Zero Rss

Space: The Now Frontier And The AI Revolution

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Space: The Now Frontier & The AI Revolution

Academy will tackle any details on a deal with Iran via a SITREP and a podcast, once (if) details are made  available. 

After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing! 

Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI. 

Space: The Now Frontier 

Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling. 

A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there. 

Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries. 

On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials. 

But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention. 

Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected! 

At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been. 

What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be.

Who will control discoveries? 

Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material? 

• At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.  
• At worst, might is right. 

We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space. 

This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.  

The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential! 

If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism! 

Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting! 

The AI Revolution 

Let’s get the hard part over, and start with this image: 

This image is meant to grab your attention, if not create some shock value. Yes, I used AI (ChatGPT in this case) to create an image of modern-day workers storming a data center like villagers in the old days. It isn’t perfect, but it is about a zillion times better than I could do on my own. 

My current thinking on AI: 

• It is crucial to have the lead in this technology from a National Security standpoint.
  • Maybe I’m falling into a trap where everything looks like a nail, when you only have a hammer, as I spend so much time with the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, but I do believe that the AI Race and the Data Race are real and it is crucial to stay ahead in these races. I cannot tell whether it is one race or two races that are similar, but that doesn’t really make a difference, so we will ignore that technicality for now. 
• We are all trying to implement AI into our routines, with varying amounts of success. 
  • “Traditional” search (if you can call something that didn’t exist when I was born, “traditional”) has been almost fully taken over by AI. No longer are we just getting pointed to links and websites as search results. We now get the answers we presumably would have gotten by going to those links up front. 
  • Sometimes we are “shocked” by the results of AI. 
    • Sometimes those “shocks” are good – like the image delivered above. 
    • Sometimes those “shocks” raise eyebrows – like how could it make up a ticker?  Or not find the current version of what we were trying to solve. Ending up in a level of frustration over the need to correct some “slop” after spending money to generate that “slop” in the first place. At the back of your mind, you cannot help but wonder what you might have missed, in prior instances of using AI.
  • I think a lot about the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect (the ad that popped up for me on this link was for ShipSticks - got to give the ad agencies some credit for that). 
• We have moved beyond “generic” questions about AI and into wanting real world examples and case studies. 
  • We are in the phase of trying to figure out “if it is worth it.” Not just figuring out how much time we saved (after applying our own touches) but we are also considering what we didn’t learn by going down the AI path. 
  • With the prices rising for usage, it is becoming easier to think about AI in a “traditional” cost versus benefit framework. Presumably (based on market valuations), AI is going to look very cheap. 

If my current thinking is generally positive on AI and I truly believe it is crucial for security, then why show a picture depicting the AI Revolution as people storming a data center? 

• Anthropic Disables Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This was done to comply with the U.S. government’s demands. National Security front and center. I will admit, there is a part of me that thinks this might be the best “velvet rope” marketing campaign ever. It is so powerful that you can’t use it, just makes people want to use it. But it is only a part of me that thinks that. The larger and less juvenile side of me thinks there are real security risks being unleashed.
  • It is difficult to undo discoveries. Now that everyone knows that this sort of AI has been developed, people will try to replicate it. How long before someone else has this tech and uses it against us (or you or me). We are going to have to ramp up our National Security Policy around data, chips, and AI at lightning speed! 
  • There will be (and there already is) an element of I Told You So. Those who don’t want AI to succeed will use this to try to slow the development of AI. Again, just because we slow down and add stricter guardrails doesn’t mean those who want to do us harm would follow suit (they wouldn’t, they would just smile at the opportunity being given to them). 
• Remember the “viral” report on potential job losses from AI? Wall Street may have moved on, but not everyone in the country has forgotten about the fear it stoked in them (primarily around their own jobs and careers). While our Are We The Horses? in the buggy whip story hasn’t gone viral, it has gotten some attention. Lisa Abramowicz asked me about it during my interview last week and has mentioned it several times. I recently came across another report also asking those questions. Fear of job loss is real. 
  • Add in robotics, and job loss fears mount even higher.
• Electricity costs. People don’t love the looks of data centers (one friend pointed out recently, that while driving at 79 mph, it took 3 minutes to drive by a data center construction site). Water issues are there too, but for now it is the electricity consumption that bothers/scares people the most.

Electricity CPI: new record high pic.twitter.com/EBFCAxDXk4

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 10, 2026

The biggest risk I see to the AI industry in the U.S. is that a political movement captures the angst surrounding the business and uses that sentiment to win elections and slow or even derail AI in the country. 

We are not there yet, but the industry has to focus on heading this risk off at the pass. 

• We’ve seen a “softer” tone out of some AI executives, particularly trying to flip the narrative to job creation from AI rather than job losses. 
• The companies developing the AI and Data Centers are doing a much better job on the electricity side of things and will continue to do that. 
• While it is probably important to lobby in D.C., I think it is equally important (and possibly more important) to maintain/win in the court of public opinion. 

My picture is unlikely to gain traction (no one uses torches anyways), but that sentiment is bubbling just below the surface and I think tackling it head on is one thing that AI needs to do. The national security focus helps, but is not in itself enough. 

Bottom Line 

I think I need to watch some Star Trek episodes on upcoming flights.I am very excited about space and think that sentiment is widely held. I am largely excited about AI but think there is a real risk of political backlash if the industry lets fears seep into the populace at large and some politicians harness that fear. 

Hopefully, we have details on Iran and they are good and we can move on from that topic.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 14:00

UK Intercepts 'Russian Shadow' Fleet Vessel in Unprecedented English Channel Commando Boarding

British Royal Marine Commandos conducted a high-stakes midnight raid in the English Channel on Sunday, boarding and seizing a sanctioned Russian "shadow fleet" oil tanker.

The elite UK forces conducted a fast-roping raid onto the massive crude carrier in the dead of night and into the morning daylight hours. While there's nothing new in terms of an 'illicit' Russian tanker seizure in European waters, it is rare or even unprecedented that such an action occurred in the English Channel, so close to Britain's shores.

UK military image: the Smyrtos boarding

According to the UK Ministry of Defense, it was a  six-hour operation and a massive display of force involving a flotilla of navy vessels - including the frigate HMS Sutherland - and a fleet of aircraft, most notably heavy-lift Chinook helicopters.

The target has since been identified as the Smyros - a vessel allegedly flying under the radar in an effort to bypass Western embargoes.

According to the MoD statement, it was indeed a significant first:

"In the first U.K.-led operation of its kind, the vessel SMYRTOS was boarded by Royal Marine Commandos and specially trained law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency, despite Russia's best efforts to evade sanctions and continue fueling its barbaric war with Ukraine."

France has been involved in several of these interdictions and boardings, but not yet the UK, until now. The captured vessel now being escorted to an anchorage off the south coast of England, where it will remain under heavy guard and surveillance.

The UK defense ministry in follow-up sated that "Russia relies on its shadow fleet to fund their conflict in Ukraine and our interdiction delivers a blow to Putin's illegal war." The statement added that this was done in "close coordination" with French authorities.

Russian "shadow fleet" methods have relied on constantly switching registries and disabling AIS transponders to avoid tracking.

The last several seized tankers - done by France which is up to four captures at this point - were flying flags of African nations, and these interdictions have stretched back through last year. 

Watch: Royal Marine Commandos board the sanctioned Russian shadow fleet tanker SMYRTOS in the Channel, in the first UK-led operation of its kind, backed by HMS Sutherland, HMS Ledbury and an RAF P-8. The vessel is now held off the south coast as investigations continue. pic.twitter.com/omTnGlh3gk

— UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) June 14, 2026

In some instances, Russia has been sending military escorts - which of course has seen French and European militaries hold off executing any action. But unprotected ones are clearly exposed, and European militaries can taken action on these at will.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 13:25

Gonorrhea Rates Are Soaring In NYC: Mamdani Rushes Free Chocolate Condoms To Citizens Of Big Apple!

Authored by Eric Utter via American Thinker,

So what's the priority of New York City's Mamdani administration these days?

FrontPage Magazine reported:

Gonorrhea rates in New York City have more than doubled in a decade and syphilis is ‘surging’ statewide. Mamdani’s Department of Health has responded to this crisis by rushing a free supply of lubricant and chocolate flavored condoms.

Beam me up, Scotty.

FPM quoted NYC Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Helen Arteaga as stating,

“Providing high-quality sexual and reproductive healthcare services is a priority for the Mamdani Administration. Making safer sex products more accessible to the most affected and vulnerable communities is a critical public health need.”

Well, it’s good to have priorities. But are chocolate-flavored condoms safer than regular old garden-variety ones? I’m guessing not, but I couldn’t tell you from experience.

FPM again:

Councilwoman Pierina Sanchez, a Mamdani ally, explained that the free chocolate flavored condoms were necessary because "inequities persist among women, low-income households, and Black and Latino New Yorkers.

Women, low-income households, and black and Latino New Yorkers are adversely and disproportionately affected by a relative dearth of chocolate-flavored condoms? Is New York a den of iniquity inequity?

Unfortunately for virtue-signaling do-gooders, the free chocolaty condoms are coming from Karex, a Malaysian company that is apparently the largest manufacturer of condoms on Earth.

Why is this unfortunate?

According to The Telegraph, some Karex workers said they are put up in cramped and undignified conditions, with as many as a dozen housed in damp and unhygienic dormitories.

Workers at one site are allegedly granted just half of a steel bunkbed, with no mattress — and only have access to a filthy, broken toilet. And for these “amenities,” about 12 dollars a month is deducted from their wages. The Telegraph reported that one Karex employee said “sometimes poisonous snakes come in” to the dorms.

Not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse.

“Forget the crime! Forget the fact that the city is broke! Chocolate condoms for everybody!” does not seem like a winning slogan for Mamdani … but what do I know?

Ask not what you can do for the city, ask what Mayor Mamdani can do to — I mean for -- you!”

I’m sure someone in the Mamdani administration will tout the mayor’s actions thusly: “These delectable prophylactics will be generously distributed, free of cost, to all genders with a penis … and to all those that love them! Mayor Mamdani is hard at work to make your lives better!”

Considering the shape the city is in, this may be the biggest cover up in the history of the Big Apple.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 12:50

America's Energy Future Is Being Decided In Obscure Utility Commission Races

Authored by Elizabeth Gianini via RealClearEnergy,

Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).

Radical climate activists are counting on that.

Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America's electric grid.

These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.

In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.

These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.

What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.

It is not.

Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America's growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.

What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.

Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.

No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.

At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.

The Trump Administration's Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.

America's electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.

AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.

Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.

Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America's energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.

The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.

Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.

It will not keep electricity affordable.

It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.

Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.

Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.

Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:40

Trump Says New Israeli Attack On Beirut "Should Not Have Happened" - Also Warns Hezbollah "Let's Not Blow It"

Update(1140ET): President Trump on Truth Social has sought to brush back the Israeli Sunday strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, saying this morning's attack "should not have happened" and given it was on "a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.

He emphasized, "We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down." 

Some apparent last minute further Trump-Bibi fireworks, reported by Fox's regional correspondent...

President Trump told Fox News he will ask Iran not to respond against Israeli strikes that targeted Hezbollah.

Trump says he asked Israeli PM Netanyahu "what the fu*k are you doing?"

The President believes a deal with Iran will be electronically signed in the next 2-3 hours. pic.twitter.com/t689DQWfOE

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2026

He warned not just Israel against more attacks, but said Hezbollah must refrain, after the Iran-aligned Shia group sent more projectiles on northern Israel. "This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace" he said, and added "let's not blow it."

*  *  *

On Sunday the spokesman for the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission again warned against pursuing a deal with the United States without first restraining Israel. Iran has tried to force a 'red line' on Washington - essentially making clear that if it doesn't get Israel under control in Lebanon, it can kiss an Iran and Hormuz Strait reopening peace deal goodbye. 

"One must not fall into a calculation error. Even if you seek agreement or understanding, its path is disciplining the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled the ink of an agreement not yet dry will bite our own foot," the influential Ebrahim Rezaei wrote on X.

The site of an Israeli air strike in Beirut's southern suburbs on Sunday, via AFP.

The warning came immediately on the heels of the Israeli military having hit Beirut hard on Sunday morning, with airstrikes on what the IDF called Hezbollah infrastructure, in response to recent attacks on northern Israel. 

Iranian officials have in turn repeated their threat that they could respond with military action.

Just as President Trump has been touting that a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has thrown a possible big monkey wrench into things by stating that "Israel will not tolerate firing into its territory."

From Tehran's perspective, this could put a deal with Trump on hold, as it seeks to maintain its firm line that Lebanon peace must also be incorporated into a broader overall US-Iran peace.

This has proven elusive thus far, and the Iranians have long charged that Trump acts at the behest of Israeli interests - while the White House has in turn sought to make clear it makes decisions independently, and that Israel answers to Washington, and not the other way around.

Iran's response to the new Beirut bombings has been as expected, with the deputy commander of Iran's top joint military command Khatam al-Anbiya Central ‌Headquarters stating that Israel's assault on Beirut "will not go unanswered," according to state media

"The Zionists' crimes in the suburbs will not go unanswered," Mohammad Jafar Assadi was quoted as saying. And more importantly: 

Iran's top negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said that Israel's assault on Beirut's southern suburbs showed that the US "either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so".

"If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible," he added. 

Lebanon's civil defense agency has indicated that the new attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs killed at least three people. "The bodies of three martyrs were recovered from under the rubble and six wounded," the agency announced in a statement.

❗️BREAKING: Israel carried out attacks on Beirut’s suburbs pic.twitter.com/M8pkglo0qZ

— Arya Yadeghaar (Backup) (@AryJeayBackup) June 14, 2026

Again, Israel is saying this was necessary out of self-defense. The IDF "just carried out strikes in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut against terrorist targets belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, in response to Hezbollah's firing toward Israeli territory," it said. But certainly Tehran will voice vehement disagreement with this version of events.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:40

Swiss Voters Reject Proposal To Cap Population At 10 Million

Summary:

• Swiss Voters Reject Population Cap of Ten Million Propsal 

• The initiative "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million) is being voted on by the Swiss and is likely to be rejected at the ballot box

• New Projection by research institute GFS Bern, commissioned by SRG SSR, 1 pm local time

Final Vote

In a national vote, Swiss voters rejected the proposed 10-million-person cap, with 54% voting against the measure and 46% backing the initiative.

Public broadcaster SRF wrote:

Some had expected a close vote on the "No 10-Million-Switzerland" initiative. But shortly after noon – with the first projection showing 55 percent voting against – it became increasingly clear: the initiative would not find a majority among the Swiss electorate.

The relief among the broad political opposition was correspondingly great. The Social Democratic Party (SP) wrote in a statement: "The clear result sends a signal to the Swiss People's Party (SVP) and right-wing populist forces: The population no longer wants any new Schwarzenbach initiatives."

Furthermore, the population supports stable relations with the EU. "This gives momentum to the upcoming debates on the Bilateral Agreements III," the SP continued.

The Greens are also relieved after the public rejected the initiative. "The bourgeois parties must finally end their long-standing pandering to the SVP's misanthropic narratives," demands President Lisa Mazzone.

Like the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Greens want to secure European cooperation through the Bilateral Agreements III. "Switzerland is not an island," parliamentary group leader Greta Gysin points out.

Vote Projection: 52% against Population Cap 

Swiss voters are likely to reject the "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million), according to public broadcaster SRF, which cited a political scientist at GFS Bern. These early projection results come after voting closed on Sunday. 

As of 1 pm local time, GFS Bern political scientist Lukas Golder says the new projection of the "No 10 Million Switzerland" initiative shows 47.6% of voters in favor and 52.4% opposed.

The measure, backed by common-sense right-leaning politicians, including the Swiss People's Party, argued that out-of-control migrant population growth was worsening overcrowding, housing costs, public transport pressure, and overbuilding. 

Switzerland, with 9.1 million people, has the highest proportion of foreign-born of any major country, and the Swiss are sick of it.

On Sunday, Swiss vote on a referendum to cut family reunification and asylum claims to zero, if popultion reaches 9.5 million. At 10 million, not… pic.twitter.com/7Brx9CNPFj

— Jared Taylor (@RealJarTaylor) June 12, 2026

Opponents, including the government, parliament, globalist CEOs, and economists, warned that the cap would restrict access to foreign labor, damage growth, and reduce long-term economic output.

Related:

• Globalist CEOs Sound Alarm Over Swiss Population Cap Vote

Switzerland has been pursuing largely unchecked mass-migration policies, with roughly one-quarter of its resident population being foreign nationals.

Consequences of mass-migration:

Switzerland is doing the right thing. Poor immigration policy has resulted in more crime and ghettoization of their cities. pic.twitter.com/u8qCxwvyGw

— Casa ♱ 🇺🇸 (@geezindigenous) June 13, 2026

Last year at the UN, President Trump warned globalists in the West who pushed nation-killing open borders and the migrant invasion: "When prisons are packed with 'asylum seekers' who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed."

🚨 Trump at UN: “When prisons are packed with ‘asylum seekers’ who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed.”
2024 stats:
• Germany: ~50% inmates foreign/migrant
• Austria: 53%
• Greece: 54%
• Switzerland: 72%

Close the borders.

pic.twitter.com/AXXqzlbXec

— 𝔉🅰𝒏 Karoline Leavitt (@WHLeavitt) December 6, 2025

Across Europe and the U.S., years of top-down nation-killing open border policies by globalist politicians have collided with public outrage. In many countries, voters never gave left-wing political elites a mandate for the invasion of migrants. Now, out-of-control migrant crime, combined with pressure on housing, public services, wages, and social cohesion, is helping fuel a broader populist backlash against the left-wing political establishment.

Globalists Spread Doomer Propaganda As Switzerland Votes On Immigration Cap

Switzerland is not a part of the European Union; it's an independent state operating in the midst of the EU apparatus, but you wouldn't know it with so many EU representatives and globalist proponents demanding the right to dictate Swiss immigration policy. 

The Swiss public is voting on June 14th on a population cap which is aimed at ending the steady stream of mass immigration into the country over the past 10 years.  In response, globalists and multiculturalists from within the country and without have launched a propaganda campaign to frighten voters with fears of economic collapse should they vote yes. 

It's a narrative that has been repeated in the UK, the US, and a number of EU member states:  "Without steady immigration, western economies will dry up from the lack of a skilled labor pool." 

The Guardian has platformed a member of the German branch of the Council on Foreign Relations (an institution specifically tasked with ending national sovereignty and erasing borders) who claims the Swiss are about to undermine their own prosperity by refusing to accept more immigrants.  They refer to the vote as a "Swiss Brexit by stealth..."

But Switzerland cannot "Brexit" if they were never a member of the EU to begin with.  This does not seem to concern The Guardian:

"If there is one near-uncontested lesson from modern economic history, it is that open societies win. Openness to immigration was long the defining superpower of the US. Japan's strict immigration policy explains its dismal growth performance, and the fact that its average effective retirement age for men stands at 69.5 years. 

Switzerland's remarkable ascent from peasant backwater to high-tech economy in 200 years tells the same tale. With no natural resources, Switzerland has grown wealthy because it has provided a stable economic climate that attracted foreign innovators..."

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, the data shows quite the opposite is true.  Mass immigration, specifically immigration from the third world, consistently drags the economy down.  The US has seen this problem surface over and over again and it is largely due to the quality of the migrants.  Third worlders do not bring wealth or skill value to any first world nation.

The EU, as an authoritarian body, might seek to punish the Swiss for defying the globalist agenda, but that is an engineered consequence, not a natural one.

Switzerland is the richest economy in Europe per capita and they do have an extensive migrant population.  Around 30% of the nation's current citizenry is foreign born.  However, 80% of these "migrants" are western born and are not from the third world.  The "skilled labor" is coming from other western nations, not India, not Pakistan, not the north of Africa. 

The increasing tide of migrants from these parts of the world into Europe is starting to bleed into Switzerland, and the Swiss see the writing on the wall.  The EU members with the most immigration are also dealing with the worst economic stagnation. 

For example, Germany continues to deal with an unemployment rate hovering around 6.3%, with about 2.9 million people out of work. The labor market is experiencing a slowdown. Despite the rising joblessness, severe skilled labor shortages persist.  In other words, migrants are not filling the job roles most needed within the German economy.  

France's unemployment rate climbed to 8.1% in the first quarter of 2026, reaching its highest level in five years and surpassing mainstream expectations. The increase brings the total number of unemployed job seekers to approximately 2.6 million.  The French government has been flooding the country with migrants for over a decade and the system is drowning.  

Spain has recently instituted an amnesty program for hundred of thousands of third worlders, which has triggered another migration rush.  It's important to understand that migrants from developing nations view the west as a target to be fleeced, not as a new home.  Many migrants continue to maintain residency in their home countries while they siphon welfare benefits from Europeans. 

Spain has the second-highest unemployment rate in the EU at 10.8% and a 23% unemployment rate for young workers 25 years old and under. 

All of these countries are also facing a disastrous housing crisis.  Mass immigration is destroying the rental and home owner markets.  Germany has seen a 15% rise in rental costs, France is at 20% and Spain is at 25%. Rental availability is tight across the board with around 2% vacancy in medium to large population centers.   Home prices in all three countries have skyrocketed by 15% to 40% depending on the region.  Structural shortages continue to plague home buyers.

Switzerland has seen these numbers and they have seen the rising tide of third worlders trying to gain entry.  It makes perfect sense for them to cap immigration.  The Guardian Op Ed is revealing in the way it exposes the globalist ideology - Their argument is, essentially, that foreigners are entitled to access western economies as a kind of "civil right". 

"...Beneath the economics lies something even more troubling. What makes the Dubai model so appealing to the radical right is that abandoning EU treaties would not only allow the SVP to cut immigration but also to strip foreigners of their rights entirely. For instance, they have proposed barring German and French workers from bringing their families. Switzerland would join the league of autocratic states that deny foreigners what conservatives claim to hold most dear: a life rooted in family."

It might sound like empathetic advocacy, but it is actually insanity.  If it is "autocratic" for a nation to limit foreign access, then so be it.  Foreigners (whether from the West or the Third World) are not entitled to the fruits of the Swiss economy.  The idea that limitations are "unjust" or despotic is a product of leftist tripe and globalist disinformation. 

Whether the vote on the population cap succeeds or fails, the Swiss have a renowned reputation as purveyors of order and common sense.  It would be a shame for them to abandon it simply to avoid meaningless accusations of "xenophobia" or "autocracy".  Frankly, their economy will remain far better off than the rest of Europe by applying a measure of logical discrimination.     

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:15

Strategy's New Math: Dilution Equals Accretion?

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Strategy’s Bitcoin is worth roughly $12 billion less than the company paid for it, yet Michael Saylor’s message last week was simple: “Business is Good.”

But today’s article isn’t really about unrealized losses. It’s about whether Strategy is changing the way it measures shareholder accretion and company performance on the fly — also known as “moving the goalposts”.

As a short seller, I’ve watched innumerable companies “move the goalposts” and try and focus the market on new metrics when old ones aren’t showing the story they want them to anymore. Sometimes, companies outright delete key performance indicators (KPIs) and use new ones.

Strategy has taught investors that the objective was to increase Bitcoin ownership on a per-share basis. The company created “BTC Yield” as a KPI specifically to measure whether capital raises and Bitcoin purchases were benefiting existing shareholders.

Strategy repeatedly argued that traditional accounting metrics were largely irrelevant and that what mattered was how much Bitcoin each share represented. For example, from the Q1 2026 earnings call:

“Our ultimate objective is for our common to outperform Bitcoin by accreting Bitcoin per share…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“Which should increase the Bitcoin per share in our common stock, which is ultimately our goal…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“One is Bitcoin per share accretion is our primary goal.” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

These statements leave little room for interpretation. Bitcoin per share isn’t merely one metric among many. It is presented as the central measure of equity performance.

That’s what makes the recent capital raise and bitcoin buy so interesting. According to Strategy’s own website, BTC Yield declined between June 1 and June 8.

Under the framework the company spent years promoting, that’s a problem. If BTC Yield measures whether shareholders are becoming owners of more Bitcoin on a per-share basis, then a decline means the transaction was dilutive to existing shareholders on that metric.

That doesn’t automatically mean the raise was a bad decision. A company can improve liquidity, strengthen its balance sheet, or position itself for future opportunities while still reducing Bitcoin per share in the short term. But it does mean that under Strategy’s own preferred scoreboard, shareholders ended up with less Bitcoin exposure per share after the transaction than before.

Rather than defending the raise on BTC Yield grounds, Saylor now appears to be emphasizing a different framework. His argument is that when both Bitcoin and cash are included, the transaction was accretive. In other words, shareholders may own less Bitcoin per share, but they own more total assets per share.

That not an enormous shift in narrative — not unlike how selling 32 bitcoin wasn’t a huge sale — but it’s a shift nonetheless. For years, the pitch was Bitcoin per share. Now the defense is assets per share.

Critics have noticed the change. One observer on X summarized it this way:

“Changing his own definition after the fact. When BTC Yield goes up, bulls celebrate it as proof of shareholder accretion. When BTC Yield goes down, suddenly we’re supposed to ignore BTC Yield and invent a new metric that includes cash.”

Another pointed out the deeper tension. Saylor spent years building a valuation framework around Bitcoin-per-share growth. Yet when defending the recent raise, he relied on net asset value logic. The problem is that Strategy’s premium has never been justified by the current value of the assets sitting on the balance sheet.

Investors have ostensibly historically paid a premium because they may have believed management could continue growing Bitcoin ownership per share over time. The valuation, to the best of my understanding, rested on future Bitcoin-per-share growth, not a static snapshot of current assets.

That’s why the debate matters. If the relevant metric is Bitcoin per share, then the decline in BTC Yield raises uncomfortable questions about the transaction. If the relevant metric is current net assets per share, then the raise may look defensible, but the rationale for a substantial premium over net asset value becomes harder to explain.

🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever

Saylor appears to be trying to have it both ways. The old framework supports the premium but makes the recent raise look dilutive. The new framework supports the raise but weakens the logic behind the premium. Investors can reasonably prefer either framework, but they should notice when management switches from one to the other.

Saylor is also engaging in what appears to be ticky-tacky doublespeak to explain his actions...

“I told YOU never to sell $BTC.
I never said the COMPANY wouldn’t sell $BTC .”

That’s how Saylor responded to the question about selling 32 $BTC pic.twitter.com/vn7o1DqKP1

— newry | 𝔽rAI (@NeWry24) June 13, 2026

The real issue isn’t whether the weekend raise was good or bad. It’s whether the company is still using the same definition of shareholder accretion that it spent years teaching investors to use. When BTC Yield was rising, Strategy told shareholders that Bitcoin per share was the metric that mattered most. Now that BTC Yield has fallen, Saylor is increasingly talking about total assets per share instead. Investors should decide for themselves whether that’s an evolution in thinking or simply moving the goalposts. And Saylor better hope bitcoin doesn’t keep crashing.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 10:30

Talking Across The Divide

Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics,

How we see politics reveals a lot about who we are. But it is less akin to a Rorschach ink blot than one of those reversible images, like the drawing that is both a rabbit and a duck. As messy as society might be, it is not some blob open to any interpretation (at least not yet, anyway). The patterns are there. But where we see one clear thing clearly, our pal may see another just as sharply.

The difference is that we can ultimately resolve the artistic conflict - yes, I see both my wife and my mother-in-law in the drawing; when it comes to politics, we tend to dig in our heels and insist on our single reading.

I felt as if I was peering at a reversible image the other day while talking with a progressive friend about the major challenges confronting the U.S. Surveying the American landscape, he saw a nation in peril largely because of a handful of billionaire "oligarchs" who use their tremendous influence to shape policy while resisting efforts to pay their "fair share." Imposing wealth taxes and closing loopholes, he said, is both a moral and economic necessity to start improving the picture.

I countered that I didn't see the problem as a handful of rich guys but the many millions of Americans who lack the education, skills, and burning desire to better their own lives. The problem is not, for example, a lack of funding, but a broken education system; it is not a porous safety net, but the unwillingness of people to work.

As these discussions go, my friend was not armed with studies and statistics to support his point - he's kept busy by his demanding job and the family he loves. Honestly, this can get frustrating for those of us who are paid to know and remember such material. It's taken me too long to realize that commanding more evidence doesn't necessarily make me right. Other people's summary knowledge of all they've seen and read may lack specifics, but it doesn't make them wrong.

He made some excellent points. The rise of technology has allowed a coterie of true visionaries - including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and the late Steve Jobs - and the hedge fund guys who've piggy-backed on their talents to become unimaginably rich. They didn't invent the future, but were smart, and lucky enough to see where things were headed and did a better job than other smart and tenacious people to drive and capitalize on change. No matter their talents, many of them could only have grown so rich in America, which is home to about a third of the world's billionaires.

As almost every American agrees on the need for a tax system, he noted, the question is not whether they should pay a portion of their earnings to the government, but how much. He could not pinpoint exactly what a fair share would be. He said that the question is beside the point - fair is not a firm rate but an ever-changing number based on what people have and what the government needs. He did say that I wasn't crazy to think progressives reject any set limit as a ceiling that would limit their demand for more.

He was roughly aware that top earners pay a large share of federal taxes. I told him that the most recent IRS data indicates the top 1% paid about 38.4% of all federal individual income; include the top 10% and the figure rises above 70%. That's a lot of their money going to us.

But he noted that their effective tax rate - for the top 1% it was 26.1% in 2022 - is not onerous. And the billionaires, in particular, use a passel of legal deductions and carve-outs to reduce their tax bills.

"I know their money creates jobs and investments in the private sector," he said, "but we have a massive debt [now north of $39 trillion] and huge annual deficits that have to be paid by someone. They can best afford it." He added, "Maybe we should, like Europe, raise everyone's taxes a lot, but that is not politically viable right now. Since we need money, the rich and very rich are the best place to start."

We both agreed that people should pay for the government they want and that tax rates should not be set because of some abstract notion of fairness, but at levels that will maximize revenue.

Nevertheless, I countered that the American landscape can be viewed another way. First, I said the focus on the rich seeks to create a single bogeyman to blame for all our problems. The implication that simply taking more from Bezos and Musk is the cure for what ails us is not true - rich as they are, their fortunes are small compared to government spending. More importantly, the focus shifts the responsibility from individuals who are the captains of their own ships and leaders who have failed to govern wisely to a relatively small number of largely blameless individuals.

To take a few examples, I asserted that the superrich are not to blame for the chronic rate of absenteeism at our public schools; the record numbers of young men who are not part of the workforce; the declining rates of marriage and births. The superrich are not the reason why some of the most heavily regulated industries, including health care, education, and housing, have seen some of the highest rises in costs. Our aching moral challenge is not centered in the tax code - which falsely suggests our problems could be easily solved - but in the decisions we the people are making in our own lives.

Finally, I said, the government has plenty of money. If the federal government were a private business, its increasing revenues over the years would make it a darling of Wall Street. The problem is we spend even more. And, as recent reporting has documented, a good deal of that spending is lost to waste and fraud at every level of government.

"Let's try to fix what's broken," I told my friend, "instead of throwing more money on the dumpster fire."

"I see your point," he responded, "but we can't let problems fester waiting for a fix that might never come. And it's just wrong that these guys have so much when the need is so great."

At the end, neither of us changed our minds; we still viewed the American landscape differently. But given how bitterly divided our nation is, I found great value in just having the conversation; in respectfully listening to one another, making the effort to see where each is coming from. So much political discussion looks for fault lines in the other side's arguments rather than their strengths. We look to confirm our views rather than expand them. If we want to persuade others, the first thing we must do is listen to them. This seems obvious, so why don't we start doing it?

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 09:20

Former UK Prime Minister Admits Mass Migration Is Being Weaponized To Undermine Western Civilization

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

In the space of hours, Britain endured yet more random barbaric violence. A 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck on a quiet residential street in Burnley, Lancashire, and a 21-year-old man was murdered in Central Park, Chelmsford, Essex. These incidents form part of a relentless pattern of attacks that former Prime Minister Liz Truss directly links to mass migration policies and the deliberate undermining of British society.

Truss described institutions corrupted by leftist ideology that suppress facts about the root cause - mass migration - while left-wing politicians weaponise immigration to erode the nation state itself. The public is livid. The official response under Keir Starmer has been to target those exposing the problem rather than the problem itself.

On Friday afternoon, a 17-year-old girl was walking alone on a street in Burnley, a small town in northern England, when a man approached from behind and stabbed her in the back of the neck. Armed police responded swiftly. The victim was treated in hospital; her injuries were miraculously not life-threatening. A 30-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

??A 30-year-old man was filmed stabbing a 17-year-old girl in neck in Burnley, England.

Now, a video has been published which reportedly shows the man being arrested.

Follow: @RMXnews pic.twitter.com/X4B1c4be3g

- Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 12, 2026

Lancashire Police confirmed the attack and deployed extra patrols for community reassurance. Whle mainstream reports omitted key background details, GB News reporter Charlie Peters later stated that Lancashire Police confirmed the suspect is a British-born man of Pakistani heritage.

Lancashire Police has confirmed that a 30-year-old British-born man of Pakistani heritage has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck in Brierfield.

The force said that the girl's injuries were not life-threatening. pic.twitter.com/vim5VueLLY

- Charlie Peters (@CDP1882) June 13, 2026

Video footage circulating online shows the unprovoked attack and the subsequent arrest. Public reaction has been one of fury and exhaustion at yet another random stabbing of a young girl in broad daylight.

Hours later, emergency services were called to Central Park in Chelmsford, Essex after reports of a serious assault. A 21-year-old man was found with critical injuries and pronounced dead at the scene. He had been stabbed.

BREAKING: Police arrest three teenage murder suspects after man dies in Essex park https://t.co/4qLToIKyuL

- GB News (@GBNEWS) June 13, 2026

Essex Police arrested three teenagers - a 14-year-old boy, a 17-year-old boy and an 18-year-old man - all from the Chelmsford area, on suspicion of murder. They remain in custody. Detective Inspector Lydia George described it as a deeply distressing incident and confirmed no further suspects were being sought.

Literally cannot keep up with the amount of these in the UK now. https://t.co/uVhLa8SpTq

- m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) June 13, 2026

These cases arrive amid a documented surge in such violence that has become impossible to ignore.

In widely shared commentary, Truss argued that recent violent attacks reveal an establishment corrupted by DEI priorities that place ideology above equal treatment under the law. She stated that the response to public concern is suppression of information and attacks on those highlighting the root causes.

Truss described how left-wing politicians actively encourage immigration to undermine the basis of society and Western civilisation. She said they seek to erode the family and the nation state. When British people say they have had enough, the reaction from Starmer's government is to arrest and jail those who express concern.

"They want to undermine the family. They want to undermine the nation state. And people in Britain are saying 'we've had enough of this,'" Truss urged.

"People are absolutely livid about what's happening in our country," she continued, adding "Our institutions have become corrupted... by the DEI mentality, rather than focusing on everybody being treated equally under the law. Their response is to try and suppress what's happening... and attack those who are saying 'why are these things happening?'"

The Lancashire and Essex incidents follow closely on the heels of the horrific attack in Belfast earlier this week. There, an African migrant from Sudan named Hadi Alodid was involved in a street assault on a vulnerable local man, Stephen Ogilvie, in which the attacker attempted to saw off the victim's head in public.

Ogilvie, described as special needs and hard of hearing, had reportedly helped the migrants move into nearby accommodation just days earlier.

A local witness stated that two migrants were involved, not one, and that a second Sudanese man remained at large. The attack triggered widespread unrest in loyalist areas, with properties linked to recent arrivals targeted. Police rescued foreign nationals from burning buildings. The victim suffered life-changing injuries and remained in hospital.

And all of this comes in the wake of revelations surrounding the murder of Henry Nowak.

Official reports and much of the legacy media continue to downplay or omit perpetrator backgrounds in these cases, even as independent journalists and ordinary citizens document the pattern. The result is a two-tier information environment where facts about migration-linked violence are treated as dangerous while the violence itself continues.

When citizens notice the demographic reality of many perpetrators and the policy decisions that enabled their presence, the response is not honest examination but censorship and criminalisation of speech. Starmer's government has shown particular zeal in pursuing those protesting the consequences of mass migration, while insisting that the public avert its gaze.

This is not an accident of policy. It is the predictable outcome of decades of globalist open-border ideology that prioritised abstract diversity over the concrete safety and cohesion of existing communities. The British people did not vote for this transformation. They were never asked.

Britain's experience serves as a warning. Uncontrolled mass immigration, sold as compassion or economic necessity, has delivered neither safety nor prosperity for the native population in many areas. It has delivered parallel societies, imported crime patterns, and a political class more interested in silencing critics than protecting citizens.

The question for Britain is no longer whether the current trajectory is sustainable. It is how much more violence and cultural erosion the public will tolerate before demanding leaders who actually represent the interests of the country they govern. The facts are no longer suppressible. The people are no longer silent.

Just some of the innocent people murdered by migrants in modern England - the youngest being 5-years-old, the eldest 88.

We've since had near-fatal attacks in Belfast and Burnley.

When will enough be enough? How many more must die at the altar of diversity? ????????? pic.twitter.com/8dzWVcNVnw

- Suffragent (@Suffragent_) June 13, 2026 Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 08:10

Sweden Sees Russia-NATO Conflict In 'Relatively Near Future'

Russia could test the NATO alliance's unity and its "all-for-one" collective defense commitments in the "relatively near future," Sweden’s Defense Commission has said, sounding the alarm in a fresh report issued Friday.

In the blunt interim report cited by Radio Sweden, the commission made it clear that Moscow's 'aggression' against the West is no longer a distant threat, but that "An armed attack against Sweden or our allies cannot be ruled out."

Getty Images

So far throughout the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fifth year, it has been Baltic countries and the UK being the most out front in terms of claiming that Russia's aims are expansionist - a charge Moscow has vehemently and consistently denied.

But now it seems Sweden is hyping the supposed 'Russia will invade Europe' narrative, long a favored assumption among the more hawkish of European officials.

President Putin himself has denied repeatedly that his ordered 'special military operation' will go beyond Ukraine. While Europe sees Russia aims as based on aggression and going on the offensive, the Kremlin ironically enough sees its actions as fundamentally defensive. 

For example, Putin in a fresh address to Russian service members on Friday stated definitely, "It was they who carried out the coup d'etat in Ukraine, which forced us to take the people of Crimea under protection. When they started the war, they started bombing Donetsk using warplanes."

But the Swedish Defense Commission - a coalition of lawmakers and defense experts - has still warned that Europe's security landscape could deteriorate at breakneck speed.

Their prescription is a rapid, hands on and publicly acknowledged overhaul of both military and civil defense rearmament, in effect jumping on the bandwagon, considering the trend among bigger European powers like Germany.

Meanwhile, next door in Finland, Helsinki is keeping a laser focus on the Kremlin's movements. Both aforementioned Nordic countries actually share Arctic, far northern borders with Russia.

Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen told public broadcaster Yle that Russia is actively beefing up its military infrastructure and bolstering boots on the ground near the Finnish border.

"Russia is creating new military units, multiplying troop numbers, as well as building capability so that it can quickly mobilize troops from other parts of Russia," Hakkanen said.

Reports indicate that two Russian warplanes circled near Swedish airspace yesterday, prompting Sweden to scramble Jas 39 Gripen fighter jets to intercept them.

This appears to be a deliberate Russian probe, testing how quickly Sweden and NATO respond to gray-zone provocations.… pic.twitter.com/x5MKCMWKGv

— Global Strategy (@World_At_War_6) June 13, 2026

Reports do indicate Russia is actively constructing a new military garrison in Petrozavodsk, right in Finland's backyard.

But Russia in its own right does have serious reason to be concerned given the Western military alliance since the start of the Ukraine war has added these very countries as the newest NATO members. Swedenh joined as the 32nd member on March 7, 2024 and Finland was welcomed by Brussels as the 31st member on April 4, 2023.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 07:35

Indigenous Nonsense

Authored by Spyridon Andrews via American Greatness,

When the dust settles hundreds of years from now and people begin to assess the hows and whys of Western decline, the issue of colonialism will figure prominently.

We are traveling from Mexico City to San Miguel de Allende with “The Professor,” a San Miguel resident who makes extra money by driving tourists from Mexico City to San Miguel. The title of professor is honorary. He is a self-taught scholar, a writer, and a highly intelligent man who works odd jobs around San Miguel to earn a living. The Professor is sharing tales of the Aztec Empire with us as we drive northward, stopped only briefly by the friendly Mexican police who take their usual bribe of around $200 as insurance against being arrested for more serious crimes, real or fictitious.

The Professor goes on to tell us that all the horrible atrocities allegedly committed by the Aztecs were lies, all lies. Native American culture is burned into the mental DNA of Central Mexico. Children assemble on holidays dressed like little Aztec warriors for parades. There is pride in their Aztec heritage.

On the way back, we stop to see the pyramids outside Mexico City, and The Professor is full of information about this fascinating culture. He describes their innovation, tremendous power, and unrivaled legacy. The Professor is a proud man.

But despite my enormous respect for The Professor, the stories about the Aztecs are not lies. The Aztecs believed that the gods had sacrificed themselves to create the world and that, out of necessity, human blood was required to keep the sun moving across the sky. Human and animal sacrifice have been elemental features of nature religions throughout history. The harvest required blood.

The Aztecs sacrificed prisoners of war in religious ceremonies. The prisoners were led to the tops of temple pyramids, held down by priests, and had their hearts cut out while still alive. Their bodies were then strewn down the steps of the pyramid; the bloodier the spectacle, the better. Archaeological studies at sites such as Templo Mayor have uncovered racks of human skulls known as tzompantli. Human sacrifice was one of the things that made the empire go, alongside continual military conquest and tribute extraction. Subject peoples were required to provide food, textiles, luxury goods, labor, and, when the priests ran out of bodies, sacrificial victims. The Aztecs were so hated that many indigenous groups allied themselves with the Spaniards.

The Mayans also get a bit of a pass. They are remembered for their astronomy, mathematics, writing system, and cities, but not nearly as much for their human sacrifice, torture, and public humiliation of victims. Ritual killings were common, and murder was infused with religious meaning and legitimacy.

There is an awful lot of emphasis on the atrocities of the Spanish conquerors, and there should be. The conquistadores were not such nice guys either. But for all the talk about colonialism, few dare to examine it thoughtfully. Contrary to what they may believe over at Barnard or Smith College, fighting colonialism does not consist of wearing a mask into Philz Coffee. History shows that colonialism is not good or bad in the abstract, any more than all indigenous populations were terrific people who deserved to remain in power forever.

The coffee-shop view of colonialism assumes that moral legitimacy flows automatically from historical priority. We are told that people who arrived first possess a uniquely valid claim to the land and that later arrivals are forever burdened by a kind of original sin. Arguments about ownership in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Americas frequently revolve around the endlessly repeated question of who was there first. To which I say, is this the real question?

Human history is not a story of static populations peacefully occupying fixed territories. Human history is a bloody mess. It is a story of migration, conquest, assimilation, intermarriage, commerce, shifting alliances, and conflict. Before one group was there, another was there. And before them, another. The idea of an original owner is neither logical nor provable.

The notion that being “here first” creates a permanent political entitlement does not survive even minimal scrutiny. If first possession establishes political sovereignty, then every modern nation on earth is illegitimate. Every border, kingdom, republic, and civilization would need to defend itself against claims arising from earlier migrations and forgotten peoples.

Equally false are theological and mystical claims to land. In Israel today, three different religions claim rights to the same patch of desert based upon the authority of their holy books. Throughout history, religions have invoked divine authority to invade neighboring lands, expel inhabitants, and wage war. Whether the justification comes from Manifest Destiny, the Torah, the Talmud, the Koran, or some other sacred source, the underlying claim is essentially the same. And it is nonsense.

The more important question is not who was here first. The more important question is who governs well. I submit that political legitimacy is derived from creating conditions in which human beings can flourish. Legitimacy is established through justice, the protection of liberty, the maintenance of order and safety, the safeguarding of property, the encouragement of opportunity, and the principle that rulers themselves are subject to law.

Today’s discussions of colonialism often condemn it as a single phenomenon. Yet colonial ventures—and indigenous governments—varied enormously. Some colonial regimes were exploitative and destructive. Others introduced institutions that became the foundation of later prosperity. Most contained elements of both.

Some colonial regimes, like Great Britain in many instances, created railroads, ports, courts, universities, modern medicine, commercial systems, property rights, and civil administration. Historical analysis requires attention to actual results rather than slogans.

Under British administration, Hong Kong evolved from a relatively modest trading settlement into one of the world’s most prosperous financial centers. The British were not perfect, since they were, after all, British. But they created opportunities for millions of people over the century, or so they were in power. Then the indigenous Chinese government came into power, bringing its usual basket of fun.

Beijing imposed the National Security Law in 2020. Hong Kong went from one of the freest and most prosperous cities in Asia to a place where political dissent can land you in prison. Independent newspapers were shut down, activists jailed, elections restructured, and civic organizations dissolved. But don’t worry, because it was indigenous.

Singapore followed a different path. The British established a major international port, a functioning legal system, English-language administration, and commercial institutions. Singapore’s leaders built upon those foundations rather than dismantling them. The result was one of the most remarkable economic transformations in modern history. Today, Singapore is one of the safest, wealthiest, and most efficiently governed societies in the world. They built upon foundations laid by the evil colonizers.

Then there is India. British rule was far from one big tea party. Nevertheless, modern India inherited a nationwide civil service, a common-law legal system, rail networks, universities, administrative structures, and commercial institutions that continue to play important roles today. The British made considerable damage, the most lasting of which may be the Indian fascination with cricket, a hideous and boring game, along with the equally annoying habit of taking tea in the middle of a match.

So not all colonial empires are created equal. And now, we should also point out, not all indigenous cultures are created equal. There are many examples, including recent ones, of governments that enjoyed broad cultural support before delivering poverty, repression, corruption, economic stagnation, and the suppression of civil liberties. Cuba, Venezuela, and many African nations come readily to mind.

This confidence in indigenous culture is often paired with the equally dubious assumption that all cultures are equal in their outcomes. Sorry, despite what your anthropology professor told you, all cultures are not equal. Some encourage innovation, literacy, accountability, and economic development. Some protect women, minorities, and dissenters. Some cultivate the peaceful transfer of power. Others normalize violence, patronage, corruption, and disregard for human rights.

Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe was indigenous. He imposed political repression, economic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and destroyed the agricultural sector. He was handed the ball on the five-yard line and fumbled it. Idi Amin was indigenous. His regime became notorious for brutality and persecution. South Africa today has an indigenous government. So does Mexico. The fact that leaders share ancestry with the people they govern tells us nothing about whether they govern wisely.

And what about us? How much comfort should we take from the fact that our own political class is homegrown? Does it make endless debt, endless wars, corruption, and institutional decline more acceptable because the people responsible were born here?

History is not sentimental. It does not care who arrived first, whose ancestors crossed a particular river, or whose holy book claims title to a patch of ground. History does not award virtue based upon genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion, or indigeneity. It asks a far more practical question: What did you do with the place once you got it?

Did you create liberty or oppression? Prosperity or poverty? Justice or corruption? Did ordinary people have the opportunity to build families, businesses, communities, and meaningful lives? Were rulers constrained by law, or did they become laws unto themselves? Did your institutions survive your leaders, or did everything collapse into tribalism, violence, and decay?

That is how civilizations are judged. Rome is not remembered because Romans got there first. Britain is not remembered because Britons got there first. America will not be remembered because Americans got here first. They will be remembered for what they built, what they preserved, what they destroyed, and whether they expanded or diminished the possibilities of human flourishing.

In the end, legitimacy is not inherited. It is earned. It does not arise from ancestry, mythology, chronology, or blood. It arises from competence, justice, liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law. The question is not who was here first. The question has always been, and will always be, who governs well.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 07:00

Somaliland Opens Diplomatic Office In Taiwan Despite Strong Objections From Beijing

Via The Cradle

The breakaway African territory of Somaliland opened a new representative office in Taiwan on Friday, saying it had the right to establish diplomatic relations despite objections from Somalia.

"We have the right to choose who we have relationships with. It's our prerogative, and so it hasn't been successful as far as pressure tactics," stated Mahmoud Adam Jama ​Galaal, Somaliland's representative to Taiwan, at a press conference to mark the office opening.

Rti photo

Taiwan's Deputy Foreign Minister Francois Wu also spoke, saying, "Taiwan and Somaliland are both beacons of democracy, freedom, and rule of law."

Located on the strategic Horn of Africa, Somaliland has functioned as a de facto state since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991, with its own governing institutions and security structures – despite receiving no recognition from any UN member state until Israel recognized it in December. 

Galaal added that Taiwan, which also lacks international recognition, is a "very important ally." Somaliland and Taiwan first established representative offices in each ⁠other's capitals in 2020.

Taiwan separated from China after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when the defeated Nationalist government retreated to the island and established the Republic of China (ROC). The Chinese Communist Party established the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland and has claimed Taiwan as its territory since that time.

Galaal said Somaliland and Taiwan would not succumb to pressure from Beijing and Mogadishu to sever ties.

Somalia condemned Taiwan's attempts to establish "unauthorized" diplomatic relations with Somaliland.

“"Somaliland remains an inalienable part of Somalia, and we strongly condemn external attempts to bypass the legitimate federal government in Mogadishu," Ali Mohamed Omar, Somalia's minister of state for foreign affairs, stated on Friday.

After Israel became the first state to recognize Somaliland's claim to independence, Mogadishu condemned it as a “deliberate attack” on Somalia's sovereignty. 

Israel is seeking closer ties with Somaliland as part of its effort to establish military bases allowing it to project power in the Red Sea, including in the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait, where Yemen's armed forces are dominant.

In a blow to Somaliland, Washington recently declared support for the sovereignty of Somalia.

A State Department report titled “Potential Areas for Improved US Engagement with Somaliland” was submitted to Congress on 1 June and published by the media on 2 June. 

In that report, the State Department said that Somaliland was a part of the Federal Republic of Somalia and the US maintains a positive relationship with Somaliland “within that framework.”

Republic of Somaliland has a right to choose its own relationships, and pressure tactics from Beijing and Mogadishu have not succeededin altering its friendship with Taipei, its top diplomat in Taiwan said on Friday at the opening of a new office. https://t.co/cGmMRvqROJ pic.twitter.com/7oynvCt6Sk

— REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (@RepOfSomaliland) June 12, 2026

A US congressional source told Middle East Eye (MEE) at the time that the US was not planning to recognize Somaliland. 

“Though lobbyists, including former Trump officials Tibor Nagy and Peter Pham, had raised the hopes of Somalilanders over US recognition, there was never a sign that the president would go through with it,” the congressional source said.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 23:20

Which States Are Leading America's Economy?

America’s biggest economies aren’t always its strongest.

While California, Texas, and New York dominate in economic size, long-term competitiveness depends on a broader mix of factors, from business creation and labor market strength to innovation and investment.

This 2026 analysis by WalletHub evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C. across 28 indicators of economic activity, economic health, and innovation potential.

This ranking, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, highlights the states that are building the foundations for future growth.

Where Every State Ranks in 2026

The ranking below evaluates the economic strength of all 50 states and Washington, D.C. in 2026:

Rank State Total State Economy Score 2026 1 Massachusetts 69.4 2 Washington 67.3 3 Utah 65.9 4 California 65.0 5 Delaware 63.0 6 North Carolina 60.3 7 New York 57.6 8 Texas 57.0 9 Colorado 56.4 10 Florida 54.3 11 Idaho 53.4 12 Georgia 53.1 13 New Hampshire 52.9 14 Virginia 51.2 15 Arizona 51.1 16 Connecticut 51.0 17 Tennessee 50.8 18 South Carolina 49.3 19 Montana 48.9 20 Maryland 48.7 21 Minnesota 48.1 22 Indiana 47.4 23 Kansas 47.3 24 Oregon 47.1 25 New Jersey 46.2 26 New Mexico 45.7 27 Michigan 44.6 28 Alabama 44.4 29 Vermont 44.4 30 Pennsylvania 44.2 31 Wisconsin 43.5 32 Alaska 42.9 33 District of Columbia 42.1 34 Nebraska 41.7 35 Nevada 41.1 36 Arkansas 40.3 37 Illinois 40.1 38 Ohio 39.8 39 Iowa 39.3 40 North Dakota 38.8 41 South Dakota 38.7 42 Missouri 38.4 43 Oklahoma 38.3 44 Hawaii 38.3 45 Mississippi 36.2 46 Wyoming 35.9 47 Rhode Island 35.4 48 Maine 33.8 49 Louisiana 33.2 50 Kentucky 32.4 51 West Virginia 25.4 Why Massachusetts Leads the Ranking

Massachusetts outperformed larger states including California, Texas, and New York thanks to its combination of innovation output, STEM talent, and business formation.

It is also home to many of the nation’s fastest-growing tech companies, with business creation propelled by its innovation-driven economy and world-class universities.

Despite being the nation’s 15th-most populous state, Massachusetts is well-positioned to drive innovation and economic growth as technology rapidly accelerates.

Innovation Is the Biggest Separator

The 10 highest-ranking states differ significantly in geography, politics, and industry mix. However, they share a common strength: generating new ideas and new businesses at a considerable rate.

Like Massachusetts, Washington is powered by technology and research. Notably, software developers rank as Washington’s most common occupation. California remains the epicenter for AI giants and venture capital activity. Utah is now one of the country’s fastest-growing tech hubs, with cost-of-living-adjusted median household income reaching $91,600, the highest in the nation.

In contrast, many of the lowest-ranked states produce fewer high-growth companies due to lower investment levels, fewer patents, and less-developed innovation ecosystems.

The New Geography of Growth

One of the clearest patterns in the ranking is the continued rise of the Sun Belt. North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Georgia all rank among America’s economic leaders, reflecting years of population growth, business investment, and job creation.

North Carolina ranks sixth overall, ahead of New York and Colorado. In 2025, it gained a net 84,100 residents, the highest in the country. Texas places eighth, while Florida and Georgia also rank among the top 15. Tennessee and South Carolina also finish comfortably in the upper half of the ranking, while both states recorded some of the strongest domestic migration gains last year.

The result is a broader shift in America’s economic map. While coastal innovation hubs remain dominant, many Southern states are becoming important centers of growth in their own right.

The States Building Tomorrow’s Economy

The rankings suggest that future economic leadership will depend less on size alone and more on a state’s ability to attract talent, support entrepreneurship, and turn innovation into growth.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the fastest-growing states by 2050.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 22:45

China's New AI Agent Risks Trapping Western Tech In Rights Abuses: Analysts

Authored by Jarvis Lim via The Epoch Times,

China's new state-backed artificial intelligence (AI) platform threatens to stifle domestic tech innovation through forced ideological compliance, and in the West, it could also be used to cover up the regime's human rights abuses, analysts warn.

A screen advertising Xinhua News Agency in Times Square in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on March 2, 2020. Andrew Kelly/Reuters

Xinhua, the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), will spend more than 1.1 billion yuan ($162.38 million) to launch an AI agent to propagate Chinese leader Xi Jinping's thinking, according to a feasibility study published on its website on June 5.

Dubbed "Xinhua Yudian," the platform positions itself as an indispensable tool for journalists, a practical asset for party cadres, and a trusted information source for the general public, the study showed.

"Through 'Q&A on Xi's Words' and 'Xi Study Guide,' it presents the core essence and practical requirements of the general secretary's important discourses," the report said.

In 2023, China passed the "Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services," prohibiting content that could incite subversion, threaten national security, or damage the country's image.

The measures require market participants to "uphold the core socialist values," according to a translation.

Cementing Control

Feng Chongyi, an associate professor in China studies at the University of Technology Sydney, said Xinhua's latest move signals that Beijing views every new AI technology developed domestically as a tool to consolidate its grip on power.

"This shows the CCP is attempting to reinforce the personality cult around Xi Jinping," Feng told The Epoch Times.

"Xi has already rolled out similar initiatives, requiring middle schoolers and party cadres to study and even take exams on his political ideology."

Charles Cheng-chung Lo, a professor with the Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Law at the National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology in Taiwan, said the regime aims to aggressively marshal national resources in AI and technology to protect its "political security."

"Political security means safeguarding the CCP's leadership and ruling status, as well as its socialist system with Chinese characteristics," Lo told The Epoch Times.

"Under such a system, all technological development naturally faces strict state regulation based on this political premise."

'Extreme Self-Censorship'

Lee Chung-chih, deputy convenor of the Strategic Industries Program at Taiwanese think tank the DIMEs Center, said China's generative AI models, such as DeepSeek, are engineered to strictly conform to Party dogma, leaving them unable to provide objective answers on political, historical, and social issues.

The rise of agentic AI - autonomous software systems capable of taking action and performing complex tasks on behalf of users - is set to entrench that dynamic further, he said, pointing to Xinhua Yudian as the latest example.

"This is completely detrimental to the verification and creation of knowledge," Lee told The Epoch Times.

"China is currently locking its society into an 'isolated universe.'"

Lee said the platform's proposed functions, such as content inspection, traceability, correction, and guided documentation, could prompt Beijing to demand that private AI firms align with Xinhua's standards.

"If private AI developers refuse to comply, the sector could wither and talent may flee," he said.

Lee warned that pushing these rigid censorship standards to the extreme would lock China's entire information ecosystem into a cycle of ideological compliance, stifling genuine innovation.

"Chinese journalists and scholars will start using AI to engage in hyper-conformity, aiming to outdo the state's own narratives and push even further left," Lee said.

"This extreme self-censorship just to please the authorities will leave them completely blind to genuine technological breakthroughs or geopolitical crises from the outside world."

Global Infiltration

Lo said foreign AI products and services seeking to integrate with this state-run platform will likely face surveillance under Xi's concept of "comprehensive national security" - an overarching doctrine where ideology now dictates all aspects of Chinese governance.

"In other words, the price of tapping into China's vast market is strict localized regulation," Lo said.

He said that securing this access could mean filtering out factual answers on sensitive topics, such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy movement, to meet Beijing's political red lines.

"The likelihood of self-censorship will increase as ideological screening becomes the inevitable compliance cost for entry," Lo said.

But the risks could extend further, as any Western tech firms that choose to partner with platforms like Xinhua Yudian may inadvertently become tools of CCP repression, according to Feng.

"Many companies operate under the belief that technology knows no borders, selling their products to the CCP," Feng said.

"What they fail to realize is that Beijing could harness their advanced technology on Xinhua Yudian and others to further violate the privacy and human rights of ordinary people."

Feng said that adopting these authoritarian standards could ultimately backfire, endangering the developers' own home nations.

"If democratic societies fail to counter Beijing's cognitive warfare, Western AI systems forced into compliance will essentially hand the regime a digital backdoor," he said.

"It allows China to push this warfare seamlessly across frontiers, severely subverting the international order."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 22:10

North Korea Rips Fresh Western Criticism Of Expanding Moscow Relationship

North Korea fired back on Saturday and lashed out at the Washington-Seoul alliance, tearing into a fresh South Korea-EU joint statement that condemned Pyongyang's deepening military alliance with Russia.

North Korea has increasingly over the past acknowledge a significant number of troops sacrificed in support of Russia and in the context of the brutal and grinding Ukraine war.

The Western-aligned statement, inked Wednesday during South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's high-profile trip to Brussels, took direct aim at the "illegal military cooperation" fueling the war in Ukraine.

"We condemn support by third parties, in particular the DPRK, which enables Russia to sustain its war of aggression against Ukraine," the statement said.

A fully anticipated, North Korea's foreign ministry quickly hit back through the state-run Korean Central News Agency, framing its axis with Moscow as a mere "exercise of sovereign rights."

Russia and North Korea under Presidents Putin and Kim have even signed a defense, technology and economic cooperation pact relatively recently.

The ministry didn't mince words, calling the joint condemnation a "clear infringement on the sovereignty of our state and a grave hostile act," while pointedly reminding everyone that South Korea remains the North's primary "enemy state."

Pyongyang has of late branded Seoul as Washington's "favorite dagger" in alleged grand American plot aimed at "invading... the Asian continent.”

The reference was a play on words after General Xavier Brunson, the top American military commander in South Korea, raised eyebrows last month by provocatively describing his host nation as "the dagger in the heart of Asia."

Both North Korea and China have seized on Brunson's slip of the tongue, painting it as proof of Washington's true playbook ofusing Seoul to contain Beijing.

With North Korean leader Kim Jong Un already putting his money where his mouth is - shipping troops and heavy munitions to bolster Vladimir Putin’s front lines - the war in Ukraine has slowly been morphing into more than just a EUropean crisis.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 21:35

Why The Millionaire Next Door Drives A Used Car - And What That Teaches About Real Wealth

Authored by Peter Daisyme via Due,

The wealthiest person I know personally drives a 2018 Toyota Camry. He owns three rental properties, has over $2 million in investment accounts, and could buy any car on any lot without blinking. He chooses not to, and his explanation is both simple and profound: "A car is a tool that takes you from one place to another. Everything beyond that is a payment for other people's perception of you."

Income alone doesn't create wealth. The key is the gap between what you earn and what you spend. Morakod1977/Shutterstock

That conversation rearranged how I think about money, status, and the difference between looking wealthy and actually being wealthy. And the more I studied the habits of genuinely rich people - not the Instagram version of rich, but the people with real, substantial, enduring wealth - the more I found that his approach was the rule, not the exception.

The Wealth Illusion

We live in a culture that equates visible consumption with financial success. A nice car, a big house, designer clothes, expensive vacations - these are the signals we use to judge who has money and who does not. The problem is that those signals are almost perfectly inverted from reality.

The person leasing a $70,000 SUV might have a negative net worth. The person buying rounds at the bar might be maxing out a credit card. The couple who just renovated their kitchen might have raided their retirement accounts to pay for it.

Meanwhile, the person with $1.5 million in the bank is wearing jeans from Target, driving a paid-off Honda, and eating dinner at home. They do not look wealthy because they channeled the money that would create the appearance of wealth into building actual wealth.

This is not a new observation - the book "The Millionaire Next Door" documented it decades ago - but it bears repeating because the cultural pressure to spend for status has only intensified with social media. Every platform is designed to show you people living aspirational lifestyles, and the psychological pull to keep up is relentless.

The Math Of Lifestyle Inflation

The mechanism that keeps high earners from building wealth is lifestyle inflation - the tendency to increase spending proportionally (or faster) as income grows. A $10,000 raise should accelerate wealth building. Instead, it usually gets absorbed by a nicer apartment, a better car, more dining out, and upgraded vacations.

Consider two people who both earn $100,000 per year. Person A spends $90,000 and saves $10,000. Person B spends $70,000 and saves $30,000. After 20 years of investing at a 7 percent annual return, Person A has about $410,000. Person B has about $1,230,000. They earned exactly the same amount. The difference is entirely in spending decisions.

The gap gets wider as incomes grow. If Person B receives raises over the years and keeps spending at $70,000 while saving the difference, their accumulation accelerates dramatically. Person A, who upgrades their lifestyle with every raise, stays on the same slow trajectory regardless of how much more they earn.

This is why income is a poor predictor of wealth. The correlation between earning and accumulating is much weaker than people assume. The real predictor is the gap between earning and spending - and that gap is a choice.

What Actually Wealthy People Spend On

After studying the spending patterns of people I know who have built significant wealth, a clear pattern emerges. They spend freely on what matters to them and ruthlessly cut everything that does not.

One friend spends generously on travel - international trips, business-class seats on long flights, quality hotels. But she drives a ten-year-old car and lives in a modest house. Travel brings her joy and enriches her life. The car is transportation. The house is a shelter. She allocates accordingly.

Another friend spends very little on himself personally but funds his children's education and activities without hesitation. His wardrobe is basic. His entertainment spending is minimal. His kids' college accounts are fully funded.

The common thread is intentionality. Wealthy people do not spend less overall because they are cheap - they spend less on things they do not care about, so they can spend more on things they do care about and invest the difference. They have examined their own values and aligned their spending with those values rather than with social expectations.

The Status Tax

I think of unnecessary status spending as a tax - the status tax. It is the premium you pay for goods and services, not because they perform better, but because they signal wealth or taste to others.

A $300 watch tells time just as well as a $5,000 watch. A $30,000 car gets you to work just as reliably as a $60,000 car. A $2 coffee tastes nearly identical to a $6 coffee with a designer label on the cup. The difference in price is the status tax, and over a lifetime, it is enormous.

If you spent $500 a month less on status consumption - the car upgrade, the brand-name clothes, the visible luxury purchases - and invested that $500 at 7 percent, you would have roughly $260,000 after 20 years. That is the real cost of caring what strangers think about your car.

I am not arguing that you should never buy nice things. I am arguing that you should buy them because they genuinely improve your life, not because they improve how other people perceive you. The distinction is everything.

Building Wealth The Boring Way

The actual wealth-building formula is anticlimactic. Earn a reasonable income. Spend significantly less than you earn. Invest the difference in diversified, low-cost index funds. Do this consistently for 20 to 30 years. That is it.

No one gets famous for this approach. No one writes viral social media posts about it. No one makes a documentary about the person who maxed out their 401(k) every year and retired comfortably at 60. But that person exists in enormous numbers, and they are far wealthier than the influencer showing off a rented sports car.

The boring approach works because it harnesses the only truly reliable wealth-building force: time and compound growth. A portfolio growing at 7 percent doubles roughly every 10 years. $100,000 at 35 becomes $200,000 at 45, $400,000 at 55, and $800,000 at 65. But only if you leave it alone and keep adding to it.

The wealth-building strategies that work in your 30s are the same strategies that work at any age. They just work better the earlier you start.

How To Resist The Pressure

Knowing the right approach and actually following it are different things. The pressure to spend for status comes from everywhere - advertising, social media, peer groups, family expectations, and your own psychology.

Here are the tactics that work for me. First, I curate my information diet. I unfollowed accounts that showcase luxury consumption and followed accounts that discuss financial independence and intentional living. What you see shapes what you want, so be deliberate about what you see.

Second, I calculate the real cost of purchases in hours worked. A $200 dinner after taxes costs me about six hours of work. Is that dinner worth six hours of my life? Sometimes yes. Often no. This reframing makes spending feel real rather than abstract.

Third, I keep my financial goals visible. I have a spreadsheet that projects my net worth at five-year intervals. When I am tempted to make a large discretionary purchase, I consider what that money would become in 10 years if invested instead. Seeing the compound growth I would forfeit is a powerful deterrent against impulse spending.

Fourth, I surround myself with people who share my values around money. Peer influence is the strongest force in spending behavior. If your friends measure success by possessions, you will spend to keep up. If they measure it by freedom and security, you will save to keep up.

The Ultimate Status Symbol

The wealthiest people I know share one trait that no purchase can replicate: they have options. They can leave a job they dislike without panic. They can handle an emergency without debt. They can retire when they choose rather than when they must. They can help family members without compromising their own stability.

That kind of freedom is the real status symbol, even though nobody can see it from the outside. It does not fit on a bumper sticker or in an Instagram photo. But it is the thing that every person chasing visible wealth is actually searching for - the security and peace that come from knowing you are financially independent.

My friend with the Camry has that freedom. And if you asked him, he would tell you it is worth more than every luxury car on the road combined.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. ZeroHedge does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. ZeroHedge holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 21:00

"Tell Him He's A Piece Of Shit": Employee Hijacks Meta Meeting In AI Revolt

Earlier this week, a routine livestreamed Meta meeting descended into open revolt.

During a presentation open to thousands of employees, one participant suddenly interrupted the speakers with a profanity-laced outburst, according to WIRED. The employee declared they felt like "the company's bitch" and demanded that the people leading the call write to a specific Meta AI executive and "tell him that he's a piece of shit."

One presenter reportedly covered their face with their hands. Moderators asked everyone to mute. The technical discussion eventually continued, but the moment - which employees in the chat described as "spicy" - revealed something much deeper: widespread anger and disillusionment inside Meta's newly formed Applied AI unit.

"It's literally the gulag. You have zero purpose in life all of a sudden, you barely interact with anyone, you just have these tasks every week," one current employee told WIRED on condition of anonymity. 

A Rapid, Painful Reorganization

That unit, formed in March 2026 to support researchers at Meta's Superintelligence Labs, now employs roughly 6,500 engineers and product managers. Many were reassigned with little warning. Their new work - largely generating puzzles, coding challenges, and evaluation tasks to test how reliably AI models can solve problems - has left a significant portion of the team feeling demoralized and stripped of purpose.

"Most people find the work soul-crushing," another employee said. All three sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Meta declined to comment.

Key Numbers

 

The Applied AI unit is only the most visible flashpoint in a much broader restructuring. In May, Meta laid off approximately 8,000 employees as part of an AI-focused overhaul. Another ~7,000 people were transferred into new AI-related initiatives.

 

The speed and bluntness of the changes have created ripple effects across multiple divisions. Employees in data center engineering and Instagram have reported increased stress and workload. Meanwhile, more than 1,600 Meta employees signed a petition demanding the company stop a recently launched program that monitors U.S. employees' clicks, keystrokes, and screen activity to generate training data for AI agents. The company has since scaled the program back slightly.

"It's Like What The Fuck"

During an all-hands meeting this week for Instagram employees, Chief Product Officer Chris Cox addressed the turmoil directly. According to a recording obtained by WIRED, Cox described the past few months as a "difficult" and "brutal" environment created by the "insanity of this company."

He praised Instagram teams for continuing to ship features and serve roughly 2 billion users while navigating constant upheaval. Then he compared the situation to "running a marathon in the middle of a hailstorm and then, like, your teammate gets replaced and then we're recording you."

"It's like what the fuck," said Cox - adding again, "It is like what the fuck." 

Cox also struck a notably measured tone on AI itself: "It is neither god, nor is it the devil. And it's nowhere near as good as you think it is, and it is nowhere near as bad as you think it is."

Engineers across Meta have reported feeling sidelined and demoralized by sudden reassignments into repetitive AI evaluation work.

Zuckerberg Acknowledges Mistakes

The same week, CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent an internal memo to employees acknowledging that the company had made errors in how it reshaped its workforce around AI.

"Given the complexity of these changes, we've made mistakes and will almost certainly make more," said Zuckerberg, according to Reuters. 

Zuckerberg wrote that he is "focused on providing as much stability as possible" going forward and does not expect additional company-wide layoffs this year. He said Meta would work to create "important new roles" for employees who were reassigned to AI training and support work.

He also noted plans to increase spending on team-building initiatives, including a large-scale hackathon in July, and to scale back the unusually wide manager spans that appeared in the new Applied AI unit (some reportedly reached 50:1 ratios).

Why The Work Feels Like Punishment

The core complaint inside Applied AI is not that the company is investing in AI - most employees understand the strategic importance. It is the nature of the tasks many were suddenly asked to perform and the way the transition was handled.

Generating high-quality evaluation puzzles and coding problems is genuinely difficult and valuable work for frontier model development. But for engineers who previously built products, shipped features, and collaborated creatively, being reassigned to repetitive, solitary evaluation tasks has felt like a demotion.

"You have zero purpose in life all of a sudden," one of the employees told WIRED. "You barely interact with anyone, you just have these tasks every week."

The flat organizational structure exacerbated the problem. With so few managers, many employees felt they had little support, visibility, or path to more meaningful roles.

Many engineers were reassigned to repetitive puzzle-generation and model-evaluation tasks - work they describe as soul-crushing compared to their previous roles.

The Stakes Are High

Meta is not alone in pushing rapid AI-driven reorganization. Across Silicon Valley, companies are redirecting resources, cutting teams, and experimenting with new workflows to stay competitive in the AI race. But few have done so at Meta's scale or with such visible internal blowback.

The risk for Meta is real. Engineering talent remains the scarcest resource in AI. If skilled people feel their work has been devalued or that leadership is moving too fast without regard for the human impact, attrition to competitors becomes more likely - exactly when the company needs its best people most.

Zuckerberg's memo and Cox's candid remarks suggest leadership is aware of the damage. The promised July hackathon, new role creation, and reduced manager spans are concrete steps toward repair. Whether they will be enough remains to be seen.

For now, the message from parts of the workforce is clear: the company's aggressive AI transformation has left many employees feeling used, undervalued, and angry. And some are no longer willing to stay quiet about it.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 20:25

Discs, Orbs, 'Heavenly' Phenomena, & More Revealed In 3rd Batch Of Declassified UFO Files

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

Americans living in the northeastern United States witnessed “brilliant and beautiful” glowing red and white orbs in their backyard, which they caught on video, the Pentagon’s third release of declassified UFO files on June 12 showed.

The new documents contained encounters from around the world, such as reports of a “disc-like” object in Zimbabwe, a “potato shaped” craft in Colorado, and “heavenly” phenomena moving at speeds of 12,000 kilometers per hour in Hungary.

The third batch adds to the previous two document dumps of UFO and Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) files released by the Pentagon on May 8 and May 22.

Those batches also detailed stunning encounters, including Apollo 11 astronauts seeing a “sizable” object near the moon and a UAP being shot down over the Great Lakes.

Here are some key highlights from a partial review of the newly released files.

‘Brilliant Red Sphere’

The FBI interviewed U.S. citizens in February about their firsthand accounts of potential UAPs in their backyard. The documents were partially redacted and did not disclose when or where these encounters occurred—only that it was in the northeastern United States.

Upon returning home one night, one of these individuals witnessed an “intense bright light” hovering just below the tree line in their backyard. Another person in the home came outside and also saw the phenomenon, describing it as a red sphere about a meter in diameter with what appeared to be a “white plasma sun” the size of a basketball in the center.

One of the individuals described the red color as “brilliant and beautiful” and a tint they had never seen before.

The pair watched this orb move and noticed another identical orb directly above it, floating together in a silent and smooth manner as if they were tethered.

The two orbs moved above the tree line and merged into one before they floated out of sight.

In July 2025, in the northeastern United States, an eyewitness observed an intense bright light in their backyard as they parked their car upon returning home from work. This is a screenshot from the witness’s personal video. Screenshot via The Epoch Times/Courtesy of the Pentagon

One individual captured video of the phenomenon, which was included in the Pentagon’s release of files. The recording is 50 seconds long and shows two bright red orbs with white centers floating slowly together.

A few weeks after this event, one of the individuals also saw several white orbs in the same area traveling at a much higher altitude than the red ones.

More newly released video from this same area in the northeastern United States showed bright red orbs hovering at about 2,500 feet.

In March 2022, in the northeastern United States, a witness observed two bright red luminous light sources hovering near the horizon at an estimated distance of 2,500 feet. This is a screenshot from the witness’s personal video. Screenshot via The Epoch Times/Courtesy of the Pentagon

Cheyenne Mountains Sighting

Former U.S. Army intelligence officers witnessed a UAP over the Cheyenne Mountains in Colorado as they left their office building, according to the files.

FBI agents interviewed one of the individuals in June 2024 about their experience during a February morning of an unspecified year. This person described the day as perfect conditions, no clouds, little humidity, and about 50 degrees outside.

The object this group of former Army personnel witnessed was “potato shaped” with distinct edges and a “creamy/whitish opalescent color.” The object was slightly translucent and shimmery, the documents showed.

Its texture was described as “fish scales” or non-symmetrical, non-overlapping, irregularly shaped panels. Although the UAP itself was motionless, each panel “shifted in slow waves starting at different points of origin but at the same time.”

After about two minutes, the object vanished or “cloaked” itself in the time it takes to turn one’s head. There was also no shadow, according to the files.

The new files also included an artist’s rendering of the craft.

Former U.S. Army intelligence officers witnessed a UAP over the Cheyenne Mountains in Colorado as they left their office building. The Pentagon files included this rendering of the craft. Screenshot via The Epoch Times/Courtesy of the Pentagon

UAP in Zimbabwe

A July 2008 report of an unexplained craft above the Harare International Airport in Zimbabwe stoked debate on whether the sighting was an advanced device from a foreign government or had extraterrestrial origins.

The craft was observed at an undetermined high altitude.

Witnesses described this UAP as “disc-like” with a hollow center and a series of rotating lights on its underside. At one point, “beams” emanated from the craft, according to the documents.

The object eventually ascended rapidly out of sight. A “high alert” was implemented.

There was no video, photo, or artist’s rendering of the Zimbabwe UAP provided in the Pentagon’s files.

Flying Saucers in Hungary

A report on sightings in Hungary came about from letters of correspondence in 1955 between relatives living in the United States and Budapest.

The CIA released a report on this encounter with a sketch showing the formation and suspected flight path of several objects traveling between Budapest and Moscow.

A man living in the United States received a letter from his niece in Budapest mentioning “flying saucers.” Much of the letter was casual conversation, with one paragraph detailing the UAPs.

The niece wrote to her uncle that “everyone has been excited” over the mysterious crafts “for the past few weeks.”

“These fast-rushing heavenly [phenomena] have been and still are keeping scores of scientists busy,” the letter reads. “These amazing fliers moved at a speed of 12,000 kilometers per hour.”

Five Feds Witness UAPs

Part of the Pentagon’s release of files on Friday included multiple statements from “federal law enforcement special agents” who witnessed UAPs near a sensitive national security site in the western United States over the course of two days in October 2023.

A map of four sightings was included in the documents in addition to detailed witness statements of each encounter and several digital renderings.

This map is a representation of four incidents involving unidentified anomalous phenomena in the western United States. It depicts multiple incidents reported by U.S. federal law enforcement special agents over a period of several days in October 2023. Courtesy of the Pentagon

The federal officers reported “orbs launching other orbs.” This happened multiple times, according to the files, where an orange “mother orb” appeared to produce smaller red ones multiple times over a period of several hours.

This is a screenshot from a video of an artistic interpretation of a reported incident near a sensitive national security site in the western United States. Witnesses described the larger orange sphere as a “mother orb.” Screenshot via The Epoch Times/Courtesy of the Pentagon

These red orbs’ behavior was described as “anomalous” with “varied kinematic profiles including seemingly coordinated horizontal motion” and changes in altitude.

According to the documents, the red orbs only persisted for several seconds before disappearing, but at least once, the witnesses said one of the red UAPs hovered above a ridgeline for hours.

This is a screenshot from a video of an artistic interpretation of a reported incident near a sensitive national security site in the western United States. Multiple witnesses described seeing a “mother orb” launching smaller red ones. Screenshot via The Epoch Times/Courtesy of the Pentagon

In this same area, the federal agents also witnessed a “dark kite” and a “translucent kite” at close estimated ranges.

All of the crafts were silent, the documents said, and the sightings remain unresolved.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 19:50

Hillary Clinton Fears "Revolution" Preventing The US From Becoming A "Rainbow Nation"

The word "Democracy" is thrown around frequently within progressive circles as a call to arms; a rallying cry based on a fraudulent narrative of patriotic duty.  Throughout the entirety of Joe Biden's first and last term, the political left painted conservatives as a threat to democracy.  Anyone who opposed pandemic mandates, compelled vaccination, open borders, mass immigration, gender ideology in public schools etc., was labeled a danger to society.  

The inherent fallacy being that leftists (and by extension Democrats) represent the majority of the nation.  However, this notion has been consistently debunked by multiple elections, polls and the fact that the vast majority of liberal movements have been exposed as astroturf funded by NGOs.

If Democrats actually cared about democracy, they would listen to the actual American majority, instead of waging a propaganda war on the majority in order to manufacture a false consensus.  And, the majority of Americans do not support multicultural or "intersectional" ideology.  The liberal vision is on the decline and that's a good thing.

Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton disagrees. 

At the first Rainbow PUSH Coalition conference since the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson in February.  Pete Buttigieg and Hillary Clinton took to the stage in front of a small audience in Chicago this week to sell their Utopian future, but mostly they slandered the Trump Administration.  Their rhetoric continues to echo the message of the Biden era, that conservatives want the end of civil rights and voting rights in the US. 

Buttigieg asserted that the Trump Administration was "corrupt" and "corruption is bad".

The former DOT Secretary makes no mention of the fact that he shares a stage with Clinton, widely known as one of the most corrupt politicians in recent American history.  While Democrats spend endless media time trying to tie Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, it's the Clinton Family that is well documented as being truly friendly with the globalist pedo pimp.  Around 90% of Epstein's political contributions went to the Democratic Party including multiple donations to Hillary Clinton.  None of his donations went to Trump. 

Buttigieg faced extensive backlash for his handling of the pandemic lockdowns, including his avid support for draconian mandates which were ultimately found to be useless in stopping the spread of covid; and all over a virus with a 99.8% average survival rate.  He continues to echo the party line, calling for rigging of the Supreme Court to ensure Democrat supremacy.

Pete Buttigieg: We have to deal with a Supreme Court that is now a rogue Supreme Court. It’s time to think big. Nowhere in the constitution does it say there have to be nine justices... We could have 13.
pic.twitter.com/17epK62lyM

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) June 13, 2026

Buttigieg is expected to run in the 2028 Democrat primaries for President.  Though, he lacks any mainstream popularity and, like most Democrats, he continues to campaign as if he's running against Trump even though Trump is leaving office.

Clinton, on the other hand, seems less concerned with Trump and far more concerned with the larger conservative and anti-woke movements which have left Democrats stunned and bewildered.  Clinton calls these movements a "counter-revolution" which she believes is undermining the liberal order established over the last several decades. 

Clinton fearmongers with the usual rhetoric, claiming that civil rights and voting rights are under threat.

Hillary Clinton: "We are in a counterrevolution. It is a revolution to turn the clock back and take away the rights we have worked so hard to achieve. This counterrevolutionary crew in Washington right now doesn't want us to be a Rainbow Nation." pic.twitter.com/5sBnJuhwru

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 12, 2026

She is ostensibly referencing the end of redistricting using race-based gerrymandering, which exclusively worked in the favor of Democrats.  But, this was enforced by the Supreme Court, not Trump or the MAGA movement.  Clinton is also a vocal opponent of the Save Act, which would make proof of citizenship a requirement for voting in the US (a bill which is supported by around 80% of American voters). 

Her comments on the "Rainbow Nation" might be confusing for those who don't understand what this entails.  Jackson used "Rainbow" to describe a broad coalition of "marginalized groups" (Black Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, LGBTQ+ people, low wage workers, etc.) uniting for political power and social justice. His organization commonly promotes Marxist "intersectionality" and multiculturalism. 

Clinton has made similar anti-populist statements in recent months, arguing that the rise of American conservatism has the potential to break apart the liberal west.  At the Munich Security Conference in February, she participated in panels on what they call the “West-West Divide”, warning of democratic backsliding on human rights (including women’s and LGBTQ+ rights), and authoritarian dangers.

Clinton called for civil rights and grassroots networks to counter the weakening of liberal institutions.  She made the same call for popular opposition in Chicago. 

“We have to reconstitute the movements that moved us forward, that made it possible to claim we were trying to get to that more perfect union. They were not led by politically elected officials. They were led by clergy, they were led by business leaders, they were led by civic organizers, they were led by young people. So we don’t need to have a bunch of elected officials leading this new movement. We need to have it be from the bottom up, the grassroots, coming back to get organized and move forward again.”  

In other words, if they can't win (or steal) the elections and if they can't gain the majority approval of the voters, then they will turn to mob actions to disrupt reforms and force the public to accept woke ideology anyway.  Democrats only romanticize democracy when it works in their favor.  When it doesn't, they completely abandon it.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 19:15

AI's Core Flaw: "Mass Regurgitation Of Misinformation"

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

These immense hidden costs will not show up in GDP until they collapse the entire house of speculative gambling cards propping up the global economy.

I approach all AI topics with several things in mind. One is the nature of problems, which implicitly define what qualifies as solutions, and the resulting incentive to define the "problem" such that the "solution" happens to be the one we own and control.

So the "problem" AI solves is "corporate profits are too low," and so the "solution" is to replace costly human labor (made costlier by SickCare insurance and taxes on labor) with "cheaper" AI (cheaper because the full costs are hidden or subsidized).

My other lens: the economic, social and cultural consequences of AI as it is and AI hype, a topic I've explored most recently in Is AI Reversing Anti-Progress or Is It Accelerating It?, AI Data Centers Are Not the Railroads of Today and Inequality, AI and Digital Life Are Undermining Society.

Correspondent Mike Fasano recently submitted a succinct and telling summary of AI's insurmountable structural flaw: AI's inability to discern the difference between truth and falsehood, be it intentional misdirection / misinformation or errors generated by AI hallucinations, a systemic flaw which he summarized as mass regurgitation of misinformation:

*           *           *

"I read you post on AI and railroads. Here is another observation.

So far, AI has only regurgitative intelligence. It--at best--can collate and respond to queries on masses of acquired data.

But what if that data is wrong?

Who now believes the inflation or unemployment statistics? Virtually every human knows that those statistics are false.

Does AI know that?

And the problem goes much deeper.

The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, noted:

'It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.'

That being the case, can we rely up AI medical advice?

And that problem goes beyond medicine. It is now generally conceded that the inability to replicate scientific studies of any type has give rise to a 'replicability crisis' in science. Can we trust 'science' that cannot be proven to be accurate?

Any adult past the age of 40 knows that the above listing of questionable information sources is just the tip of the iceberg. We live in a sea of 'official' but false data.

Railroads could transport grain to cities, minerals to factories, manufactured goods to those needing those goods. That served a public purpose.

But what is the use of the mass regurgitation of misinformation? And is anyone subtracting the losses engendered by the utilization of inaccurate information from GDP?"

*           *           *

Thank you, Mike, for clarifying an essential point: the foundation of all "value" is fact, truth, accuracy and the transparency, replicability and accountability of the processes validating fact, truth, accuracy. If AI is incapable by its nature of validating all these, it's worse than useless--it's destructive on a system-wide scale.

The evidence of the systemic destruction is already overwhelming. Bogus "scientific papers" are already proliferating at an accelerating rate, making the task of identifying incorrect and fabricated (i.e. hallucinated by AI) data, processes and conclusions impossible due to the scale of the misinformation and the difficulty of identifying the misinformation buried inside superficially legitimate papers.

With both scientific and economic data and analysis now untrustworthy without exceedingly expensive, time-consuming vetting by human experts, where does this leave the "AI will automatically generate superabundance" hype? What's already clear--but inconvenient--is the mass adoption of inherently flawed AI is undermining the foundations of "value," however we wish to define it.

And as Mike also points out, this undermining of value has a financial consequence. We all know Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a superficial, distorting measure of "prosperity," and the structural distortions of GDP (Waste Is Growth) are amplified by the hidden destruction of transparency, replicability and accountability by AI slop, whether intentional (malicious, deceptive, fraudulent) or as the unavoidable consequence of AI's core flaw.

These immense hidden costs will not show up in GDP until they collapse the entire house of speculative gambling cards propping up the global economy. Only then will the structural damage being wrought by our increasing reliance on tools that cannot discern the difference between fact and fantasy / fabrication / hallucination become visible.

And by then, of course, the damage will be irreversible without extraordinary costs and sacrifices, sacrifices few will volunteer to bear.

Remember that AI isn't "thinking," "understanding" or "making judgments": AI tools are engines of linguistic automation, not engines of understanding. The simulation is not the thing simulated. AI is not a "mind," it is a prompt and a probability distribution.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 18:40