel-owned cocaine and other controlled substances are routed north for domestic consumption and onward shipment to Europe," he added.

During fiscal year 2024-25, the Canada Border Services Agency reported seizing roughly 7,700 pounds of cocaine, compared to 2,700 pounds seized during fiscal year 2020-21, Krol said.

During a May 12 Senate committee hearing, DEA head Terry Cole and FBI Director Kash Patel said they were working to disrupt new drug production facilities in Canada.

"We see more precursors coming into the Port of Vancouver, coming into Canada," Cole said.

Patel said that drug traffickers have gotten "smart" with improved security at the U.S. southern border, shifting operations to Canada.

The FBI was working with Canadian authorities to disrupt the production facilities that criminals have moved north, according to Patel.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 19:15

China Builds Full-Scale Model Of US Destroyer In Remote Desert

Security analysts poring over satellite photos of China have shared a surreal image: There's a detailed, full-scale replica of a US Navy destroyer in the middle of a remote stretch of Chinese desert. It's a vivid indication of the seriousness with which the Chinese government takes preparations for a potential war with the United States, perhaps over Taiwan.  

This highly-detailed, full-scale mockup of a US destroyer was recently assembled in the middle of a desert in northwest China (via Defense Security Asia)

Thousands of miles from the nearest ocean, the mockup sits amid the sands of a missile-testing range near Ruoqiang in Xinjiang Province. It's an exceedingly precise replica of a 510-foot-long US Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. That type of vessel is a core workhorse of the US Navy, and is involved in air defense, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare and attacks on land-targets. A main player in Trump's Israel-allied war on Iran, it was likely an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that fired the Tomahawk missiles on Feb 28 that devastated a girls' elementary school in Minab, killing 168 people, mostly schoolgirls. Here's video of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the USS Michael Murphy, in action: 

Footage of the USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) launching five Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iran tonight. pic.twitter.com/nlsAMNhFMF

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 11, 2026

Adding to the mockup's realism, analysts told CNN that that it's bristling with antennas that are used to reproduce the destroyer's radar signature.  The same area of China is home to several flat, 2-D mockup of other US ships, portraying the outlines of destroyers and aircraft carriers as seen from above. Those mockups are mounted on tracks so they glide along the desert sea at the same speeds real US warships would use. 

Weeks ago, the mockup was discovered while it was still under construction (via Defense Security Asia)

As with any well-resourced military, mockups have long been a part of Chinese readiness training, to include building fake airstrips, highway interchanges and even an Eiffel Tower in their desert. The country has also built a 3D mockup of central Taipei, to include Taiwan's presidential office. However, according to open source intelligence analyst Joseph Wen of the Taiwan Inspiration Association, this is the first known instance in which China has built a detailed, 3-D replica of a warship. Wen is credited with being the first to discover the new mockup several weeks ago, while it was still being built. "The message that they are sending is China is always preparing for war," Wen told CNN.   

This mockup of central Taipei was discovered at the Zhurihe military training facility in Inner Mongolia in 2015 (via The Diplomat)

...just like the United States, which may see its already-enormous military budget grow 50% from about $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in FY 2027 -- if Congress makes Trump's fever-dreams a reality.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 18:50

28.8 Million Queries: The AI Heist That Tripped No Alarms

Authored by Joseph Hoefer via RealClearDefense,

When we picture intellectual property theft, we picture a break-in. A hacker slips past the firewall, copies the source code, and disappears. So, when an American AI company tells Congress that China just pulled off the largest extraction campaign it's ever recorded, the natural assumption is that someone cracked the vault.

Nobody broke in. And that's exactly what makes this threat so difficult for Washington to address.

Last week, Anthropic told the Senate Banking Committee that operators affiliated with the Chinese conglomerate Alibaba ran roughly 28.8 million queries with its Claude models through nearly 25,000 fraudulent accounts between April and June. According to the company, the goal was not to steal the model. It was to harvest its answers, then use those answers to train a competing Chinese system at a fraction of the cost.

This technique is called distillation, and not all of it is sinister. Training a smaller model on the outputs of a larger one is a routine and legitimate practice when a company does it with its own systems. What Anthropic alleges is something else: unauthorized extraction from a competitor's proprietary service, carried out at industrial scale through fake accounts that violated its terms of use. The line between ordinary engineering and a national-security problem runs right through that word "unauthorized."

The unsettling part is how ordinary the attack looks from the outside. The operators signed up, gained access, and asked questions, millions of them, aimed at the model's most valuable skills: writing software and reasoning through complex tasks step by step. The model did precisely what it was built to do. No alarm tripped, because from the system's perspective, nothing went wrong. A determined competitor simply walked through the front door, at enormous scale, to approximate years of American research by learning from the model's outputs.

That is a genuinely new kind of problem, and it scrambles the usual playbook.

The instinct in Washington has been to treat Chinese AI gains as a hardware story. Keep advanced chips out of Beijing's hands, the thinking goes, and you slow its progress. That instinct isn't wrong. Compute is a real chokepoint... China keeps trying to smuggle chips and route around the controls, and tightening those rules is sound policy.

But chip controls were designed to stop someone from building a powerful model. They do nothing to stop someone from quietly copying the behavior of a model that already exists.

You can wall off the foundry and leave the storefront wide open. That is the gap distillation walks through, and it is why a hardware-only strategy, however necessary, cannot be the whole answer.

The stakes are not only strategic. Every successful extraction campaign compresses years of research and billions of dollars of private investment into millions of automated queries, undermining the incentives that made American frontier AI leadership possible in the first place. This is what intellectual property theft looks like in the age of AI: not stolen code, but a copied teacher. Alibaba is simply the first vivid example, and it won't be the last.

The encouraging news is that the government has already named the problem. In April, the White House science office issued a memo warning that foreign entities, mostly based in China, are running "industrial-scale campaigns to distill U.S. frontier AI systems," and it committed the administration to better information sharing and defensive coordination with industry. The House Foreign Affairs Committee advanced a bill that would track these extraction attempts and authorize sanctions against the companies behind them. And in response to the Alibaba disclosure, Sens. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) are pushing an amendment to this year's defense bill directing the Commerce Department to penalize Chinese firms caught doing it.

That bipartisan momentum is the right reflex. To work, the response must match the attack, and that means treating model extraction like any other strategic economic attack rather than a routine business dispute.

Two priorities follow. First, detection is a shared problem, yet companies fight it alone. The fake accounts and evasion patterns show up across multiple American labs, but legal uncertainty discourages competitors from comparing notes. Congress can give them clear permission to share threat signals with one another and with the government, the way banks already share intelligence on fraud. Second, deterrence must reach the storefront, not just the foundry. If a Chinese lab can lose access to American chips for smuggling them, it should face comparable consequences for systematically abusing American AI services to copy them.

America has spent years debating how to keep advanced AI out of China's hands. The harder question may be how to keep China's AI companies from quietly learning everything they can from the models we place online for the world to use. Last week's disclosure put a number on it: 28.8 million questions, asked through the front door. Washington has finally started looking at the right entry point. Now it needs to figure out how to lock it.

Joseph Hoefer is a principal and chief AI officer at Monument Advocacy, where he leads the firm's AI policy practice.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 18:25

Where It Costs The Most To Own A Car In America

Buying a car is only the beginning. Every year afterward, drivers face a steady stream of expenses—from insurance and fuel to repairs and taxes—that can add up to thousands of dollars.

Using data from LendingTree, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld created this map comparing average annual car ownership costs across every U.S. state and Washington D.C., excluding car payments, revealing where those ongoing expenses place the biggest burden on drivers.

The Annual Car Ownership Costs by State

Here’s how annual ownership costs compare across the country.

Rank State or District Average Annual Cost of Car Ownership
2025 1 Nevada $6,119 2 Florida $5,682 3 Louisiana $5,663 4 Michigan $5,350 5 Colorado $5,151 6 Alabama $5,099 7 Arizona $5,060 8 Oklahoma $5,021 9 Georgia $5,014 10 Utah $4,977 11 Arkansas $4,947 12 California $4,900 13 Kentucky $4,862 14 Wyoming $4,859 15 New Mexico $4,855 16 Missouri $4,819 17 Mississippi $4,792 18 Indiana $4,787 19 Rhode Island $4,711 20 Texas $4,636 21 Montana $4,548 22 Kansas $4,542 23 North Dakota $4,540 24 Delaware $4,538 25 Tennessee $4,532 26 Illinois $4,521 27 South Dakota $4,493 28 Minnesota $4,435 29 Connecticut $4,419 30 New Jersey $4,413 31 Oregon $4,340 32 Nebraska $4,307 33 Washington $4,306 34 Maryland $4,302 35 New York $4,253 36 Pennsylvania $4,181 37 South Carolina $4,176 38 North Carolina $4,157 39 Iowa $4,146 40 Hawaii $4,114 41 West Virginia $4,102 42 Virginia $4,061 43 Wisconsin $3,963 44 District of Columbia $3,925 45 Massachusetts $3,834 46 Vermont $3,829 47 Idaho $3,781 48 Alaska $3,682 49 Ohio $3,544 50 Maine $3,543 51 New Hampshire $3,030 -- 🇺🇸 U.S. Average $4,507

Costs do not include car payments. Sales taxes combine state and local taxes, annualized over 6.5 years based on an average used car price of $27,177.

Annual ownership costs range from roughly $3,000 in New Hampshire to more than $6,100 in Nevada, meaning two drivers with the same vehicle could face a difference of more than $3,000 every year based solely on where they live.

Seven of the 15 most expensive states are in the South, largely because of elevated insurance premiums. Florida and Louisiana rank near the top for insurance costs, while California stands out for high fuel prices and repair expenses rather than insurance alone.

Why Some States Cost Thousands More Than Others

The price of a vehicle may be similar nationwide, but the cost of keeping it on the road can change significantly by state.

Insurance is often the biggest source of variation, ranging from over $3,400 annually in Nevada to around $1,200 in Maine. Premiums reflect everything from accident frequency and vehicle theft to repair costs, weather-related claims, and state insurance regulations. In 13 states, insurance alone accounts for at least half of total ownership costs.

Fuel prices, registration fees, and sales taxes add another layer. Drivers in states with longer average commutes or higher gasoline prices typically spend more each year, while repair costs can also differ depending on labor rates and vehicle demand.

Driving Is One of America’s Biggest Household Expenses

Transportation is one of the largest household expenses after housing, making recurring vehicle costs an important part of overall affordability. While consumers often focus on a car’s purchase price or monthly payment, insurance, fuel, repairs, and taxes can add thousands of dollars each year, and those costs depend heavily on where they live.

That burden is especially significant in communities where driving is a necessity rather than a choice. Beyond commuting, vehicles are essential for work, school, childcare, and everyday errands, making recurring ownership costs difficult to avoid.

As insurance premiums, repair bills, and maintenance costs continue to rise, the cost of keeping a car on the road remains a core part of the broader cost-of-living conversation alongside housing, healthcare, and utilities.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s slowest depreciating cars.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 18:00

While The Political Circus Distracts Us, Flock Builds The Digital Police State

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

“You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

- George Orwell, 1984

While Americans remain transfixed by the political circus - cheering for their preferred party, jeering at the opposition, obsessing over every manufactured outrage and waiting for the next spectacle - the Surveillance State continues its steady march forward.

The government is watching.

It watches where you go, whom you meet, where you worship, what medical offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, what protests you join, what books you read, what websites you visit and what causes you support.

It watches through your phone, your car, your doorbell, your appliances, your purchases, your social media accounts and the cameras positioned along the roads you travel every day.

This is how freedom dies in the digital police state: not always through dramatic declarations of martial law or soldiers stationed on every street corner, but through the gradual construction of a technological dragnet—an electronic concentration camp—so pervasive that privacy becomes impossible and anonymity becomes suspicious.

Enter Flock Safety, a private surveillance technology company whose automated license plate readers have spread throughout thousands of American communities.

These cameras, which do much more than photograph license plates, represent the next evolution of the government’s public-private surveillance partnership.

They document the time and location of every passing vehicle and record identifying characteristics such as its make, model, color, damage, roof racks, bumper stickers and other distinctive features. That information can then be placed in a searchable database and used to retrace a vehicle’s movements over time.

Yet the real power—and the real danger—of Flock does not come from the cameras alone.

It comes from artificial intelligence.

A camera can photograph a car. Flock’s AI-powered platform can identify and categorize a vehicle, compare an observation with stored records, generate alerts, identify connections and help police reconstruct where that vehicle has been.

AI is what transforms a photograph into the building blocks for a suspect society.

With AI, every driver becomes a data point. Every data point becomes a pattern. And every pattern becomes a suspicion.

This is how ordinary movements become potentially suspect and subject to government scrutiny. It allows law enforcement agencies to search not only for a complete license plate number but also for partial plates and physical descriptions such as vehicle color, make, model, damage, roof racks, bumper stickers and other identifying characteristics.

A police officer might ask the system to locate every red pickup truck with a ladder rack seen near a protest, every vehicle that repeatedly visited a particular address, or every car observed traveling between two locations.

The artificial intelligence does the sorting. The database supplies the history.

The government receives a list of potential suspects.

This is no longer surveillance conducted by individual officers following particular leads. It is surveillance conducted at machine speed, across entire populations, with algorithms deciding whose movements merit further scrutiny.

Consider the scale of what is taking place.

License plate cameras now log approximately 20 billion vehicle scans every month.

Twenty billion.

That is not targeted policing. That is mass collection.

The overwhelming majority of those scans do not involve stolen cars, wanted suspects, kidnappings or violent crimes. They document ordinary people carrying out the ordinary activities of daily life: driving to work, taking children to school, visiting friends, attending church, keeping medical appointments, participating in protests or simply going home.

Yet each of those innocent journeys becomes part of a searchable police database.

At 20 billion scans a month, Flock is not searching for particular suspects and then attempting to follow them. It is recording the movements of everyone so police can decide later whom they want to follow.

That is the digital equivalent of assigning a government agent to trail every driver in America—and preserving the agent’s notes in case the government someday finds them useful.

Yet mass collection is only the first stage of the AI surveillance state. The next is merging those billions of observations with everything else the government and its corporate partners know about us.

Flock is also part of a much larger shift toward AI-powered “data fusion,” in which license plate records are combined with facial recognition results, surveillance video, police reports, social media activity, commercially purchased information, gunshot-detection alerts and other government databases.

The danger is no longer merely that one system can track a car. It is the merger of previously separate streams of information into a single system capable of mapping a person’s movements, relationships, habits and associations.

These systems increasingly do more than provide officers with information to evaluate. They assign significance to associations, flag supposed threats and generate investigative leads—often through proprietary algorithms that neither the accused nor the public can examine.

Artificial intelligence does not eliminate human prejudice, institutional bias or bad information.

It industrializes them.

Feed a flawed system inaccurate data, biased arrest records or constitutionally suspect surveillance, and AI can reproduce those defects at a speed and scale no individual police officer could match.

Once the computer labels someone suspicious, moreover, officers may treat the algorithmic conclusion as objective fact.

The machine accuses. The police act. The citizen is left to prove that the machine was wrong.

Despite the extraordinary reach of this technology, Flock continues to portray its system as a limited, carefully controlled crime-fighting tool.

Flock insists that its cameras collect information about vehicles rather than people, that agencies control access to their own data, that searches are logged and that information is generally deleted after 30 days. Yet these assurances largely amount to distinctions without a difference.

Vehicles are extensions of the people who drive them.

Track a vehicle long enough, and you know where its owner sleeps, works, worships, shops, socializes, seeks medical treatment and participates in political activity.

You know when someone leaves home, when they return, whom they visit and how often.

You may not know the contents of their conversations, but you know enough to construct an intimate portrait of their life.

That is surveillance.

It does not become less invasive merely because the government has outsourced the cameras, databases and algorithms to a private corporation.

Nor does it cease to be surveillance because police claim that the information may someday be useful in solving a crime.

Indeed, that is the sleight of hand that has allowed the surveillance state to expand so rapidly.

The government no longer has to install every camera, maintain every database or directly collect every piece of information.

It merely encourages private companies, businesses, homeowners’ associations, schools and individual consumers to create an interconnected surveillance ecosystem—and then asks for access.

This public-private arrangement allows government agencies to acquire capabilities they might never receive public approval or sufficient funding to build on their own.

It also makes accountability almost impossible.

When abuses occur, local police blame the technology provider. The technology provider insists that local police control the data. Federal agencies claim they merely requested access. Local officials say they were unaware that information could be shared beyond their jurisdiction.

Everyone points elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the American people remain under observation.

Flock has become especially controversial because its network can transform what appears to be a collection of local cameras into something far more powerful: a searchable surveillance system that permits law enforcement agencies to look far beyond their own jurisdictions.

Flock says data sharing among agencies is optional and controlled by its customers. Yet the entire value of such a system lies in its interconnectedness.

A camera in one town is a traffic-monitoring device.

Thousands of cameras connected through searchable databases constitute a movement-tracking network.

The danger is not simply that police might search for a stolen car.

The danger is that the system permits government officials to begin with a location, a description or a fragment of information and work backward until someone emerges as a suspect.

That reverses the traditional order of constitutional policing.

Under the Fourth Amendment, police are supposed to develop individualized suspicion, establish probable cause and then apply for a warrant to search for evidence connected to a particular person or crime.

Mass surveillance systems begin by collecting information on everyone.

In the process, every innocent person is treated as a potential suspect whose movements must be recorded just in case the government someday decides they are relevant.

This is guilt by algorithm.

It is also the same constitutional inversion at the heart of geofence warrants, which allow police to demand information identifying every cellphone that happened to be near a particular location at a particular time.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chatrie v. United States may signal that constitutional scrutiny is finally beginning to catch up with the surveillance state.

The case involved a geofence warrant used to obtain Google location records for cellphones near the scene of a robbery. Rather than beginning with an identified suspect, police demanded information about devices that happened to be within a designated area during a particular period and then worked backward to identify their owners.

The Supreme Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain an individual’s cellphone location history from a technology company.

That conclusion matters.

It rejects the government’s increasingly convenient argument that intimate information loses constitutional protection merely because a private corporation collected, stored or analyzed it.

The Court did not rule on Flock cameras or automated license plate databases. Nor did it decide that every geofence demand is necessarily unconstitutional. The justices left it to the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause and particularity requirements at each stage of the search.

Nevertheless, the constitutional principle at the heart of Chatrie extends far beyond cellphones.

The government should not be able to evade the Fourth Amendment by outsourcing mass surveillance to private technology companies.

It should not matter whether the location trail comes from Google, Flock, a cellphone provider, a data broker or an interconnected network of privately owned cameras.

A detailed record of a person’s movements does not become less revealing because it follows a vehicle rather than a phone. The government should not be permitted to accomplish through Flock what it could not constitutionally accomplish by assigning police officers to follow millions of Americans everywhere they drive.

Indeed, Flock may present an even more troubling inversion of constitutional policing.

Geofence searches generally begin with a particular crime, location and period. Flock continuously collects information on millions of vehicles before any crime has occurred and before any individual is suspected of wrongdoing.

Police can then reach backward into that stored history and reconstruct a person’s movements.

The surveillance comes first. Suspicion comes later.

A warrant, when one is sought at all, may arrive only after the government has already built the database it intends to search.

Chatrie may provide constitutional ammunition for challenging this arrangement, but no single court ruling will dismantle the machinery of mass surveillance.

The technology is already embedded in thousands of communities.

The databases are already being populated.

The agencies are already connected.

And the companies profiting from this infrastructure will fight to preserve it.

Unfortunately, constitutional protections have rarely kept pace with the government’s appetite for surveillance.

The dangers are no longer theoretical.

Flock data has reportedly been used in investigations far removed from the serious violent crimes routinely invoked to justify these systems.

This is the inevitable trajectory of every surveillance technology. First, it is introduced as an emergency measure. Then it is justified as a crime-fighting tool. Then it is expanded to lesser crimes. Then it is used for administrative enforcement, political monitoring, immigration investigations and personal purposes.

Eventually, it becomes part of the background machinery of government—a permanent feature of daily life that no longer attracts attention because everyone has become accustomed to being watched.

That is how mission creep works.

Surveillance powers created to find kidnappers and violent criminals do not remain limited to kidnappers and violent criminals.

Databases built to locate stolen vehicles do not remain limited to stolen vehicles.

Government agencies cannot resist the temptation to use whatever power is available to them, especially when the use of that power is cheap, easy and largely hidden from the public.

The technology’s potential for error makes this even more dangerous.

License plate readers can misread plates, rely on inaccurate hot lists or associate an innocent vehicle with a crime. Once the system issues an alert, officers may treat the computer-generated result as fact.

The individual on the receiving end may be pulled over, surrounded by armed police, handcuffed, searched or detained before anyone discovers that the machine was wrong.

This is not justice. It is automated suspicion.

Flock is only one component of a surveillance ecosystem that includes doorbell cameras, facial recognition, drones, cellphone tracking, biometric databases and real-time crime centers.

The result is 360-degree surveillance.

A person may leave a home monitored by a smart doorbell, drive past a network of license plate readers, enter a business equipped with facial recognition, carry a phone broadcasting location data and return home along streets monitored by police cameras and private security systems.

At no point does the government need to physically follow that individual, because the infrastructure does it automatically.

Algorithms sort the information. Databases preserve it. Private companies monetize it. Government agencies search it.

All of this is taking place while the country remains locked in an endless partisan cage match.

Both parties have contributed to the Surveillance State. Both parties have expanded it. Both parties have exploited fear to convince the public that freedom must be sacrificed for safety.

The targets may change depending on who is in power, but the machinery remains.

Once the infrastructure exists, there is no guarantee that it will be used only against people you dislike or with whom you disagree politically.

That is the lesson Americans repeatedly refuse to learn.

A surveillance tool created by one administration will be inherited by the next. A database assembled for one purpose will inevitably be used for another. A system established to monitor “them” will eventually be turned against “us.”

Communities across the country are finally beginning to recognize the danger.

Some cities have terminated or declined to renew their Flock contracts. Others have paused deployments or demanded stronger restrictions on data sharing, retention and federal access.

This resistance is long overdue.

We cannot afford to become so distracted by the theater of politics that we fail to notice the architecture of tyranny being assembled around us.

The surveillance state does not care which party you support. It does not care whom you voted for.

It does not care whether you believe you have nothing to hide.

The cameras are watching. The databases are growing. The networks are connecting.

And as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, unless we act now, there may soon be nowhere left to go without the government knowing exactly where we have been.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 17:40

China's Memory-Chip Challenger Faces A Test Of How Far US Curbs Can Reach

ChangXin Memory Technologies is approaching a turning point.

The Chinese memory-chip maker has advanced far enough to draw interest from some of the world's largest technology companies, including Apple Inc., which has considered using its chips. But the same growth that has raised CXMT's commercial standing has also made it a more prominent target in the widening technology confrontation between Washington and Beijing.

The Pentagon has blacklisted the state-backed company over alleged links to China's military. In South Korea, prosecutors have accused several former Samsung Electronics employees of leaking proprietary information to CXMT. The company's expansion is also being watched closely by US officials seeking to prevent Chinese semiconductor manufacturers from gaining access to advanced equipment and expertise.

CXMT's success will depend not only on whether it can narrow the technological gap with Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron Technology, but also on whether it can continue expanding without provoking restrictions severe enough to disrupt its supply chain.

That challenge has shaped the company from its earliest days.

CXMT broke ground on its first factory in Hefei in 2017, as another Chinese memory-chip project, sFujian Jinhua, was running into mounting pressure from the US. Washington's actions ultimately derailed Jinhua's rise, creating a cautionary example for Chinese semiconductor companies with global ambitions.

According to Taiwanese think tank DSET, cited by Bloomberg, Jinhua's collapse helped CXMT secure funding from both central government-linked and private investors. It also taught the company to proceed more carefully around the boundaries of US policy.

"This incident not only brought CXMT both central and private investment but also helped the company learn from Jinhua's downfall and carefully navigate around US red lines," DSET said.

That caution has become increasingly important as Washington has broadened its efforts to restrict China's access to advanced semiconductor technology.

In October 2022, the administration of President Joe Biden imposed sweeping export controls covering high-end chips, manufacturing equipment and technical expertise. The measures were intended to slow China's progress in artificial intelligence, supercomputing and other strategically sensitive fields.

CXMT remains unable to obtain the most advanced lithography systems used by its foreign competitors. Its access is largely limited to deep-ultraviolet equipment, which is less capable than the extreme-ultraviolet machines used by Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron to produce their most advanced memory chips.

CXMT's first 12-inch DRAM memory wafers displayed at the 2024 World Manufacturing Convention in Hefei.Source: Costfoto/NurPhoto/Getty Images

That constraint is particularly significant in high-bandwidth memory, or HBM, a class of chips that has become critical to artificial-intelligence infrastructure. HBM allows advanced processors to move large quantities of data rapidly, making it essential to the systems used to train and operate generative AI models.

Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron dominate the global market for those products. CXMT is trying to close the gap without access to the same manufacturing tools, placing greater pressure on its engineering capabilities and domestic suppliers.

Its strategy has been to reduce exposure to Washington by building a supply chain increasingly centered on Chinese companies. A domestic network can make CXMT less vulnerable to direct US controls, while also supporting Beijing's broader campaign to replace foreign semiconductor technology with local alternatives.

The approach does not eliminate CXMT's dependence on overseas equipment and expertise. China still lacks domestic substitutes for some of the most sophisticated tools used in chip production. But CXMT's progress suggests that export controls have not stopped Chinese companies from improving less advanced manufacturing processes or expanding production at scale.

The company has climbed to fourth place in the global memory-chip market, behind Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It remains substantially smaller and less technologically advanced than those rivals, but its emergence has begun to challenge an industry structure that has long been dominated by three companies.

CXMT is considering using about 30 billion yuan, or $4.4 billion, from a planned initial public offering to upgrade its technology and expand research and development, according to its listing application.

That investment would support Beijing's goal of securing a larger role in a sector increasingly treated as a foundation of economic and military power. Memory chips are essential to smartphones, computers and data centers, and the artificial-intelligence boom has made advanced products even more strategically valuable.

"Memory is a critical component in the AI infrastructure, and the US and China are the only two countries fueling the infrastructure boom," said He Hui, a Shanghai-based semiconductor research director at Omdia, in a comment to Bloomberg. 

China's restrictions on Micron have also created a commercial opening for CXMT. With one of the three dominant global suppliers facing limits in the Chinese market, domestic customers have stronger incentives to consider a local alternative.

"There are only three players - Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron, and China sanctioned Micron years ago, so this provides a great opportunity for CXMT," He said.

The company's founder, Zhu Yiming, brought experience from both the American and Chinese technology sectors. He studied at Tsinghua University and the State University of New York at Stony Brook before leaving doctoral study to work in the chip industry.

In 2004, Zhu founded the company that would become GigaDevice in a garage in Milpitas, California, with $100,000 in angel investment. When the startup ran short of money, a manager at Tsinghua University's incubator offered funding on the condition that Zhu relocate it to China.

He moved to Beijing with slightly less than $1 million and formally launched GigaDevice in 2005. The company later became a major chip designer and listed in Shanghai in 2016.

By then, Zhu was preparing the venture that would become CXMT. His background helps explain the technical and commercial foundations of the company, but CXMT's current importance extends far beyond its founder.

The company is now a test of two competing strategies.

For Beijing, CXMT is evidence that sustained financing, domestic procurement and industrial policy can produce a viable alternative to foreign chip suppliers. For Washington, its rise raises questions about whether export controls are containing China's technological progress or merely encouraging Chinese companies to build around them.

CXMT's growing profile increases both its opportunities and its risks. Interest from customers such as Apple would validate its technology and give it greater international credibility. But deeper integration into global supply chains would also expose the company to more scrutiny over ownership, security and intellectual property.

The Pentagon blacklist and the South Korean leak allegations show how quickly commercial progress can become a geopolitical liability.

CXMT does not need to overtake Samsung, SK Hynix or Micron to alter the global market. Establishing a dependable Chinese source of memory chips would reduce Beijing's reliance on foreign manufacturers, strengthen domestic equipment suppliers and weaken one source of US leverage.

Zhu Yiming, second right, at GigaDevice’s listing on the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on Jan. 13, 2026.Photographer: Li Xukui/NBD/VCG/Getty Images Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 17:20

Mind Control: Duncan Trussell On How Social Media Algorithms Weaponize Trauma

Via VigilantFox.com,

Duncan Trussell tells Theo Von why the horrifying stuff the algorithm feeds you is not an accident, and explains what it does to your brain.

It starts with the phone in your hand.

Duncan Trussell tells Theo Von why the horrifying stuff the algorithm feeds you is not an accident, and explains what it does to your brain.

It starts with the phone in your hand.

TRUSSELL: "All of us are staring into these hypno-rectangles. The algorithm, at least my… pic.twitter.com/bPMgRdUReZ

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) July 11, 2026

TRUSSELL: “All of us are staring into these hypno-rectangles. The algorithm, at least my algorithm, it’s showing me horrible things, people in the midst of psychotic episodes, people in the forest drinking their period blood.”

VON: “It’s crazy dude. They’re definitely scrambling our brains. Because you’ll see like, genocidal killings of children, right?”

VON: “But then immediately it’s like 40% off these ASICS. It starts to confuse your brain, because your brain takes the depth of one that’s so deep and one that means nothing at all, and puts them all in the same plane.”

Then Trussell takes it somewhere darker:

TRUSSELL: “Public assassinations create trauma. Cultural trauma.”

TRUSSELL: “Did you notice, the Charlie Kirk assassination, everyone saw it before they shut it down. All of us had to watch that s**t happen. This produces trauma. The trauma response opens you up to conditioning. It’s the same thing kidnappers use. It’s the same thing people who torture you use.

“They freak you the f**k out so that you disassociate. You don’t want to be there. You go into a sad, foggy place. And then in that place, they show you the ASICS commercial. In that place, they give you some propaganda. In that place, they give you a solution so this will never happen again. This is a known technique for mind-controlling people.”

TRUSSELL: “It’s not just a power dynamic shift, it’s a cultural dynamic shift. Because they inject that moment with however they want to shift the tide.”

VON: “Wow…”

TRUSSELL: “So, Instagram, or any social media, is kind of doing this, but low-level.”

VON: “Microdosing it.”

TRUSSELL: “Yeah.”

Once you see the sequence, you can’t unsee it.

Full episode:

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 17:00

US Officials Say Iran's Ahmadinejad Was Mossad Asset, Met With Intel Chief In Hungary

Iran's former hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of all people? 

The New York Times is out with a bombshell report on Monday which alleges that Israel's Mossad has for years sought to cultivate him as an Israeli intelligence asset.

Flash90

The apparent multi-year effort to recruit and re-install Ahmadinejad as leader of Iran has come to nothing, at a moment his status and fate remains unclear amid the fog of war, and after a prior US-Israeli strike on his house during the opening salvos of Operation Epic Fury resulted in him being whisked away from his Tehran neighborhood by his bodyguards.

The story, which cites US officials who are for whatever reason choosing this moment to 'leak' the insider info, begins in the following:

In early 2024, the rector of a university in Budapest received a startling request from a top Hungarian government official.

The official told the rector, Professor Gergely Deli, that Ludovika University of Public Service should hold a climate change conference and extend an invitation to an unlikely guest: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the widely reviled former president of Iran.

Even more shocking was the reason. The official told Mr. Deli that the conference was merely a front for Mr. Ahmadinejad to have secret discussions in Budapest with intelligence operatives from Israel, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s avowed enemy.

Back in early March, there were even some (premature) headlines of his death, saying he was 'assassinated' at a moment he was under house arrest at his residence. Supposedly this is what 'freed' him, and since then his whereabouts are unknown.

However, regional reports say he did attend the funeral of slain supreme leader Ali Khamenei earlier this month, and was briefly spotted surrounded by guards while wearing a mask and heavy coat.

The Mossad plot goes all the way back to 2022, NYT detailed based on the sources, and the suggestion is that he played along - seeing some kind of foreign intervention as his path back to leadership over the country. His house arrest sprung from the Iranian government being suspicious of contacts with the Israeli government.

He received Israeli financial support to cover travel and accommodation expenses while going to meet with Israeli operatives in Europe - which Israel prioritized to such an extent that even then-Mossad Director David Barnea personally met Ahmadinejad in the Hungarian capital in 2024. The NYT says that the CIA was eventually read in to the high-risk plan.

But upon the start of Operation Epic Fury and the bombing of his home, Ahmadinejad reportedly soured on the plan - becoming distrustful of the Israelis - and saw it as unrealistic.

From Mossad's point of view, he could emerge as a controllable puppet and new 'face' of the Islamic Republic regime, despite is prior well-documented rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel and advancement of Iran's nuclear program.

The more believable aspect to this whole alleged saga is that Ahmadinejad was top of the list of West-Israel 'favored' candidates to lead Iran after he personally praised President Trump in a 2019 interview, and argued for a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington.

"Mr Trump is a man of action," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. "He is a businessman and therefore he is capable of calculating cost-benefits and making a decision. We say to him, let’s calculate the long-term cost-benefit of our two nations and not be shortsighted."

If Ahmedinejad was a Mossad asset, then everyone could be one?

This is like straight out of a movie. Mind blowing. https://t.co/RU9glcEGyG

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) July 13, 2026

Apparently some of the aspects which made him a candidate, or potential future US-Israeli puppet in Tehran (Delcy Rodriguez-style), was that he had been barred three times from running for president by Iran's unelected 12-member Guardian Council (in 2017, 2021, and 2024). Following his 2017 disqualification, he apparently flipped, becoming a highly vocal critic of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

This isn't the first time the NY Times has floated this story, but the publication is now seeking to fill in more details, apparently.

Amid the ongoing fog of war and heavy propaganda coming from all sides, this could simply by mythology - Hollywood script style - in order to continue sowing fragmentation, distrust, and discord among Iranian ranks. It wouldn't be the first time such a tall tale was spun for such purposes, and the whole thing ultimately will remain unverifiable, for likely at least years to come. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 16:40

Believe All Women - Unless They're Inconvenient

Authored by Frank Salvato via The American Spectator,

The political Left has spent years promoting the slogan "Believe All Women," using it as a powerful weapon against conservatives, especially during critical events like the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. But this mantra has never been about seeking justice or protecting victims; instead, it serves as a cynical tool for gaining power - a way to undermine opponents while conveniently overlooking the serial abusers, gropers, and predators within their own ranks.

When the alleged victims are conservative women, or when the accused belong to the "right" political party, the Left's proclaimed solidarity vanishes, replaced by silence, excuses, and even cover-ups. This hypocrisy is a fundamental aspect of a movement that prioritizes tribal loyalty over truth, power over principles, and narrative over the genuine suffering of women.

True protection for women requires consistency, evidence, and fairness - not selective blindness from those on the Left.

Take Joe Biden, the dilapidated standard-bearer of the Democrat Party. Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, came forward with detailed allegations that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 by pinning her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. There was corroboration for her claims, including a friend she confided in at the time and a 1993 call to Larry King's show in which her mother referenced the incident.

However, the mainstream media, which claims to support the #BelieveWomen and the #MeToo movements, downplayed the story, questioned Reade's credibility, and defended Biden. The New York Times and the Washington Post published skeptical investigations that minimized Biden's pattern of "inappropriate touching" with multiple women. When Biden denied the allegations, the Left largely shrugged it off and continued to support him.

In contrast, any conservative accusation is met with immediate, intense scrutiny. Reade's claims posed a threat to the favorable image of their presidential candidate, so the media largely ignored them. Women only seem to matter when their stories align with the cause.

Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York who was once celebrated as "America's Governor" during the COVID-19 pandemic, faced credible allegations of sexual harassment from multiple women, including former staff members. These women described a troubling pattern of unwanted advances, groping, and a hostile work environment. Cuomo resigned amid the scandal; however, many Democrats rallied to his defense, with some downplaying the allegations as mere political attacks.

The media, which called for resignations in response to lesser offenses by conservatives, treated Cuomo's downfall as a reluctant necessity rather than a justified outrage. Where were the #BelieveAllWomen and #MeToo movements during this situation? Nowhere - because Cuomo was a powerful Democrat.

Al Franken, a comedian who later became a Senator, faced accusations from multiple women regarding inappropriate touching and forced kisses during his career in entertainment and politics. Photos surfaced of him mock-groping a sleeping colleague. Although Franken resigned from his position, many prominent voices on the Left, including some feminists, expressed regret over the loss of what they considered a "good man" and questioned whether the response was proportional. The urgency for judgment, typically directed at Republicans, was replaced by concerns about due process - only when it was convenient for their side.

Keith Ellison, a Congressman from Minnesota and former deputy chair of the Democrat National Committee, faced serious domestic abuse allegations from his ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan. Her son claimed to have witnessed a video showing Ellison dragging her off a bed by her feet while shouting obscenities and making threats. Medical records and text messages supported aspects of her claims of abuse. Ellison denied all the allegations, and many on the left largely ignored the situation. As a rising star in progressive circles, his actions went overlooked.

There was no sustained outrage or calls for investigation from the usual advocates. In contrast, conservative women making similar allegations would likely have faced heavy scrutiny. Monahan, Ellison's alleged victim, faded into the background.

Eric Swalwell, the California Democrat, continues to face mounting scandals. Multiple women, including a former staffer, have accused him of sexual misconduct, ranging from sending naked, unsolicited messages to rape while the women were intoxicated or incapacitated. One woman provided a detailed account of being assaulted in a hotel room, which is corroborated by texts and eyewitnesses. Although Swalwell has denied these allegations, the consistent pattern raises serious concerns about entitlement.

Despite this troubling situation, the partisan machinery that typically amplifies accusations against conservatives has reacted sluggishly. Swalwell remains prominent in Leftist and Democrat circles, and his ambitions have only recently faced setbacks.

Even Graham Platner, the Democrat Senate nominee in Maine challenging Susan Collins, exposes the farce. Platner enjoyed robust support from the progressive apparatus, including Bernie Sanders allies, as a populist veteran and oysterman - until Jenny Racicot, a Maine woman from the Left who had dated him, came forward with a rape allegation. She detailed how in 2021, an intoxicated Platner entered her home uninvited, ignored her repeated objections, and forced himself on her despite her clear refusal. Only after this credible accusation from within their own camp - reported by outlets like Politico - did the Democrat establishment and mainstream media, including the New York Times, finally cease their backing, with calls for him to withdraw flooding in.

Prior controversies, including other troubling claims about their relationship, hadn't stopped them. But a Democrat woman's direct rape accusation? That finally pierced the protective bubble. The selective timing reveals everything: their #BelieveAllWomen and #MeToo piety is reserved for enemies, not inconvenient allies.

Conservative women, such as those who were criticized during the #MeToo movement or attacked for supporting America First policies, find little support from the Left. The Kavanaugh hearings demonstrated the strategy: use unproven allegations against those who threaten the agenda, and then discard principles when they implicate allies. The media-Democrat complex doesn't genuinely "believe all women"; rather, it selectively supports women at the right time for political gain; for the political "kill shot." Victims who do not fit this narrative - whether they are Republican, conservative, or simply inconvenient - are often dismissed as liars, opportunists, or fabricators; dragged through the mud into the public square.

This hypocrisy undermines trust in institutions - especially the media - and the experiences of genuine victims. Real abuse exists and deserves serious investigation with due process, rather than being used for partisan gain.

The Left's #BelieveAllWomen and #MeToo movements were never based on principles; instead, they served as a performative tactic to consolidate power. They overlook crimes against conservative women because acknowledging those victims would expose the underlying hypocrisy. This mandate only applies when it supports the Marxist, identity-focused agenda that reduces women to mere props in a cultural battle.

True protection for women requires consistency, evidence, and fairness - not selective blindness from those on the Left who preach empathy while practicing ruthless expediency.

Their silence regarding their own predators speaks volumes: power always trumps principle.

Frank Salvato is a 30-year independent journalist focused on constitutionalism and threats to the free West.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 16:20

Appeals Court Revives Tylenol Autism Lawsuits Against Kenvue

A federal appeals court has breathed new life into litigation accusing Kenvue of failing to disclose alleged risks tied to taking Tylenol during pregnancy, reversing an earlier ruling that had effectively stopped hundreds of cases, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

On Monday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge went too far in throwing out testimony from three expert witnesses. The panel said the experts relied on recognized scientific approaches and that disagreements over how to interpret the available research should be weighed through the legal process rather than dismissed outright. The lawsuits will now return to the lower court.

The decision overturns a 2023 ruling that prevented roughly 500 claims from moving forward against Kenvue, the consumer health business that was spun off from Johnson & Johnson. Bloomberg Intelligence has previously estimated that the company could ultimately face thousands of similar lawsuits, creating the potential for billions of dollars in legal exposure.

Bloomberg notes that attorneys representing the plaintiffs said the appeals court recognized that their experts relied on legitimate scientific evidence. Kenvue countered that the ruling was procedural, not a finding that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The company continues to argue that the best available independent research has not established a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Recall back in September we noted when President Donald Trump advised pregnant women to avoid Tylenol, bringing renewed public attention to a debate that has divided researchers.Even so, many medical experts and large reviews of existing studies continue to say the evidence does not demonstrate that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes autism, ADHD, or similar developmental conditions.

"With Tylenol, don't take it, don't take it," Trump said last year, adding that the FDA would issue a notice to physicians over the risk of acetaminophen during pregnancy, and begin the process to make a safety label change. "I think we've found an answer to autism."

In October, we noted that in a Feb. 8, 2018, email obtained by The Epoch Times, Rachel Weinstein, director of epidemiology at Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen, wrote, “The weight of evidence is starting to feel heavy to me.”

Weinstein was emailing Jesse Berlin, Johnson & Johnson’s global head of epidemiology, about a review that concluded that nine studies suggested that use of acetaminophen—the active ingredient in Tylenol—by pregnant women was linked to autism and other neurodevelopmental issues in the women’s children.

The legal battle is unfolding while Kimberly-Clark works to complete its planned $40 billion purchase of Kenvue. The company has said it reviewed the potential litigation risks before agreeing to the acquisition.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 15:45

US Energy Efficiency: We Have Come A Long Way

Via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The graph below paints a very interesting picture of US energy efficiency and a key structural economic change in this country.

For roughly 25 years after WWII, the US economy’s crude oil consumption nearly tripled. Feeding the growth were a booming post-war economy and strong population growth.

To put consumption in a different context, the graph shows consumption as a ratio to a dollar of real GDP, on a per capita basis.

It shows that consumption per dollar of GDP declined rapidly starting in the mid-1970s, suggesting an increase in US energy efficiency.

The US per capita energy efficiency is less pronounced but noticeable.

In addition to productivity gains and urbanization, there are a few reasons for the gains in efficiency.

• The 1973 Arab oil embargo was a shock to the economy. During this time, a quadrupling of gas prices and long gas lines forced policymakers and consumers to treat oil as a strategic vulnerability rather than a cheap given.

• Washington enacted numerous measures in response to persistently high oil prices in the 1970s. For instance, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 mandated US energy efficiency standards for appliances and introduced fuel-economy standards. Legislators also encouraged a shift from oil and natural gas to coal for power generation. Utilities largely stopped building oil-fired plants.

• Structural change was equally important. The economy shifted from heavy manufacturing to services and technology, sectors that require far less energy per dollar of output.

Ironically, AI data centers are now driving a renewed focus on efficiency, this time with natural gas and renewables.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 15:25

Credit Card Chargebacks Surge As E-Commerce & Cashless Society Gets Messy For Consumers

US consumers are disputing card purchases at a record pace, as online fraud, confusing billing practices, and sneaky subscription charges drive a surge in chargebacks.

Bloomberg cites new data from research firm Juniper Research on consumers' aggressive use of chargebacks. Last year alone, US consumers filed 158 million transaction disputes, up 29% from 2021 and outpacing overall growth in card spending. Global disputes jumped 46% over the same period.

The increase may reflect not only more legitimate fraud but also subscription traps, unfamiliar merchant names, poor service, and "friendly fraud," in which shoppers mistakenly or knowingly challenge legitimate purchases.

The report continued:

Some of this growth in reported fraud is indeed a reflection of growth in real fraud. More people are getting scammed, especially online.

But according to Michael Greenwood, a senior research analyst at Juniper who focuses on digital payments, that's not the main source of dispute rates. Instead he points to two other phenomena responsible for the ballooning number of chargebacks: growing confusion among consumers over how the transactions on their monthly statements correspond to their actual purchases, as well as an increasing willingness, especially among younger shoppers, to engage in a little bit of fraud of their own.

Rising chargebacks may also signal growing consumer stress, as online fraud and distrust of merchants increase. This appears to be one of the drawbacks of going cashless for some people in the era of e-commerce. Some shoppers are struggling with subscription traps, unclear billing, and deteriorating service, while a growing share are also using disputes to reverse legitimate purchases.

The spike in chargebacks is also hurting retailers, resulting in higher fraud losses and processing costs.

Business revolt? 

Meanwhile, consumers are carrying near-record credit card balances as inflation remains elevated. The average credit card interest rate is hovering near a record high of 22%.

The good news is that consumer credit figures in May fell for the first time since Nov. 2024 as interest rates spiked.

So one drawback of e-commerce and an increasingly cashless economy is the rise in chargebacks. Digital transactions create more opportunities for fraud, billing confusion, and subscription disputes.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 15:05

Mick Jagger Has Some Sage Advice For Trump-Hater Springsteen

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Mick Jagger is pushing back against the trend of rock stars turning stages into campaign rallies, offering a refreshing contrast to Bruce Springsteen's repeated anti-Trump outbursts.

In a recent New York Times podcast interview, Jagger made his position crystal clear. While contrasting his approach with Springsteen's, he stated: "My job in the live music world is for those people that come to have the best time ... And you don't want to lecture them."

Mick Jagger Says It's Not His Job to Lecture Rolling Stones' Fans on Politics

NYT: "Bruce Springsteen clearly sees his job as engaging in a meaningful back and forth."

MICK JAGGER: "My job in the live music world is for those people that come to have the best time ... And you... pic.twitter.com/PmNaTgLjs7

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) July 11, 2026

This comes as Springsteen has made a habit of injecting leftist political commentary into his shows, often targeting President Trump and his administration.

From calling Trump "treasonous and corrupt" during his European tour to labeling America itself a "reckless, unpredictable, predatory, untrustworthy, rogue nation" in a DC concert, the so called Boss has turned performances into platforms for activism.

Grammy-winning musician Bruce Springsteen began his European tour by calling President Donald Trump a "treasonous and corrupt" leader.

Springsteen urged the crowd to rise up, speak out against authoritarianism, and "let freedom ring."

Springsteen has supported every Democratic... pic.twitter.com/eSRpQuFGQl

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) May 15, 2025

Bruce Springsteen goes on anti-Trump tirade mid-concert.

pic.twitter.com/6LKM0MuZXg

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) May 15, 2025

Leftist activist Bruce Springsteen went on an unhinged anti-Trump rant during his recent DC concert, calling America a "reckless, unpredictable, predatory, untrustworthy, rogue nation." pic.twitter.com/wkolcjuh5S

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 29, 2026

Springsteen has relied on a teleprompter for his anti-Trump and anti-billionaire rants, scripting attacks on the "richest men in America" and claims about a president who "cannot handle the truth."

Billionaire Bruce Springsteen uses a teleprompter to read a script bashing Trump and billionaires.

"The richest men in America have abandoned the world's poorest children to death and disease...We have a President who cannot handle the truth." pic.twitter.com/VJPm443zst

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) May 26, 2026

His latest efforts include an angry 'look at my serious playing face' anti-ICE music video titled "Streets Of Minneapolis," railing against the Trump administration.

JUST IN: Singer Bruce Springsteen releases angry, highly political new anti-ICE music video titled "Streets Of Minneapolis," which was uploaded to YouTube.

Springsteen raged against the Trump administration and called some out by name in the song.

The Hollywood clown... pic.twitter.com/wRGlqRccU9

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 29, 2026

Trump has continually clapped back at Springsteen's criticisms.

Trump goes off on Bruce Springsteen: pic.twitter.com/CQurpihfvZ

— johnny maga (@johnnymaga) April 2, 2026

Never forget that Springsteen was among those pushing strict COVID-era restrictions, endorsing concerts limited to the fully masked and vaccinated.

@springsteen is a pedantic tool of govt oppression pic.twitter.com/7k90sMYXZg

— David Dougherty (@Nahanchi7068) July 11, 2026

Fans and commentators have taken notice of Jagger's stance, with many applauding the decision to prioritize the audience's enjoyment over boring lefty sermons.

He gets it. pic.twitter.com/nQFv6sAqyL

— Dennis Michels (@lonecavalryman) July 11, 2026

Springsteen is not engaging in a meaningful back and forth, he's engaging in lies and propaganda.

— Matt Marsden (@matt_marsden123) July 12, 2026

Jagger's been around the block enough times to know how that sort of thing plays out. He's witnessed first hand what happens when musicians lose themselves in political messaging. Good on him for not stepping in it.

— ConquestBarbie (@DParadisio43137) July 12, 2026

Too bad more musicians and actors don't heed Jagger's advice. I have zero interest in supporting any entertainment personality who thinks they have some moral high ground obligation to tell me who I can support politically. It's none of their GD business.

— Sherry Kerdman (@sherry_kerdman) July 11, 2026

Mick knows. I was at a private event where U2 played and the entire show they used the monitors and interstitial comments to tell me to give all my money to Democrats and eradicate the evil that is Trump. Fuck them. pic.twitter.com/5WEhW5pcpU

— Todd Ensz (@EnszTodd) July 11, 2026

Jagger's comments strike a chord in an era where many entertainers seem more focused on pushing ideology than delivering the escapist joy fans pay for.

While Springsteen sees his role as political engagement, Jagger understands that most concertgoers want to rock out, not endure lectures - especially from multimillionaire performers far removed from everyday struggles.

This divide highlights a broader fatigue with celebrities who lecture from their bubbles while ignoring their own inconsistencies. America First means putting fans and freedom first, not turning every stage into a partisan soapbox. Jagger gets it. More should follow.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 14:45

The Absurdity Of The Hunter Biden Defamation Case

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years, but I have never seen the like of the Hunter Biden defamation case.

The defendant made defamatory statements and then just refused to appear. That led to an equally bizarre $1.7 million award by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California to Biden, consisting of just $1 in nominal damages and the rest in punitive damages.

Here is the most interesting line of the opinion: “the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation is difficult to calculate.”

It may be the single greatest understatement in the history of judicial opinions.

However, the court also noted “Plaintiff does not seek actual damages above a nominal amount.”

That means that Hunter Biden’s counsel, in a default case, elected not to argue for compensatory damages due to loss of reputation. Why would he do that?

It might be that he has little reputation to lose and that opening up that part of the case was fraught with perils.  However, it also created a potential major appellate issue. His counsel was making it clear that they were litigating purely for punitives.

For Hunter Biden, this is a much-needed windfall. His art sales notably collapsed with the value of currying favor to the Bidens. He is reportedly being pursued by creditors, including former counsel.

The question is whether the award will stand.

For many critics, Hunter Biden is virtually ‘libel proof” as an individual who has no reputation to lose. However, as we have previously discussed, that status is reserved for the most reviled personalities who cannot be defamed due to the lack of any positive reputation.

Judge Wilson, a Reagan appointee, admits in his opinion that determining reputational harm to someone like Biden is difficult to do and further recognizes the argument that “prior tarnishing of Plaintiff’s reputation may reduce the reprehensibility of Defendant’s conduct.”

The case involves a claim by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne that Biden took part in an $800 million bribery scheme involving Iran and failed to defend his claims in court.

Hunter Biden has long been accused of influence peddling that generated millions for him and his family. I have been one of his longest critics as part of a corrupt family enterprise.

However, this claim was not one of those that his critics, and Congress, focused on during the Biden years. There is no evidence that he took a bribe or payment in a quid pro quo for releasing the money to Iran.

The lawsuit was part of a flurry of such actions brought against Biden’s critics. Most were later dismissed, but played a part in the scorched-earth campaign of Biden. I was even threatened with such an action after criticizing his counsel and financial backer, Kevin Morris.

As Biden dropped the other lawsuits, this one continued to be litigated. It was an easy kill. Byrne simply did not defend himself and defaulted. That left the matter to Judge Wilson, who was clearly irate.

The opinion recounts an extraordinary pile-up as Byrne sought to replace lawyers:

“Defendant initially attempted to replace Mr. Murphy with three new lawyers: Eric Neff, Tom Yu, and Stefanie Lynn Lambert Junttila. ECF Nos. 290, 291, 292. Ms. Lambert was not a member of the California Bar, and her application to appear pro hac vice was denied2 due to her recent history of unethical conduct, which gave the Court reason to doubt she would abide by the Court’s rules and practices. ECF No. 295. When Defendant learned that Ms. Lambert was not qualified to represent him in this case, Defendant also instructed Mr. Neff and Mr. Yu to remove themselves.

Moreover, Defendant himself, now unrepresented, still failed to appear at trial. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause why it should not enter default judgment against Defendant and ordered the parties to return the following day. At that hearing, on July 30, 2025, Defendant again failed to appear. Mr. Yu, who was not authorized to represent Defendant at trial, argued on Defendant’s behalf for a continuance, in lieu of default judgment.”

The defendant would miss a series of filing and appearance dates, including orders that he appear in person.

Wilson, 85, ruled in his opinion that Byrne acted with “intentional misrepresentation” and “conscious disregard” for Hunter’s rights. Making things worse, Byrne was found to have continued making the false claims after the lawsuit, and said Byrne continued to amplify the false allegations even after Hunter filed the lawsuit against him.

Accordingly, the court found that the “defamation went far beyond mere negligence,” and that Byrne actively sought to spread the false claim on social media and to make the story go viral.

The problem is that the actual compensatory damages are rather to gauge for a plaintiff who was found by Congress to have actively sought to use his influence or access to his father to shake down foreign figures and businesses.

In these well-documented dealings, there were gifts such as diamonds, lavish expense accounts, and a sports car, in addition to massive payments that Hunter claimed were “loans.” There are messages like the one to a Chinese businessman, openly threatening Joe Biden’s displeasure if money is not sent to them immediately. In the WhatsApp message, Hunter stated:

“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

So, accusing Hunter Biden of influence peddling would hardly seem a material blow to his reputation.

Wilson awarded just $1 in nominal damages to Biden but then ordered $1.7 million in punitive damages. Byrne was also ordered to pay nearly $35,000 in previously imposed court sanctions within two weeks or face an additional $1,000 penalty for each day payment is delayed after the deadline.

That 1:1,700,000 ratio is a bit startling. The general rule is that a ratio of greater than 1:10 in compensatory to punitive damages can raise serious constitutional concerns. What makes this case different is the contempt and default elements.

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore, striking down a punitive damage award. The case involved the practice of the company to repair and repaint cars damaged in transit without telling the customers. The jury in the original trial awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the lost value to the car in not having a factory paint job and other damage; it then imposed $4 million in punitive damages for the company’s dishonesty.

The Court stated three factors in crafting punitive awards: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by plaintiff and the punitive damages award; (3) and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

Even though the Alabama Supreme Court previously reduced the punitive award by half, the U.S. Supreme Court still found that the award violated the Due Process Clause as “grossly excessive.”

The fact that this case involves nominal damages may allowed for greater leeway in the ratio. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 773 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2014). That is clearly a critical part of the decision of counsel to ask for only nominal damages while litigating for punitive damages. However, this ratio is astronomical.

Judge Wilson addresses BMW v. Gore but effectively untethers the ratio analysis from this case, precisely what Biden’s counsel had hoped in seeking only nominal damages. It is an approach that would effectively gut BMW v Gore. Any litigants with a bad reputation or insufficient reputational harm could simply ask for nominal damages and then ask for the moon in punitive damages.

However, it gets weirder. I was curious how, without any record on harm, the Court could come up with $1.7 million. It turns out that the Court used the damages awarded by a Canadian court against Byrne in a similar defamation case. That case in a foreign jurisdiction awarded $1.134 million. Wilson simply blithely declares that, since Byrne continues such conduct, “a $1.134 million award would be inadequate to deter this particular Defendant. The Court therefore calculates a punitive damages award of $1.7 million, approximately 50% greater than the total judgment in the prior case.”

That is it. The court simply used the damage award in a foreign torts case and elected to increase it by 50%.  However, that earlier judgment only included $250,000 in punitive damages.

I think that the court is dead wrong on the punitive damages analysis. The only question is whether the extent of Byrne’s contempt and default will work to quiet the concerns of appellate judges.

It is a case worthy of appeal.

It is a fascinating car wreck of a case with a scandal-plagued plaintiff, a defaulting plaintiff, the use of a foreign judgment as the basis for a damages award, and a 1:1,700,000 ratio in damages. We will be watching if an appeal is filed by Byrne.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 14:05

Dubai's New East Coast Port Signals The Beginning Of End For Iran's Hormuz Leverage

Less than a week into the US-Iran conflict, specifically on March 3, we began to see the writing on the wall: Tehran's leverage over the Strait of Hormuz would eventually erode. That would happen not only because the US military could systematically destroy IRGC's radar sites, coastal missile batteries and drone launch sites along the maritime chokepoint, but also because Gulf states would eventually respond with a generational infrastructure buildout, from new pipelines to coastal ports, designed to entirely bypass Hormuz altogether.

Surprising Fujairah is not a bigger oil terminal: it bypasses the straits completely.

Expect major infrastructure push here after the war. https://t.co/Do1gK7KBDQ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 3, 2026

The emerging theme gained momentum on Monday morning with a new Financial Times report stating that Dubai's state-owned ports and logistics giant, DP World, is considering a massive new port and container terminal on the UAE's east coast, in Fujairah, to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint.

Jebel Ali's port, which handled 15.6 million 20-foot containers last year, is located southwest of central Dubai, toward Abu Dhabi, and was battered over the last several months when Iran closed the strait, sending containerized volume down nearly 95%. That shipping shock, according to an FT source, was enough for DP's executives to begin looking for alternative routes.

Here's more from the report:

DP World was now discussing a term sheet with government officials, with the new project's structure and financing yet to be finalised, the people said. The new port could be completed as soon as within a year and a half, a senior company official said.

The Jebel Ali Port is DP's crown jewel, the largest port and the anchor of the Jafza free zone, which hosts about 12,000 companies.

"Jebel Ali will continue to be Jebel Ali," a senior DP official told the FT. "It will never be downsized."

"We do have our own plan, and we've been very active in terms of looking at the eastern coast as far as DP World is concerned," the senior official said. "It's defensive in case things go wrong," the senior DP official continued.

Shifting part of the port's capacity outside Dubai is a seismic change but not surprising given that UAE's Minister of Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi recently told Bloomberg in an exclusive interview, "We're moving toward having zero Hormuz dependency and that's regardless of whether it's open or not. It's going to open and we hope that will happen quickly, but we will not stop the new plan."

The plan includes major investments in pipelines, rail, and road links from UAE ports in the Persian Gulf to Dibba, Fujairah, Khor Fakkan and at least one new harbor on the Gulf of Oman coast.

In the early months of the conflict, Saudi Arabia's Hormuz-bypassing East-West pipeline was the prime example of being hedged for a Hormuz closure, able to shift 7 million barrels a day from Persian Gulf loading terminals to those at Yanbu on the Red Sea.

Related:

• Gulf States Considering Network Of New Pipelines To Bypass Strait Of Hormuz

With US-aligned Gulf states in the process of shifting critical energy and container supply chains away from the Hormuz area, this will only accelerate the erosion of Tehran's geopolitical leverage over the chokepoint.

... and now with President Trump reinstating the Hormuz blockade...

... this will only supercharge the bypass theme. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 13:45