Aggregator
Morning coffee could interfere with popular weight-loss pill, doctors warn
Judge will consider new trial for Karmelo Anthony after teen killer’s legal victory
The West African Pipeline Is Inherently Geopolitical
The West never does anything without some benefit to itself in mind.
The Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) formally endorsed the offshore Nigerian-Moroccan Pipeline in late July. Construction on this $25 billion megaproject is expected to begin in 2028 and stretch over 4,000 kilometers along the West African coast for supplying the EU with 30 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas a year. Nigeria’s enhanced importance for the EU will place this official BRICS partner more firmly under Western influence and the same goes for the ECOWAS bloc that it leads.
While the 30 bcm is only around one-fifth of what Russia used to supply to the EU during the heyday of their energy trade, it nevertheless helps fuel the bloc’s economy, and it’ll also presumably be cheaper than the LNG that it began to import at scale from the US since sanctioning Russia back in 2022. Closer EU-Nigerian ties will complement the increasingly close US-Nigerian ones under Trump 2.0, which could ultimately lead to them empowering Nigeria to become their regional enforcer by proxy.
Although it has yet to go through with the putative anti-terrorist invasion of Mali that its Defense Minister intimated in early May, which would likely be pursued for regime change purposes if it ever comes to pass, Nigeria can still play this role in the future with Western backing. If the Sahelian Alliance of which Mali is a part survives the present Syrian-like Hybrid War onslaught, then a Western-backed Nigerian war with the bloc can’t be ruled out, one in which other ECOWAS states might also participate.
BBC cited energy expert and former Nigerian government advisor Charles Majomi as assessing that “[the Nigerian-Moroccan Pipeline] signals a change from current models where gas is typically extracted from African nations, refined and processed abroad then shipped back to African nations at three or four times the price”. It would of course be a positive development for the other ECOWAS states to receive gas at a much cheaper price, but the West never does anything without some benefit to itself in mind.
In this case, bolstering their economies is intended to lead to them purchasing more military wares from the West, with the overall effect strengthening their armed forces with the goal of turning ECOWAS into a more powerful Nigerian-led military bloc. While Guinea and Togo might decline to participate in any campaign against the Sahelian Alliance due to their pragmatic ties with them and growing ones with Russia, the rest are expected to take part in this if it happens. They’re also already pro-Western too.
Putting it all together, the Nigerian-Moroccan Pipeline does indeed advance all of the involved countries’ economic interests, but it’s also inherently geopolitical too since the long-term objective is to solidify Western influence among the ECOWAS states that also happen to be strategically coastal ones too. The “Global West” concept is therefore expanding from its North Atlantic core to encompass not only the US’ Asia-Pacific allies, the Gulf, Israel, and Latin America, but also West Africa now too.
Candidly speaking, there isn’t anything that the Sino-Russo Entente can do to stop the Nigerian-Moroccan Pipeline, and any attempt to do so anyhow would be presented as trying to impede the West African states’ development to the detriment of those two’s soft power.
What they can do, however, is ramp up support for the Sahelian Alliance and do their best to woo Nigeria back towards their side in the New Cold War. That’s much easier said than done but isn’t impossible so they might soon give it a shot.
Tyler Durden Thu, 08/20/2026 - 03:30‘The Office’ star Jenna Fischer exposes the grueling reality that forced her off TV
‘The Office’ star Jenna Fischer exposes the grueling reality that forced her off TV
Europe Scrambles For Innovation And Defense As US Decouples From "Global Order"
For decades the European elites have pretended as if US integration into the progressive agenda is an afterthought on the way to a liberal Utopia. The EU has long criticized Americans as backwards in their principles and politics, while at the same time being desperately dependent on American consumers, American innovation and American military might. They simply never considered the possibility that the US might walk away from the old post-war arrangements.
Well, now it's happening and the European establishment doesn't know what to do.
ECB chief and former head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, took to the podium at the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council in Geneva, Switzerland this week to discuss the growing uncertainty in Europe.
"Europe’s post-war growth model rested on three mutually reinforcing pillars. Today, all three are weakening as the international environment changes...."
"The third pillar was a stable, rules-based global order, underpinned by a US security umbrella. That environment allowed European supply chains to deepen, and enabled firms to organise investment around efficiency rather than resilience. Today, that global order is under pressure. Geopolitical tensions are bringing critical dependencies and chokepoints into sharper focus, while Europe faces growing security threats on its doorstep..."
The WEF and its members have been suspiciously quiet in the past two years about their globalization projects. The media coverage for the council meeting in Geneva has been thin. It would seem, though, that the agenda so openly and enthusiastically promoted by the WEF during the Covid pandemic is not going as planned.
This event may be one of the clearest indications of the state of globalism since the failure of the pandemic coup and the return of the Trump Administration in 2025. Largarde called for "better integration" across Europe for defense and more innovation, otherwise the region might miss out on the next digital revolution of AI.
"In some respects, Europe is well placed to make the most of new technologies. We have a world-class research and knowledge base. The EU accounts for around 6% of the world’s population but as many as 15% of its researchers. It also produces almost one-fifth of the world’s most-cited scientific publications.
The challenge lies in turning that knowledge into commercial success and ensuring that new technologies diffuse across the economy. Too often, the barriers that prevent firms from scaling also hold back that diffusion..."
In other words, European governments are realizing that extensive bureaucratic barriers and overt taxation is crushing new businesses and preventing natural growth. Better late than never...unless it's too late.
Europe's economy is on a fast track to disaster. An estimated 30-40 million migrants (legal and illegal) have entered the region in the past 10 years alone. Most of these migrants come from third-world countries with no wealth, no skills and are largely dependent on European welfare systems in order to survive.
Mass immigration has not led to the "explosion" in economic activity promised by multiculturalists. In fact, the countries with the most migrants face increasing joblessness, housing shortages, inflation and a strangulation of taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, as the US undergoes mass deportations of migrants, the economy is improving, including growth in GDP, manufacturing jobs and housing relief.
National rental vacancy rates in the US climbed to around 7.2–7.3% by late 2025/early-mid 2026 (highest levels since 2017). European vacancies are frozen at around 1%-3%. The situation is dire.
The very globalists that created this mess are now complaining that, without US integration, they are about to sink into economic crisis. This has inspired multiple European governments to dump funding into tech startups in a last-ditched effort to catch up to the US and China. They are seeking to close their $1 trillion investment gap, but they plan to use taxpayer money to do it. As Lagarde notes:
"Innovative European firms can often finance their early growth, but a gap tends to open as they scale. According to the European Investment Bank, EU and San Francisco-based scale-ups raise broadly similar amounts during their first five years of operations. But by the tenth year, EU scale-ups have raised roughly 50% less..."
"Fragmented capital markets can also incentivise young, innovative firms to vote with their feet. Some 12% of EU scale-ups have relocated outside the EU, most notably to the United State..."
It's unlikely that the EU plan for socialized funding and "capital market integration" will accomplish much without far more freedom and less taxes for entrepreneurs. The elites pretend they want to revitalize economic growth but every new policy tends to cripple free markets with greater centralization.
It is interesting, however, that these socialist and socialist-adjacent economies are struggling to function and survive the moment more free markets systems like the US walk away. It's almost as if socialist systems are parasitic and require host organisms to feed off of, otherwise they begin to die.
Tyler Durden Thu, 08/20/2026 - 02:45Illegal immigrant, 19, killed co-worker he had ‘intimate’ relationship with near Virginia trail — tried to set her body on fire: police
Dear Abby: Am I aging — or just telling the same stories too often?
Country singer Justin Moore reveals cancer scare that left him with ‘fat neck’ after fan concern
Country singer Justin Moore reveals cancer scare that left him with ‘fat neck’ after fan concern
17-year-old gunned down inside NYC business: ‘He was a baby’
British Liberals Cheer Migrant Camps In Villages... As Long As It's Not Their Villages
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,
The same voices who demand "fairness" and insist every community must share the burden of mass illegal migration suddenly discover local democracy the moment the coaches might stop near their postcode.
A Mail on Sunday poll has laid bare the gap between principle and practice. Just 15 percent of people are happy with the idea of more illegal migrants arriving in their own area. Fifty-seven percent actively oppose it.
Yet many of those who back Prime Minister Andy Burnham's call for affluent and rural places to "play their part" draw a firm line at their own front door.
The liberal wokerati back Burnham's plan to house asylum seekers in affluent postcodes... as long as it's not theirs, MoS poll reveals https://t.co/TuelsWxBxH
— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) August 15, 2026Burnham has been explicit. He told GB News that Britain "cannot have a situation where it's only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers." All parts of the country, he said, must work and play their part. The policy is framed as equity. The reality on the ground looks very different.
The survey of 10,549 adults, conducted by Find Out Now and weighted to be representative by age and gender, also reveals the classic liberal tension: 51 percent agree asylum seekers should be housed evenly across the country, yet that abstract support collapses the moment the coaches head toward their own postcode.
What unites almost everyone is the demand to stop the problem at source. Eighty-two percent believe the Government should do more to prevent illegal small-boat entries. Only 5 percent disagree.
The areas most hostile to further arrivals are Lincolnshire (57 percent opposed), followed by Worcestershire, Shropshire and County Durham. The most accepting is Wiltshire, with just 21 percent opposed, trailed by East Sussex, Merseyside and Nottinghamshire.
The Mail on Sunday poll confirms what many already suspected. Support for the abstract principle of dispersal collapses the moment the principle lands next door.
Liberals and progressives who spent years lecturing poorer communities about compassion and shared responsibility now discover the virtues of local opposition when the coaches point toward their own leafy postcodes. The villages, meanwhile, are left to live with the consequences.
Three former military sites have been earmarked for conversion into large-scale accommodation for single adult male asylum seekers. Two of them sit less than a mile from primary schools, in direct tension with the Home Office's own July guidance.
RAF Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, the base where Prince William once trained, is lined up for up to 1,200 men. The village itself numbers around 600 people. The arithmetic produces a six-to-one ratio of migrant men to local women. The site sits right beside a primary school, a nursery and a children's play area.
North Yorkshire councillor Malcolm Taylor put the local mood plainly: "It's quite an attractive site, it's not one of your austere former military sites and it's right in the heart of the village. So as a consequence, it's right adjacent to the school, the play park. That's what has really ramped up the concerns of the community."
At RAF Barnham near Thetford in Suffolk, plans for as many as 1,250 asylum seekers have already prompted some parents to talk about withdrawing their children from Barnham School.
John Bauer, chairman of the parish council, warned that the proximity could threaten the school's long-term future.
The third site, near the Oxfordshire village of Piddington, does not neighbour a school but sits beside a children's play area and backs onto village gardens. The village has roughly 350-400 residents. The proposed intake is 1,250 single men.
This is not an isolated experiment. It is the latest chapter in a pattern that has already played out across quiet corners of England and Wales.
The same week Burnham was insisting every area must take its share, residents of the tiny Welsh seaside village of Gronant discovered that their former village hall - converted into 15 new-build homes they expected to serve local families - had been quietly allocated to asylum seekers.
Thirteen of the fifteen units went to Home Office contractor Clearsprings. Blacked-out minibuses arrived without warning. Kerrie Cox watched one pull up while she washed her car. "Nobody was told about the arrivals," she said. Julie Tuson called it an "absolute betrayal." Ted Huthwaite said he was "absolutely gobsmacked... it is devastating for the community."
Borders minister Anna Turley has sought to reassure people by insisting the men will not be "in the village." "Everything they need will be on that site," she told LBC. In practice the sites are not locked facilities. Residents are free to come and go.
Infrastructure in these rural locations is already thin - limited bus services, strained water, sewage and electricity capacity. Policing is stretched. The cultural distance is vast.
High-trust, low-density English and Welsh villages with quiet streets, children's parks and a long-standing sense of safety are being asked to absorb large numbers of single adult men from very different backgrounds, many of whom do not speak English.
It repeatedly seems like an intentional choice calculated to produce the maximum friction and cultural upheaval. Officials could not possibly find settings more alien to the life experience of many of these arrivals. Quaint villages with medieval churches, village halls and play parks are the last places that resemble the environments many left behind.
The effect is predictable: local women and girls who once walked freely after dark now face a sudden demographic inversion. Parents weigh whether their children can still use the park. Communities that never asked for this feel ignored and overruled by Whitehall processes that bypass local planning authorities under the banner of "national interest."
The Home Office maintains it is seeking to house people fairly across the country, closing hotels and moving arrivals into alternative accommodation including former military sites. Asylum costs, it says, are down by £1 billion since the general election. The numbers receiving support are falling.
Yet the boats keep coming, the contractors keep being paid, and the map of acceptable destinations keeps expanding deeper into the countryside. Closing hotels while upgrading the destination does nothing to reduce the pull factor. It simply relocates the pressure onto the places least equipped to absorb it.
Reform's Zia Yusuf has been blunt about the Linton-on-Ouse proposal: "Andy Burnham is about to dump 1200 unvetted adult male illegal migrants on a tiny village, resulting in locals putting up with a ratio of SIX MEN TO EVERY WOMAN... Burnham is directly endangering British women and girls."
This is the logical endpoint of a policy that refuses to stop the boats while insisting every corner of the country must absorb the results.
The high-trust rural communities that once defined the character of England and Wales are being asked to surrender the very qualities that made them desirable in the first place - peace, safety, and a sense that the place still belonged to the people who lived there. One village at a time.
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 Thu, 08/20/2026 - 02:00