Berlin Mayor Kai Wegner has called for Islamic religious education to be introduced in state schools following the deadly Islamist attack near the capital’s Christopher Street Day celebrations.
The CDU politician argued that young Muslims are being radicalized through religious networks operating beyond meaningful state oversight, including what he described as “backyard mosques.”
As reported by Tagesspiegel, Wegner said Islamic instruction inside public schools could help protect young people from extremist influences because the curriculum and teachers would be subject to state supervision.
“Religious education in state schools could make a significant contribution to protecting young people from such influences,” he said.
He added that Islamic religious education should be offered in Berlin schools precisely because it would bring instruction under public control rather than leaving it solely to independent mosques and associations.
“We must increase the pressure and control on radical mosques with the aim of banning them,” he also added, as cited by Bild.
The intervention follows an attack by Abdul Ballout, a known Islamist whom German authorities had previously prosecuted for attempting to join Islamic State.
Ballout had been detained in Lebanon while trying to reach Syria, returned to Germany and arrested at Berlin Brandenburg Airport in November 2025.
In May 2026, a Berlin youth court convicted him of preparing a serious act of violence endangering the state, distributing Islamic State propaganda and other offenses.
Prosecutors sought a sentence of two years and ten months, but the court imposed a youth sentence of one year and ten months and provisionally suspended it.
He was released while prosecutors appealed.
Ballout was later accused of killing a woman and injuring 29 people after driving a rented van into a crowd in Berlin’s Tiergarten before attacking people with a machete.
Police subsequently located him at an allotment complex in Spandau. He was shot dead after approaching officers with a bladed weapon.
Tyler Durden Fri, 07/31/2026 - 02:00Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup,
The numbers came in just after dawn on the East Coast, and they told a story that no amount of White House spin could obscure. Oil futures had stabilized at $86 per barrel overnight—a figure that would have seemed catastrophic eighteen months ago but now represented a temporary reprieve from the $119 spike that had crippled global markets in April. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that emergency backstop established after the 1973 crisis, had fallen to 305 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983. The Congressional Budget Office quietly released its revised deficit projections: $2.3 trillion for fiscal year 2026, with another $1.8 trillion locked in for 2027 before accounting for the war’s accelerating costs, currently running at $1 billion per day with no exit strategy visible on any horizon.
This is not a recession. This is not a “period of heightened geopolitical tension.” This is the systematic dismantling of the global economic architecture that has sustained Western prosperity for eighty years, compressed into a timeframe too brief for institutional adaptation. We are witnessing, in real-time, the transition from a unipolar American-led order to a fragmented multipolar system, and the violence of that transition is being measured not just in body counts—though those are mounting in ways the Pentagon refuses to fully disclose—but in the erosion of strategic leverage that cannot be recovered once spent.
The Fourth Turning Global War has entered its terminal phase, and the metrics suggest we are only beginning to comprehend the depth of the strategic trap into which American policy has walked.
To understand the present crisis, one must first abandon the comforting narrative of accidental drift—the notion that policy errors and miscalculation have led to the current impasse. The data suggests something more troubling: a decoupling of strategic decision-making from national interest calculation, producing outcomes that serve no identifiable American objective while advancing the interests of regional actors with disproportionate influence over U.S. policy formation.
Consider the timeline with the precision of a military after-action report. On February 27, 2026, the United States initiated a surprise decapitation strike against Iranian leadership while Israeli envoys maintained ostensible negotiations in Geneva. The strike eliminated Iran’s military command structure and political leadership in a forty-eight-hour bombardment that the White House initially projected would conclude within “four to five weeks.” That projection, made on March 1, has now stretched to month five with no conclusion visible. The Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of global petroleum flows, has been effectively closed since mid-March. Iranian ballistic missile strikes, utilizing Chinese targeting data and Russian satellite intelligence, have damaged or destroyed every major U.S. installation in the Persian Gulf, including Al Udeid in Qatar, Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia, and the naval facilities at Bahrain.
The cost-benefit analysis is devastating. The initial strike was predicated on intelligence assessments—later disputed by seventeen agencies—that Iran was “weeks away” from nuclear weaponization. This assessment contradicted the June 2025 declaration by the same administration that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” in a twelve-day conflict that cost $37 billion and achieved no lasting strategic effect. The current war, prosecuted with no congressional authorization and against the expressed preferences of the electorate that returned the President to office on explicit anti-interventionist promises, has now consumed $113 billion in direct costs with Harvard analysts projecting long-term liabilities exceeding $1 trillion when veterans’ care, equipment replacement, and base reconstruction are factored.
The economic externalities are equally severe. Inflation, which had moderated to 2.7% by December 2025, has reaccelerated to 4% and climbing. The 10-year Treasury yield at 4.64% represents the highest borrowing costs of the Trump presidency, translating to approximately $135 billion in additional annual interest expense and roughly $1,000 per household in direct energy and financing costs. These figures arrive at a moment when 60% of American households report inability to cover a $500 emergency expense, and consumer credit delinquencies have reached levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis.
The strategic position has deteriorated in ways that resist quantitative measurement. The American military, designed for power projection against insurgent forces and regional adversaries, has proven vulnerable to the asymmetric warfare tactics of a mid-tier nation with sophisticated missile technology and defensive geography. The Patriot missile systems, costing $2 million per intercept, face Iranian ballistic missiles and drones costing $10,000 to $50,000 per unit—a cost-exchange ratio that renders sustained defense economically unsustainable. The revelation that Russian and Chinese intelligence services are providing real-time targeting data to Iranian forces, confirmed by satellite intercepts and acknowledged in congressional testimony, transforms a regional conflict into a proxy war with great-power adversaries testing American vulnerabilities at minimal direct risk to themselves.
The institutional response has compounded the crisis. The Department of Government Efficiency, which promised $2 trillion in administrative savings, was effectively dismantled when the “Big Beautiful Bill” added $5 trillion to the national debt—on top of the $21 trillion CBO baseline projection. The national debt has expanded from $36.2 trillion to $39.5 trillion in eighteen months, with $2 trillion annual deficits now locked in through 2030. The administration’s attempt to suppress oil prices through Strategic Petroleum Reserve drainage and derivatives market manipulation has depleted emergency reserves while exposing the hollowness of American energy “independence”—the nation now lacks sufficient buffer to withstand a sustained supply disruption, let alone a broader conflict involving Nigerian or Venezuelan production.
The geopolitical reconfiguration underway extends beyond the immediate theater. Russia, despite Western sanctions and the ongoing attrition in Ukraine, has consolidated a Eurasian security architecture incorporating Iran, China, and the expanding BRICS+ alignment. The dedollarization of international trade—accelerated by SWIFT weaponization that demonstrated the vulnerability of dollar-denominated clearing—has created parallel financial systems that will persist regardless of conflict outcome. China, while managing its own demographic and real estate crises, has secured energy corridors through the Belt and Road Initiative and established the industrial capacity to replace American military losses at scale.
The European powers face civilizational exhaustion: demographic collapse, energy deindustrialization, and the progressive loss of productive capacity to Asian competitors. Their enthusiasm for expanded NATO commitments and confrontation with Russia serves not strategic interest but distraction—the displacement of internal contradictions onto external enemies. The recent declarations by French, German, and British leadership regarding “readiness for war with Russia” represent either dangerous delusion or deliberate provocation, given the demonstrated inability of European militaries to sustain ammunition expenditure for more than weeks without American resupply.
The Architecture of Strategic BankruptcyThe visual landscape of collapse often precedes its statistical confirmation. The imagery from the Gulf region—satellite photographs of burning tanker traffic, thermal imaging of refinery complexes offline, atmospheric data showing particulate concentrations affecting regional agriculture—prefigures economic consequences that will arrive with lagging but inexorable certainty. The SPR drainage that has suppressed gasoline prices temporarily cannot continue beyond 2027 at current extraction rates. The Hormuz closure has already disrupted grain shipments to import-dependent nations, with wheat futures decoupling from traditional pricing models and phosphate export restrictions from Morocco and China threatening global food security.
The famine that development economists projected for 2030 has accelerated to 2027. Diesel availability for agricultural planting and harvest has become uncertain at prices permitting profitability. European fertilizer production, shuttered by energy costs in 2022-2023, has not resumed capacity. The global just-in-time supply chain, already fractured by pandemic policies and Suez disruption, approaches catastrophic failure as Red Sea interdiction by Houthi forces—equipped with Iranian missile technology—severs the maritime artery connecting Europe to Asian manufacturing.
This is not “market volatility.” This is the end of abundance—the reversion to a world where calorie and energy allocation follows political rather than economic logic, where reserve currency status no longer guarantees import capacity, and where the institutional frameworks established in 1944-1945 have ceased to function.
The psychological dimension of collapse resists quantification but demands analysis. The American population has been systematically anesthetized through pharmaceutical intervention (twenty-five percent of adults on psychiatric medication), digital addiction (average seven hours daily screen time), and ideological polarization that substitutes tribal identity for rational assessment. The same populations who accepted emergency measures during the 2020-2023 period based on epidemiological models with no empirical validation now dismiss warnings of systemic collapse as alarmism—while simultaneously accepting narratives of imminent threat from Iran that contradict the assessments of their own intelligence agencies.
The manufacturing of consent has reached its terminal phase. Media organs that promoted Russiagate as fact for three years now present Netanyahu’s Iran narrative as unquestionable truth. Conservative commentators who warned of executive overreach now justify the merger of state and corporate power as necessary security measures. The “uniparty” phenomenon—seamless continuity of policy between ostensibly opposed political formations—has become too obvious to deny, yet too uncomfortable to acknowledge for populations invested in the theater of democratic choice.
The Projection: Winter 2027-2028Current trajectory analysis suggests the following developments with high probability:
By Q4 2026, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will approach technical minimums, removing the administration’s capacity to suppress oil prices through market intervention. Energy costs will spike to levels that trigger cascading defaults in the transportation and logistics sectors, with trucking bankruptcies producing food distribution failures in major metropolitan areas. The Federal Reserve, caught between inflation acceleration and financial system fragility, will face the impossible choice of defending the currency or preventing sovereign debt crisis—likely attempting both and achieving neither through yield curve control that destroys market function.
The 2026 midterm elections, should they proceed on schedule, will occur against a backdrop of 6-7% inflation, 7% mortgage rates, and visible military failure in the Gulf. The political response—likely involving expanded emergency powers and the suspension of procedural norms—will accelerate the legitimacy crisis already visible in polling showing majority belief that “the system is rigged” regardless of partisan affiliation.
By mid-2027, absent Hormuz reopening, the global food system will face structural breakdown. Import-dependent nations in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will experience mass migration events that make 2015 appear trivial. European border controls, already overwhelmed, will collapse entirely, producing the demographic and security crises that nationalist movements have predicted—and that mainstream institutions have dismissed as xenophobia.
The American military, exhausted by Gulf deployment and unable to replenish losses at industrial capacity, will face strategic overextension should conflict expand to include Taiwan or Korean scenarios. The revelation of actual casualty figures—currently suppressed through classification and media complicity—will produce domestic political crisis when inevitably disclosed.
The dollar’s reserve status will not collapse catastrophically but will erode incrementally, as BRICS+ nations complete bilateral currency arrangements and commodity producers demand payment in gold or yuan. This process, already underway, will accelerate as American debt monetization becomes impossible to ignore, producing the stagflation scenario that destroyed the 1970s consensus but at an order of magnitude greater severity.
The Reckoning: What the Data Cannot CaptureThere are dimensions of civilizational crisis that resist econometric modeling.
The social capital depletion—the erosion of trust, the atomization of community, the substitution of digital simulation for embodied relationship—has progressed to levels that preclude collective response to systemic stress. The American population retains the technological capacity for coordination but has lost the cultural capacity for trust, producing the paradox of hyperconnectivity without solidarity.
The generational theory that predicted this moment—the Fourth Turning framework—suggested that crisis would forge new civic capacity through shared sacrifice. The evidence suggests instead a fragmentation trajectory, in which the stresses of collapse accelerate division rather than unity, producing not a “new High” but an extended period of interregnum—the old order dead, the new order unborn, the monsters roaming freely in the interval.
The psychological impact of sustained strategic decline—what historians term “imperial melancholy”—has produced a politics of compensatory fantasy, in which technological innovation (artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, space colonization) serves as psychological defense against the recognition of material contraction. The billions invested in “data centers” that function as surveillance infrastructure, the meme coins that extract value from retail investors, the “smart city” projects that track and trace populations—represent not progress but cargo cults, magical thinking in technological guise.
The biological dimension of crisis—declining fertility, collapsing testosterone levels, epidemic levels of psychiatric medication dependency, the mysterious excess mortality that insurance actuaries have documented but media institutions refuse to investigate—suggests a population too physically and cognitively compromised to mount the collective response that historical crisis has previously elicited. The “Great Reset” agenda, whether conspiracy or strategy, represents an elite recognition that the existing population cannot be saved, only managed through its decline—a Malthusian calculus that dare not speak its name but structures policy regardless.
Conclusion: The Long EmergencyWe are not approaching crisis. We are within it. The Fourth Turning Global War is not a future possibility but a present reality, consuming the institutional capital accumulated over eighty years of American hegemony at a rate that precludes recovery. The debt cannot be repaid. The empire cannot be sustained. The social contract cannot be restored. These are not defeatist assertions but empirical observations, supported by Treasury data, CBO projections, and the visible degradation of infrastructure, education, and public health that surrounds anyone willing to look.
What remains is the question of duration and form. The crisis of the 1930s-1940s resolved in seventeen years through total war and the establishment of a new institutional framework. The current crisis, accelerated by technological disruption and financialized complexity, may extend longer—or resolve more suddenly through catastrophic failure modes (nuclear exchange, pandemic, grid collapse) that render duration irrelevant.
The individual response to systemic crisis cannot reverse systemic trends but can prepare for systemic outcomes. The reconstruction of local capacity—food production, energy generation, security provision, currency exchange—represents the only available hedge against institutional failure. The Amish model, long dismissed as anachronism, reveals itself as adaptive strategy: technological selectivity, communal self-sufficiency, religious cohesion, and geographic dispersion providing the resilience that centralized systems cannot maintain under stress.
The political question—whether the republic can be saved, whether the Constitution can be restored, whether the enemies foreign and domestic can be identified and defeated—may be the wrong question. The right question is whether civil society can be maintained through the transition, whether the skills and trust networks necessary for post-collapse coordination can be preserved, and whether the human capacity for dignity and moral choice can survive the humiliation of imperial decline.
Thomas Paine wrote that these are the times that try men’s souls. He did not promise victory. He promised that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. But he wrote in a moment when the American population retained the competence for self-governance and the will for collective sacrifice. Whether those qualities persist in sufficient concentration to generate a “new High” from the present Crisis remains the open question of our era—a question that will be answered not by analysts but by the emergent behavior of millions of individuals confronting the erosion of everything they assumed permanent.
The winter is here. The long night has begun. And the saeculum, indifferent to human preference, continues its relentless turn.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/30/2026 - 23:25"This is a bombing campaign in search of a strategy," Joe Kent, a former Trump administration counterterrorism official who resigned in protest of launching the Iran war, recently said in a post on X.
"We are choosing escalation when de-escalation remains an option, entrenching ourselves deeper into a broader war that we don’t have the capability or desire to sustain," he explained, adding: "There is not a military solution here that will lead to a win. More bombing will not convince Iran to open the SOH or to give us the deal we want, it will only harden their position."
US Army photoIndeed, this week saw the conflict enter month number six since Operation Epic Fury was launched on February 28. President Trump and admin officials had promised a swift, limited campaign. Trump also seemed to actually believe there could be a quick in-and-out regime change based on the Venezuela model and recent Maduro overthrow.
But the Pentagon, and apparently some advisors at the White House, still have hopes of the US bombing its way out of this, at a moment the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, and as Red Sea shipping is also coming under strain from the Houthis.
The Wall Street Journal has newly revealed that Pentagon leadership is pitching a "two-week plan" for an escalated bombing campaign across Iran:
Also aboard the plane [Air Force One] in the impromptu meeting: Adm. Brad Cooper, head of the U.S. Central Command, who has been quietly directing the war from his Tampa, Fla., headquarters and who had arrived separately for the solemn ceremony.
The naval officer has often been eclipsed by Caine and Hegseth, who regularly brief Trump in the Oval Office and have been far more involved in the White House discussions on the war. But it is Cooper who has prepared an option for a punishing air campaign against Iran that could take up to two weeks, people familiar with the matter said.
Now, as Trump moves to strike back after Iran’s surprise missile attack Tuesday, the president will decide how far to go. He could greenlight Cooper’s option of 10 to 14 days of intensive airstrikes intended to cripple Iran’s missile capability despite warnings that the U.S. is running low on air-defensive munitions. Or, he could opt for a more limited military strike in the hopes diplomacy could be pursued.
However, it must be recalled that back in March and April, US officials were telling the American public similar things of "just two weeks more" etc. And yet here we are, over 150 days in.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has been insisting all along that this is not a "quagmire" - yet the conflict already seems entrenched and perhaps even permanent - set to possibly blow past the midterms.
Yet now the solution is to just go bigger?...
If the U.S. wants military action to be effective, Cooper has maintained, the U.S. must step up its air attacks, significantly blunting Iran’s missile threat, to try to break the stalemate. This “go big” approach, which is among a series of options he has developed, would reduce the need for the U.S. to use defensive munitions because Iran would have less capability to attack, he insists.
Inherent in this is a clear admission, contrary to prior White House claims, that Iran's missile capability has not yet been seriously blunted even as the war approaches the full half-year mark.
WSJ reports CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is pushing Trump for a two week escalation on Iran
I explain how Cooper has been secretly advised by Mark Dubowitz, the Israel lobbyist whose FDD helped design the catastrophic war on Iran, and whose predictions have all been discredited https://t.co/vnyBPxgSEx
Even the late Colin Powell had warned of the folly of thinking in terms of 'the next escalation will do the trick'... Washington is stuck in yet another Mideast war of choice, and it is finally beginning to dawn on the White House:
"Never send a force to do a job if you aren't prepared to give it the backing to succeed… Incrementalism, doing a little bit, seeing what happens, then doing a little bit more, is a recipe for disaster."
— General Colin Powell
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/30/2026 - 23:00