Individual Economists

Comedy Is Hot

The Big Picture -

 

So I’m looking through the midyear issue of “Pollstar” and there’s a chart for “Venues With Capacities Of 5,000 Or Less.”

Now if you’re a dedicated follower of the main “Pollstar
chart (if not fashion), you know it tends to be dominated by the usual suspects, mostly acts with years under their belts, playing big buildings. But it’s the smaller venues where acts break, so that’s why I was interested.

And I’d be lying if I told you I knew every act who appeared.

Now let’s be clear, these are not anomalies. This is a six month chart, you needed to do consistent business in order to triumph.

So starting with the 2,001-5,000 capacity venues…

Number one is Jerry Seinfeld, which is not surprising.

But I’d be lying if I told you I knew number two, Subtronics. Turns out he’s a deejay. That’s a world unto itself, based on word of mouth, a veritable underground scene when it comes to mainstream publicity. But people want to party. So, they’ll come to see the deejay du jour, in numbers.

#3 was Bert Kreischer, not exactly my cup of tea, but he’s a well-known comedian.

#4 Another act I had not heard of, Josiah Queen. Google tells me he’s a Christian contemporary artist, and that’s a world unto itself even more than deejays/EDM, one that would not normally fly on my radar screen.

#5 was Def Leppard. This act goes out seemingly every summer, I didn’t think they were even playing buildings this small. They represent an era, good for them.

#6 Mannheim Steamroller. An annual holiday event (this chart runs from November 13, 2025 to May 13, 2026).

#7 K40S. Now the funny thing is if you Google you end up getting results about a Xiaomi smartphone, they fill the entire first page. K40S, who I was unaware of, turns out to also be an EDM artist, but you have to Google ” K40S music” to discover this, the act doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page, never mind press, but they pulled in in excess of 3,000 people an evening, for a nightly gross of $142,412, and that’s not chump change.

#8 At this point legendary comedian Jim Gaffigan.

#9 Michael McIntyre, another person I’d never heard of. Turns out he’s a British comedian, and he’s 50!

#10 Josh Johnson, another comedian.

So if you’re doing the math, five of the ten highest grossing acts in what we used to call theatres are COMEDIANS!

Whoa, whoa, whoa… How about all those acts in the Spotify Top 50, aren’t they supposed to be driving the culture, isn’t music everything?

NOPE!

Now if you’re on social media…

On my TikTok and Instagram Reels I get a plethora of comedy clips. And in about two-thirds of the cases, I’ve never heard of the person. And almost all of them are funny to a degree. But I’m thinking how competitive it is. Anyone can do it, kinda like music, but building a fan base and earning a living?

Now comedy acts complain, that’s part of their routine, including about the travel and club owners, but I never encounter anyone protesting that they’re being screwed by the system, that they’re entitled to attention and a living, that’s the domain of “musicians.” How can the perspectives be so different? They both live and die on attention, and that delivers remuneration. And to make it in comedy, you must work live. I don’t see people posting clips from their bedrooms, sans audience. You’ve got to get out there. But there are a ton of people who make music who never work live, they can’t get the gigs.

Then again, there are fewer places to play.

But does that have something to do with the music?

I’d say so. People are willing to pay for entertainment, but it seems to be comedians who they want to see. And a comedian can’t bomb on a regular basis or they will no longer be able to work, they’ve got to succeed most of the time.

The bottom line is comedy has usurped music’s spot on the bleeding edge.

Sure, there are chains of clubs, and Netflix specials, but it’s still the wild west compared to music. In music everyone rails on about the labels and Live Nation and Ticketmaster, but in comedy, the acts know they must earn their success.

And I see the equivalent of open mic videos on social media. There are a slew of people who will do standup locally, but won’t go any further, because the response is not solid enough and they’re not willing to do the work. And you have to do the work if you’re a comedian. Even if you theoretically purchased your material, that’s only half of it, you need to know how to deliver it.

And comedians know no bounds, they’re unafraid, they don’t go on stage worried about alienating sponsors, they don’t think of clothing lines, they’re selling their identities, anything that compromises their identity will ultimately hit their bottom line, shortening their career.

If you want the truth, you go see a comedian.

That’s rarely the main feature in music. How could it be, with the music made by committee? Comedians are singular.  You need to have a personality and a point of view to have any success at all.

The bottom line here is the numbers do not lie, the public is responding.

And when you go down the chart to smaller buildings, comedians continue to punch above their weight.

It’s not like comedy is new, but fifty years ago when it came to hip comedians you had George Carlin and…maybe Robert Klein. And a bunch of Borscht Belt hangovers.

This is not the comedy of yore.

It’s comedians who are skewering politicians, and the excesses of the public too. That’s part of the act, ridiculing nincompoops with a profile and things that just don’t make sense. This is not Fox vs. MSNow, there’s not an underlying corporate agenda, comedians are outsiders, commenting on the happenings of the day and life in general. Sure, they want to get paid, but they harbor no dream of  going inside and taking over the jobs of the people they’re making fun of. Scratch that, we did have Al Franken, but you get what I mean.

In other words, comedy has usurped music’s power. And it’s so hot that it’s getting wannabes to participate. It’s exciting and it’s anything but fake.

And there’s no equipment and entourage necessary, if you make it, costs are low and you get paid quite handsomely.

But you’ve got to be good.

No, you’ve got to be GREAT! And competition is fierce, upping everybody’s game.

And the public is riveted.

 

~~~

Visit the archive:   http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

@Lefsetz  http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
–
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter

~~~

Originally published by Bob Lefsetz at the Leftsetz Letter

The post Comedy Is Hot appeared first on The Big Picture.

Five Dynamics That Make Sense Of An Increasingly Chaotic World

Zero Hedge -

Five Dynamics That Make Sense Of An Increasingly Chaotic World

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

These dynamics and the incentives they generate lead to systemic crisis and collapse.

As I noted in What Once Explained Everything Now Explains Nothing, the simplicity of either-or ideologies appeal to us. Identifying with an ideology is like having a favorite sports team: yea for our team! Our team good, other team bad.

The roots of this simplistic either-or are obvious: our tribe good, other tribe bad. The problems with this simplistic loyalty arise when we attempt to explain complex real-world dynamics with the comic-book simplicities of ideology, which extend from politics to culture to finance.

Rather than explain everything, they add a layer of mud rather than illuminate. The emotions of tribal / ideological identity and loyalty bypass our rational processes in favor of fight-or-flight limbic responses. Needless to say, these hormonal floods of emotions are the equivalent of smashing a rock on a machine to "problem-solve" what's broken in the device.

Fortunately, we have conceptual tools that bypass this smash-it-with-a-rock approach to making sense of a complex, increasingly chaotic world. These tools show up in all my work, stretching back 20 years.

1. The problem-solving power of self-organization. Humans are social animals because the ability to cooperate with others opens vast vistas of problem-solving power via self-organization: we self-organize to pursue mutual / shared interests in ways that benefit us all. This is the core function of tribes, i.e. self-organizing social structures in which our self-interest is advanced by advancing our mutual interests.

Both markets and society are self-organizing structures that arise to benefit individual self-interests by benefiting shared interests. In other words, both capitalist and socialist structures arise to serve shared interests. They are not either-or, they're both manifestations of the same dynamic. This is why the ideological either-or is such a misleading false choice.

Markets only function to everyone's benefit within a high-trust society. If there is no social structure that serves everyone's shared interests by limiting predation and exploitation, then you end up with the extractive "market forces" of totalitarianism, i.e. rackets, in which the few impoverish and immiserate the many to the exclusive benefit of the small cadre of insiders.

As I have taken pains to explain, private-sector totalitarianism is the "market" manifestation of totalitarianism, a privately owned version of political totalitarianism. The core dynamic is the same: the system exploits and immiserates the many to benefit the few.

When private equity snaps up the only manufacturers of fire engines and then jacks up prices without adding any value, this impoverishes and immiserates the many who must collectively pay more money for no added value to enrich the few who own / control the racket. There is no functional difference between a totalitarian state structure that enriches party insiders at the expense of the many and "markets" in which private equity enriches insiders at the expense of the many.

This leads to the second dynamic:

2. Diffusion and Concentration. Control--i.e. power--self-organizes around the dynamics of Diffusion and Concentration. Consider the power of a monopoly that can raise prices for all customers, customers who have no alternative because the monopoly controls the "market" / political structure. The gains of the price increases (value is unchanged but the cost rises) are concentrated in the hands of the monopoly's managers and owners while the impoverishment and immiseration is diffused across a vast spectrum of customers / taxpayers.

The incentives to raise prices is extremely high for insiders, as they will reap enormous personal gains. The incentives to resist a relatively small increase in price among the millions of customers / taxpayers is low, because life is already demanding, and what's the potential gain of fighting a losing battle against a powerful opponent over a small sum of money? The cost in time and effort is far more significant than the relatively modest financial benefit of winning the battle.

Diffusion and Concentration establish incentives which then organize the system. Consider a local government which sells bonds for a project that benefits only a small sector of the populace. The costs of this borrowing from future income to pay for benefits the few will enjoy today is spread not just over the entire current populace but over future taxpayers who weren't old enough to vote on the decisions they will pay for.

3. Benefits, Risks, Costs and Incentives. Those seeking to reduce their private risks and increase their private gains seek to concentrate the gains generated by control structures and distribute the risks and costs to others. Pull the strings that diffuse the costs and risks over a large populace and gather the gains into the hands of the insiders that manage the control structure, typically some form of monopoly, either public or private, or a fusion of public-private rackets.

So corporations that engage in blatantly illegal skimming and scamming face low risks--managers or owners are never imprisoned, and the fines paid when caught are modest compared to the profits skimmed--while the gains are extremely enticing. This diffusion of risk and concentration of potential gains establishes perverse incentives to increase extractive, exploitive, well-hidden rackets that impoverish and immiserate the many, but in doses small enough to avoid triggering push-back.

In a system that concentrates gains and diffuses risk, the "rational actor" seeks to maximize rackets that distribute impoverishment and immiseration to the many in small doses over time that attract little attention and are not significant enough to trigger an emotionally potent resistance. This leads to:

4. The Ratchet Effect. Costs ratchet up, value ratchets down, but in increments too small to change the risk-reward equation and over time so the pain of this impoverishment and immiseration is normalized as the populace herded into the corral habituates to the decay of value and the rise in costs.

So the parking ticket that once cost $15 is now $60, but exactly how does the individual citizen push back against the monopoly powers of the city government? Yes, the citizen can file a complaint with their representative, but the odds that this will lead to reduced parking fines is zero. The same is true should the citizen attend a public meeting and get 30 seconds to speak at the end of a long meeting when everyone just wants to go home.

Bureaucracies optimize The Ratchet Effect by their very nature. Regulators and administrators must "do something" to justify the high costs of their employment and benefits, and so they "serve the public" by incrementally adding to regulatory thickets that over time strip out self-organizing functionality and replace it with control structures that are impervious to reform.

Reformers seeking to reduce bureaucratic regulations and costs run into Diffusion and Concentration. Those whose jobs are threatened by cost-cutting are extremely motivated to spend every waking second resisting any cost-cutting, while those who stand to benefit--the citizens paying fines or business license fees--will only see a modest reduction in costs, too small to motivate them to self-organize in support of the reforms / cost cutting.

So these control structures, public and private, run on automatic, concentrating benefits in the hands of insiders and owners and distributing the risks and costs to the diffused many. The result is institutional sclerosis, and self-reinforcing resistance to any adaptation that benefits the many at the expense of the few insiders / managers / owners.

5. Semi-chaotic tests of the system's stability. Benoit Mandelbrot's book The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward explains how self-organizing structures such as markets--and by extension, all of life, which is also self-organizing--are prone to unpredictable cascades that operate outside the "normal, predictable" rules we've identified as "the way things work."

In terms of selective pressures and adaptation, these unpredictable crises test the system's adaptability and stability. In this way, they are essential to maintaining the adaptive "muscles" and coherence of the system which boil down to the dynamics of self-organization--precisely what all the control structures running on automatic have stripped out in the "rational actor" incentives to optimize concentrating gains and diffusing costs and risks.

These dynamics led to a rising wedge of asymmetric distributions of power, control, wealth and income that strip out self-organizing adaptation and the system's ability to survive unpredictable but inevitable crises. These dynamics and the incentives they generate lead to systemic crisis and collapse.

The only structures capable of re-organizing the post-collapse world are islands of coherence that managed to retain self-organizing capacities that escaped the control and predation of "rational actors" maximizing self-interest at the expense of the system's adaptive capacity and stability.

As noted above, these dynamics inform all my work. You can review all my books here.

My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 12:15

Sadiq Khan Said There Were No Grooming Gangs In London; Police Investigating 4,000 Cases

Zero Hedge -

Sadiq Khan Said There Were No Grooming Gangs In London; Police Investigating 4,000 Cases

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The London mayor who once insisted there was "no indication" of grooming gangs now faces explosive new scrutiny after a police review uncovered thousands of previously sidelined child sexual exploitation files.

The Metropolitan Police has identified more than 4,000 potential child sexual exploitation cases across London that may require reopening.

These stem from roughly 12,000 reports dating back to 2010, with about one in three previously closed after police or prosecutors took no further action.

The cases have now been referred to the National Crime Agency under Operation Beaconport for urgent assessment.

This development directly contradicts Sadiq Khan's past public statements. In January 2025, appearing before the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee, Khan repeatedly dodged questions from Conservative member Susan Hall about the scale of grooming gangs in the capital.

He claimed his understanding from regular police briefings was that there were "no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs" she was concerned about.

When pressed on how many such gangs operated in London, he asked her to clarify what she meant by the term.

Critics now describe the position as gaslighting. Hall called the scale "utterly disgraceful," noting it represents 4,000 young girls raped and sexually abused while authorities looked the other way or actively resisted scrutiny.

Khan's team now claims he has always supported leaving "no stone unturned." The gap between that line and his earlier blanket denials has not gone unnoticed.

This London revelation fits a wider, years-long scandal of institutional failure and political cowardice. Earlier this year we detailed how even the BBC exposed the scale of grooming activity in the capital under Khan's watch.

Separate investigations laid bare mini-mart operations where vulnerable children were plied with alcohol and cigarettes in exchange for sexual abuse. Illegal shops were caught handing out free vapes to kids in return for sexual favours. And the weary response from parts of the establishment often boiled down to telling victims and the public to simply "get over it."

The common thread remains the same: authorities slow-walked or buried evidence, prioritised community relations over child safety, and treated any mention of ethnic or cultural patterns as radioactive.

None of this emerged in a vacuum. Long before the current review, the machinery of denial was already well oiled. Official files had ethnicity redacted. In two-thirds of cases, perpetrator background went unrecorded.

Police in some areas told victims the Asian men who abused them were "probably not going to catch them."

A 2020 Home Office report, relying on hopelessly incomplete data, pushed the false narrative that most grooming perpetrators were white - a claim parroted in Parliament and by broadcasters even after it was exposed as statistical sleight-of-hand.

The motivation was always the same: fear of "racism" accusations, dread of community tension, and the overriding imperative to protect the narrative that mass immigration and multiculturalism have been an unalloyed success.

Working-class girls, often from broken homes or care systems, paid the price while officials and media looked the other way or actively smeared whistleblowers.

London's current review notes a broader mix of offender backgrounds than the classic Pakistani-heritage networks documented in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and elsewhere. That distinction does not erase the scale of what was ignored or the political class that spent years insisting the problem did not exist in the capital.

Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has already warned that reopening cases will require extra officers and resources on top of the force's existing load of around 2,000 sexual offences a month. Victims are being urged to come forward again, with promises they will be listened to this time.

The public is entitled to ask harder questions. What did Khan know and when? Why did the Met and CPS close so many files prematurely? Who decided that protecting certain community sensitivities outweighed protecting British children?

And why has the political class that championed open borders and diversity dogma shown such consistent reluctance to confront the specific cultural and integration failures that allowed these networks to operate for so long in plain sight?

This London revelation drops just days after the release of Rupert Lowe's Rape Gang Inquiry Report, which documented a coordinated national campaign of rape, torture and abuse against up to 250,000 British girls by predominantly Muslim grooming gangs operating across 149 local authority districts.

Lowe's findings laid bare the same pattern of police warnings to rapists, political interference and deliberate suppression of evidence that protected predators for decades while treating working-class girls as disposable.

Sadiq Khan remains in office. The same establishment voices that spent years minimising or denying the problem now urge calm and more reviews. The British public has watched this movie before. The ending is always the same: more victims, more excuses, more demands that everyone just move on.

The only thing that has changed is the number - now over 4,000 in London alone - and the growing realisation that the denial was never accidental.

Real justice requires more than another inquiry. It requires consequences for those who chose political expediency over the safety of the vulnerable. British girls deserve better than gaslighting from City Hall. They still do. The denial only ends when enough people refuse to look away.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 11:05

Saudi Aramco Helicopter Crash Kills 14 In Ras Tanura , Cause Unknown

Zero Hedge -

Saudi Aramco Helicopter Crash Kills 14 In Ras Tanura , Cause Unknown

One week after a mysterious explosion - attributed to a "technical incident" - at Qatar's massive Ras Laffan industrial city killed dozens and set back restoration and recovery efforts at the giant LNG production facility by weeks if not months, a helicopter belonging to Saudi ​oil giant Aramco crashed on Sunday ‌in Ras Tanura on Saudi Arabia's eastern coast on the Gulf, west of the Strait of ​Hormuz, killing 14 nationals, the state ​news agency reported, adding that the ⁠cause was unknown.

Aramco had resumed crude oil loadings ​on Friday at its Ras Tanura terminal ​in the Gulf after they were halted for nearly four months.

"The relevant authorities have launched a ​full investigation to determine the cause ​of the crash," the state news agency added.

Aramco did ‌not ⁠respond immediately to an emailed request for comment.

The incident took place at 6 a.m. local time (0300 GMT), the state agency ​said, without providing ​further ⁠details.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, had joined a rush ​to move cargoes after Middle ​East ⁠producers ramped up oil and gas output and exports ahead of an interim deal ⁠to ​halt the war between the ​United States and Iran.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 10:30

Why Are Europeans Leaving Their Own Countries?

Zero Hedge -

Why Are Europeans Leaving Their Own Countries?

While immigration often dominates discussions about Europe’s changing population, another migration trend receives far less attention: many countries are also losing their own native-born citizens.

This visualization, created by DataPulse using Eurostat data via Visual Capitalist, ranks selected European countries by the net migration of native-born residents in 2024. Only Lithuania and Bulgaria recorded net gains, while Germany, Italy, Sweden, and several other major economies saw more locally born citizens leave than return.

The pattern reflects a mix of economic opportunity, housing affordability, demographic change, and labor mobility within Europe, all of which are reshaping where people choose to build their careers and lives.

The Countries Seeing the Biggest Losses

The table below shows net migration of native-born citizens per 1,000 inhabitants across selected European countries.

Lithuania stands out with a positive rate of 2.67 per 1,000 inhabitants, while Bulgaria also records a modest gain. At the opposite end, Luxembourg posted the largest net loss, followed by Belgium, Sweden, Estonia, and Romania.

Notably, several of Europe’s largest economies, including Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, also show negative balances, indicating that more native-born residents are leaving than returning.

Why Are Native Europeans Leaving?

For many workers, especially younger and highly educated professionals, migration is driven by the search for better wages, stronger career prospects, and improved quality of life. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe have long experienced outward migration toward larger labor markets in Western Europe.

At the same time, rising housing costs, labor shortages, and demographic pressures are encouraging some workers to look beyond their home countries. Similar dynamics can be seen globally, where migration increasingly plays a role in population growth and workforce sustainability.

A Growing Demographic Challenge

Population researchers increasingly warn that migration alone cannot fully offset Europe’s broader demographic headwinds. Fertility rates remain below replacement levels across much of the continent, while populations continue to age.

When highly skilled workers leave and do not return, the effects can extend beyond population figures. Regions may face slower economic growth, labor shortages, and reduced innovation capacity. As Europe navigates demographic decline, retaining talent may become just as important as attracting newcomers.

Migration patterns continue to reshape economies and societies around the world. Explore Visualizing the World’s Busiest Migration Corridors on the Voronoi app to see how people move between countries at a global scale.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 09:55

IPO Market For AI Freezes Up While The Nuclear SPAC Market Runs Hot 

Zero Hedge -

IPO Market For AI Freezes Up While The Nuclear SPAC Market Runs Hot 

While it looks like OpenAI's IPO has been put on ice as they try to paint SpaceX as the scapegoat, there's still one sector that simply can't launch the IPOs and SPACs fast enough. 

After an announcement earlier this year that saw nuclear industrial company Holtec file privately for an IPO, one of the leading reactor developers X-energy debuted on the public market at an almost $10 billion valuation.

Since then, microreactor developer Hadron Energy has completed their SPAC merger and has subsequently been digging itself deeper into a hole every passing day…

There's now another reactor developer, NuCube, finding its way to the public market through a SPAC merger. This follows a similar announcement from European reactor developer newcleo that we detailed last month.

The company is joining a rapidly growing pool of startups looking to capitalize on the national energy security theme, with the added bonus of the AI revolution demanding a nuclear renaissance. Adding NuCube to the list, the number of public reactor development companies has now reached double digits:

  • SMR - NuScale Power
  • OKLO - Oklo Inc
  • NNE - NANO Nuclear Energy 
  • IMSR - Terrestrial Energy
  • NKLR - Terra Innovatum
  • HDRN - Hadron Energy
  • XE - X-energy
  • FISN - Deep Fission
  • NHIC (NWCL) - Newcleo
  • LPBB (tbd) - NuCube Energy

In the press release, the company highlights their current relationship with Halliburton as cause for differentiation from other reactor developers still working on their supply chain. Outside of recent acceptance for the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad program, the company doesn't appear to have any MOUs or LOIs lined up with potential off-takers. 

The reactor design is unique, but shares similarities with designs from Westinghouse and Antares. Their “solid-state microreactors” are not designed to utilize traditional coolants or pumps, but instead will rely on advanced heat wicking methods similar to what's used in electronics. 

With respect to historical precedence, this type of reactor design has some of the least operational experience in the nuclear industry's history. 

Some of the nuclear names have found themselves trading well above their entry price from going public, including Oklo and NANO Nuclear. But some of the other names have fared far more miserably…
 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 08:45

IPO Market For AI Freezes Up While The Nuclear SPAC Market Runs Hot 

Zero Hedge -

IPO Market For AI Freezes Up While The Nuclear SPAC Market Runs Hot 

While it looks like OpenAI's IPO has been put on ice as they try to paint SpaceX as the scapegoat, there's still one sector that simply can't launch the IPOs and SPACs fast enough. 

After an announcement earlier this year that saw nuclear industrial company Holtec file privately for an IPO, one of the leading reactor developers X-energy debuted on the public market at an almost $10 billion valuation.

Since then, microreactor developer Hadron Energy has completed their SPAC merger and has subsequently been digging itself deeper into a hole every passing day…

There's now another reactor developer, NuCube, finding its way to the public market through a SPAC merger. This follows a similar announcement from European reactor developer newcleo that we detailed last month.

The company is joining a rapidly growing pool of startups looking to capitalize on the national energy security theme, with the added bonus of the AI revolution demanding a nuclear renaissance. Adding NuCube to the list, the number of public reactor development companies has now reached double digits:

  • SMR - NuScale Power
  • OKLO - Oklo Inc
  • NNE - NANO Nuclear Energy 
  • IMSR - Terrestrial Energy
  • NKLR - Terra Innovatum
  • HDRN - Hadron Energy
  • XE - X-energy
  • FISN - Deep Fission
  • NHIC (NWCL) - Newcleo
  • LPBB (tbd) - NuCube Energy

In the press release, the company highlights their current relationship with Halliburton as cause for differentiation from other reactor developers still working on their supply chain. Outside of recent acceptance for the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad program, the company doesn't appear to have any MOUs or LOIs lined up with potential off-takers. 

The reactor design is unique, but shares similarities with designs from Westinghouse and Antares. Their “solid-state microreactors” are not designed to utilize traditional coolants or pumps, but instead will rely on advanced heat wicking methods similar to what's used in electronics. 

With respect to historical precedence, this type of reactor design has some of the least operational experience in the nuclear industry's history. 

Some of the nuclear names have found themselves trading well above their entry price from going public, including Oklo and NANO Nuclear. But some of the other names have fared far more miserably…
 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 08:45

Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong... We Apparently Can't Expect As Much From Al Gore

Zero Hedge -

Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong... We Apparently Can't Expect As Much From Al Gore

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

When it comes to scientific theories, even some of history's most respected and renowned people and institutions have graciously admitted when they were wrong when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

It took 359 years, but eventually the Catholic Church conceded in 1992 that the church was wrong and Galileo Galilei was right - the Earth revolves around the sun.

Throughout the 18th century, chemists widely believed that a substance called phlogiston was released when materials were burned. But when Antoine Lavoisier demonstrated that many metals often became heavier when burned - the opposite of the phlogiston theory - his contemporaries humbly admitted their error and praised his experiments.

And when scientists, including Edwin Hubble in 1929, demonstrated that the universe is expanding rather than remaining static, as Albert Einstein had theorized, even the revered Einstein readily admitted he was wrong, calling it "my biggest blunder."

Twenty years ago, in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore released his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which included ominous and even hysterical warnings about a coming climate apocalypse if mankind did not dramatically change its ways. In the two decades since its release, the film's most dire warnings have proven to be inaccurate.

Examining Gore's film on the anniversary of its release, several writers have pointed out its most glaring errors. For instance, writing for Newsweek, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, notes several calamitous predictions in the film that time has proven wrong: deaths from climate-related disasters have actually plummeted; hurricane frequency and intensity have declined; globally, areas burned by wildfires have decreased over the past quarter century; and the supposedly endangered polar bear population - a memorable visual from the Gore film - has more than doubled from the 1960s to today.

"Gore's apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly," Lomborg concludes.

Over the years, countless critics have pointed out the errors both in Gore's film and in his ensuing personal crusade as, like Don Quixote, he continues tilting at windmills (while ironically advocating for their proliferation).

Faced with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence refuting his original hypotheses, one might assume that Gore - like the Catholic Church, the chemists of the 18 th century, and even the great Albert Einstein - would humbly concede his mistakes.

One would be wrong.

In a recent interview marking the anniversary of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore found an uncritical partner in the form of ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee, who couldn't have presented the former vice president in a more heartwarming light if she had somehow commissioned the late Norman Rockwell to paint his portrait.

Despite the obvious numerous mistakes and shortcomings in his film, Gore insisted that he and the scientists he relied upon have been right all along - while simultaneously demonstrating that his penchant for hyperbole remains unabated.

"The scientists were dead right on all the important elements of it," Gore insisted, adding that "it really is insane that we are continuing to use the sky as an open sewer and we're trapping so much heat every day it's equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth."

Huh? Would you repeat that please?

It's "equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth."

Thanks.

It is little wonder that Gore finds himself so easily mocked. Gore's atomic bomb analogy originated from climate alarmists who have been using it for years, adding a few hundred thousand to the estimate of bombs every so often.

But for anyone remotely familiar with history, the claim conjures images of people dropping like flies every day because of global warming, since the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 instantly killed more than 100,000 people. Such over-the-top depictions are why so many find it so hard to take seriously the kind of climate change threats that come from the radical left.

Unfortunately for the average citizen - both in the U.S. and worldwide - the far-left (formerly mainstream) media's enthusiasm for propping up Gore and the climate craze have real-world consequences. Despite mountains of conflicting evidence, the media provides cover for leftwing government types who, when in power, throw billions of dollars toward scientifically unsupported efforts to replace our most affordable and reliable energy resources with defective "alternatives" made feasible only because of taxpayer subsidies.

That's why Americans deserve the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act either passed into law by Congress, put into effect by presidential executive order, or at the very least embedded into policy by agency rule. While some states are enacting their own versions of ARC-ES, U.S. citizens from coast to coast deserve to be protected from the whims of the climate cult and their self-styled prophets.

We apparently can't expect Al Gore to show the class of Albert Einstein and admit he was wrong. But it's entirely realistic to expect our government to protect us from ever again implementing energy policies based on his mistakes. Doing so has already cost us far too much.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 08:10

Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong... We Apparently Can't Expect As Much From Al Gore

Zero Hedge -

Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong... We Apparently Can't Expect As Much From Al Gore

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

When it comes to scientific theories, even some of history's most respected and renowned people and institutions have graciously admitted when they were wrong when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

It took 359 years, but eventually the Catholic Church conceded in 1992 that the church was wrong and Galileo Galilei was right - the Earth revolves around the sun.

Throughout the 18th century, chemists widely believed that a substance called phlogiston was released when materials were burned. But when Antoine Lavoisier demonstrated that many metals often became heavier when burned - the opposite of the phlogiston theory - his contemporaries humbly admitted their error and praised his experiments.

And when scientists, including Edwin Hubble in 1929, demonstrated that the universe is expanding rather than remaining static, as Albert Einstein had theorized, even the revered Einstein readily admitted he was wrong, calling it "my biggest blunder."

Twenty years ago, in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore released his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which included ominous and even hysterical warnings about a coming climate apocalypse if mankind did not dramatically change its ways. In the two decades since its release, the film's most dire warnings have proven to be inaccurate.

Examining Gore's film on the anniversary of its release, several writers have pointed out its most glaring errors. For instance, writing for Newsweek, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, notes several calamitous predictions in the film that time has proven wrong: deaths from climate-related disasters have actually plummeted; hurricane frequency and intensity have declined; globally, areas burned by wildfires have decreased over the past quarter century; and the supposedly endangered polar bear population - a memorable visual from the Gore film - has more than doubled from the 1960s to today.

"Gore's apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly," Lomborg concludes.

Over the years, countless critics have pointed out the errors both in Gore's film and in his ensuing personal crusade as, like Don Quixote, he continues tilting at windmills (while ironically advocating for their proliferation).

Faced with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence refuting his original hypotheses, one might assume that Gore - like the Catholic Church, the chemists of the 18 th century, and even the great Albert Einstein - would humbly concede his mistakes.

One would be wrong.

In a recent interview marking the anniversary of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore found an uncritical partner in the form of ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee, who couldn't have presented the former vice president in a more heartwarming light if she had somehow commissioned the late Norman Rockwell to paint his portrait.

Despite the obvious numerous mistakes and shortcomings in his film, Gore insisted that he and the scientists he relied upon have been right all along - while simultaneously demonstrating that his penchant for hyperbole remains unabated.

"The scientists were dead right on all the important elements of it," Gore insisted, adding that "it really is insane that we are continuing to use the sky as an open sewer and we're trapping so much heat every day it's equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth."

Huh? Would you repeat that please?

It's "equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth."

Thanks.

It is little wonder that Gore finds himself so easily mocked. Gore's atomic bomb analogy originated from climate alarmists who have been using it for years, adding a few hundred thousand to the estimate of bombs every so often.

But for anyone remotely familiar with history, the claim conjures images of people dropping like flies every day because of global warming, since the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 instantly killed more than 100,000 people. Such over-the-top depictions are why so many find it so hard to take seriously the kind of climate change threats that come from the radical left.

Unfortunately for the average citizen - both in the U.S. and worldwide - the far-left (formerly mainstream) media's enthusiasm for propping up Gore and the climate craze have real-world consequences. Despite mountains of conflicting evidence, the media provides cover for leftwing government types who, when in power, throw billions of dollars toward scientifically unsupported efforts to replace our most affordable and reliable energy resources with defective "alternatives" made feasible only because of taxpayer subsidies.

That's why Americans deserve the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act either passed into law by Congress, put into effect by presidential executive order, or at the very least embedded into policy by agency rule. While some states are enacting their own versions of ARC-ES, U.S. citizens from coast to coast deserve to be protected from the whims of the climate cult and their self-styled prophets.

We apparently can't expect Al Gore to show the class of Albert Einstein and admit he was wrong. But it's entirely realistic to expect our government to protect us from ever again implementing energy policies based on his mistakes. Doing so has already cost us far too much.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 08:10

These Are The Car Brands With The Fewest Problems In 2026

Zero Hedge -

These Are The Car Brands With The Fewest Problems In 2026

Drivers reported more vehicle problems this year than ever before, but some automakers continue to stand out for reliability.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, ranks the car brands with the fewest reported problems in 2026 based on J.D. Power’s Problems Per 100 Vehicles (PP100) metric. Lower scores indicate fewer owner-reported issues and better long-term dependability.

The data comes from the J.D. Power 2026 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study, which measures problems experienced by original owners of three-year-old vehicles.

While Lexus once again topped the rankings, the broader industry moved in the opposite direction. Owners reported a record 204 problems per 100 vehicles on average, driven largely by infotainment, smartphone connectivity, and software-related issues.

Lexus Extends Its Reliability Lead

Lexus ranked first for the fourth consecutive year, recording just 151 problems per 100 vehicles.

Buick placed second at 160 PP100, while MINI rounded out the top three with 168.

Several Japanese automakers performed well throughout the rankings.

Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Mazda all finished above the industry average, reinforcing Japan’s long-standing reputation for dependable vehicle manufacturing.

Luxury brands also demonstrated strong reliability. Cadillac, Porsche, BMW, and Genesis all ranked in the upper half of the study.

Software Problems Are Becoming the Biggest Headache

Although mechanical reliability has improved in many areas, technology-related issues continue to worsen.

J.D. Power found that infotainment systems were the most problematic of the nine categories measured, making software a larger concern than traditional mechanical components.

Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connectivity problems remained the industry’s single most-reported issue for a third consecutive year.

Powertrain Differences Continue to Emerge

The study also highlighted significant differences between vehicle powertrains.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles were the least dependable category, recording 281 problems per 100 vehicles, a sharp increase from the previous year.

By contrast, gasoline-powered vehicles were the only powertrain type to show improvement, averaging 198 PP100.

At the bottom of the rankings, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Land Rover recorded the highest problem rates. Volkswagen posted 301 PP100.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out One in Four Cars Sold in 2025 Was Electric on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 07:35

These Are The Car Brands With The Fewest Problems In 2026

Zero Hedge -

These Are The Car Brands With The Fewest Problems In 2026

Drivers reported more vehicle problems this year than ever before, but some automakers continue to stand out for reliability.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, ranks the car brands with the fewest reported problems in 2026 based on J.D. Power’s Problems Per 100 Vehicles (PP100) metric. Lower scores indicate fewer owner-reported issues and better long-term dependability.

The data comes from the J.D. Power 2026 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study, which measures problems experienced by original owners of three-year-old vehicles.

While Lexus once again topped the rankings, the broader industry moved in the opposite direction. Owners reported a record 204 problems per 100 vehicles on average, driven largely by infotainment, smartphone connectivity, and software-related issues.

Lexus Extends Its Reliability Lead

Lexus ranked first for the fourth consecutive year, recording just 151 problems per 100 vehicles.

Buick placed second at 160 PP100, while MINI rounded out the top three with 168.

Several Japanese automakers performed well throughout the rankings.

Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Mazda all finished above the industry average, reinforcing Japan’s long-standing reputation for dependable vehicle manufacturing.

Luxury brands also demonstrated strong reliability. Cadillac, Porsche, BMW, and Genesis all ranked in the upper half of the study.

Software Problems Are Becoming the Biggest Headache

Although mechanical reliability has improved in many areas, technology-related issues continue to worsen.

J.D. Power found that infotainment systems were the most problematic of the nine categories measured, making software a larger concern than traditional mechanical components.

Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connectivity problems remained the industry’s single most-reported issue for a third consecutive year.

Powertrain Differences Continue to Emerge

The study also highlighted significant differences between vehicle powertrains.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles were the least dependable category, recording 281 problems per 100 vehicles, a sharp increase from the previous year.

By contrast, gasoline-powered vehicles were the only powertrain type to show improvement, averaging 198 PP100.

At the bottom of the rankings, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Land Rover recorded the highest problem rates. Volkswagen posted 301 PP100.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out One in Four Cars Sold in 2025 Was Electric on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 07:35

UK Parents Face Five-Year Jail Terms For Questioning Their Child's Gender 'Transition'

Zero Hedge -

UK Parents Face Five-Year Jail Terms For Questioning Their Child's Gender 'Transition'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

While schools have been given the green light to socially transition four-year-olds and exam boards slip pro-trans propaganda into Spanish GCSE materials, the government has published a draft bill that threatens parents, teachers and doctors with up to five years in prison for so-called conversion practices.

The new legislation, unveiled by Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey, targets efforts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Penalties include unlimited fines, five-year prison sentences, or both. The government frames it as protection against abuse, citing reports of beatings, rape, threats, manipulation and even exorcisms.

Bailey stated: "Conversion practices are driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful and can be forcibly changed. No-one should face abuse just because of who they are. That's why we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to ban abusive conversion practices. Legal loopholes have left LGBT+ people vulnerable to these harmful acts which is why we must legislate."

Critics warn the wording is dangerously vague. Normal parental concern, exploratory conversations, or even citing the weak evidence base for youth transitions could be twisted into criminal "conversion practices."

Recent approval of an NHS puberty blocker trial for children under 16 has only heightened fears that the bill arrives amid a broader push to lock in affirmation-only approaches.

Official guidance for schools makes clear that primary-age children, including those as young as four, can socially transition at school by changing pronouns and names.

The document claims such steps "should happen very rarely" and that parents should be involved in the "vast majority" of cases. In practice, campaigners say activist influence on teachers has already created a culture where affirmation is the default and caution is suspect.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters described schools as having "indoctrinated children" for a decade under pressure from groups like Stonewall and Mermaids. She said the government "has started a de-radicalisation programme but we actually need to de-radicalise a whole generation of teachers" and that "only total clarity will stop it."

Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, called the notion that a child can start school as a girl and graduate as a boy "a dangerous fairytale." This guidance persists even after the Cass Review found the evidence for puberty blockers and medical pathways "remarkably weak" and led to restrictions on routine use for under-18s.

In a related revelation, campaigners have exposed how Pearson's GCSE Spanish revision guide inserts pro-trans messaging into language learning.

Students are taught phrases expressing that they "follow/admire" someone who "fights/fought" for transgender causes, turning vocabulary exercises into vehicles for ideological approval.

The exam board's own specification adds vocabulary for "trans" and "non-binary," instructs assessors to recognise gender-neutral pronouns and invented adjectival endings, and effectively rewards ideological conformity in speaking and writing tasks.

Parents and campaigners argue this is not language education. It is political indoctrination delivered through compulsory schooling, normalising contested ideas about identity while children are still mastering basic grammar.

As we have previously highlighted, more than 650 families represented by the Bayswater Support Group have complained to Ofcom about the BBC's systematic promotion of transgender ideology in children's output over nearly a decade.

Shows aimed at pre-schoolers and primary ages have featured non-binary characters, storylines presenting young children as transgender based on stereotypical play, and uncritical portrayals of medical transition.

A Bayswater Support Group spokesman said: "For the past decade, the constant stream of propaganda about gender and trans activism the BBC has transmitted has played a significant role in creating a dangerous culture for children. Specifically, non-conforming children who have been led to believe simplistic identity labels and extreme medical interventions can resolve complex feelings of adolescent and neurodevelopmental distress. The end result of this is a generation of teens and young adults who have come to severe harm, frequently self-diagnosed and self-medicated, estranged from families."

The group accused the BBC of breaching Ofcom rules on impartiality, accuracy and child protection, and of smearing concerned parents rather than examining its own output.

Meanwhile, children's poet and author Rachel Rooney saw her career destroyed after publishing My Body is Me!, a short book encouraging young children to accept their natural bodies. Trans activists branded it "terrorist propaganda" and "transphobic." She faced death threats, professional blacklisting, publisher distancing and event cancellations.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Rooney said: "This is the book that ended my career." She added: "You can't tell a child their body is wonderful while also encouraging them to believe they are the opposite sex. It's not rocket science." Rooney noted she expected activist attacks but was shocked by the response from industry colleagues who suddenly blocked her or apologised internally for her views. She has since announced she has given up writing children's books.

Her experience illustrates the chilling effect on anyone who states the obvious: no child can change sex.

In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex. Delivering the judgment, Lord Hodge stated: "The terms 'woman' and 'sex' refer to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act 2010."

The case, brought by For Women Scotland, clarified that individuals holding Gender Recognition Certificates are not legally women for the purposes of single-sex protections, quotas or spaces. J.K. Rowling praised the "three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women" who secured the victory, noting they had "protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."

That clear legal affirmation of biological reality has not slowed the institutional drive to embed gender ideology in schools, media, exam materials and now criminal law.

The through-line is unmistakable. While evidence of harm from social and medical transition of minors mounts, while the highest court has reaffirmed biological sex, and while ordinary parents simply want to protect their children from experimental pathways, the state is preparing to criminalise resistance. Exploratory talk or even polite disagreement risks being recast as abuse punishable by years behind bars.

Parents have the primary duty and right to safeguard their children's bodies and minds. Biology is not bigotry. Dissent is not conversion therapy. The government's approach inverts reality: it threatens jail for those defending children while actively enabling the spread of contested ideology to the youngest ages. That is not protection. It is state-backed ideological enforcement.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 07:00

UK Parents Face Five-Year Jail Terms For Questioning Their Child's Gender 'Transition'

Zero Hedge -

UK Parents Face Five-Year Jail Terms For Questioning Their Child's Gender 'Transition'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

While schools have been given the green light to socially transition four-year-olds and exam boards slip pro-trans propaganda into Spanish GCSE materials, the government has published a draft bill that threatens parents, teachers and doctors with up to five years in prison for so-called conversion practices.

The new legislation, unveiled by Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey, targets efforts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Penalties include unlimited fines, five-year prison sentences, or both. The government frames it as protection against abuse, citing reports of beatings, rape, threats, manipulation and even exorcisms.

Bailey stated: "Conversion practices are driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful and can be forcibly changed. No-one should face abuse just because of who they are. That's why we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to ban abusive conversion practices. Legal loopholes have left LGBT+ people vulnerable to these harmful acts which is why we must legislate."

Critics warn the wording is dangerously vague. Normal parental concern, exploratory conversations, or even citing the weak evidence base for youth transitions could be twisted into criminal "conversion practices."

Recent approval of an NHS puberty blocker trial for children under 16 has only heightened fears that the bill arrives amid a broader push to lock in affirmation-only approaches.

Official guidance for schools makes clear that primary-age children, including those as young as four, can socially transition at school by changing pronouns and names.

The document claims such steps "should happen very rarely" and that parents should be involved in the "vast majority" of cases. In practice, campaigners say activist influence on teachers has already created a culture where affirmation is the default and caution is suspect.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters described schools as having "indoctrinated children" for a decade under pressure from groups like Stonewall and Mermaids. She said the government "has started a de-radicalisation programme but we actually need to de-radicalise a whole generation of teachers" and that "only total clarity will stop it."

Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, called the notion that a child can start school as a girl and graduate as a boy "a dangerous fairytale." This guidance persists even after the Cass Review found the evidence for puberty blockers and medical pathways "remarkably weak" and led to restrictions on routine use for under-18s.

In a related revelation, campaigners have exposed how Pearson's GCSE Spanish revision guide inserts pro-trans messaging into language learning.

Students are taught phrases expressing that they "follow/admire" someone who "fights/fought" for transgender causes, turning vocabulary exercises into vehicles for ideological approval.

The exam board's own specification adds vocabulary for "trans" and "non-binary," instructs assessors to recognise gender-neutral pronouns and invented adjectival endings, and effectively rewards ideological conformity in speaking and writing tasks.

Parents and campaigners argue this is not language education. It is political indoctrination delivered through compulsory schooling, normalising contested ideas about identity while children are still mastering basic grammar.

As we have previously highlighted, more than 650 families represented by the Bayswater Support Group have complained to Ofcom about the BBC's systematic promotion of transgender ideology in children's output over nearly a decade.

Shows aimed at pre-schoolers and primary ages have featured non-binary characters, storylines presenting young children as transgender based on stereotypical play, and uncritical portrayals of medical transition.

A Bayswater Support Group spokesman said: "For the past decade, the constant stream of propaganda about gender and trans activism the BBC has transmitted has played a significant role in creating a dangerous culture for children. Specifically, non-conforming children who have been led to believe simplistic identity labels and extreme medical interventions can resolve complex feelings of adolescent and neurodevelopmental distress. The end result of this is a generation of teens and young adults who have come to severe harm, frequently self-diagnosed and self-medicated, estranged from families."

The group accused the BBC of breaching Ofcom rules on impartiality, accuracy and child protection, and of smearing concerned parents rather than examining its own output.

Meanwhile, children's poet and author Rachel Rooney saw her career destroyed after publishing My Body is Me!, a short book encouraging young children to accept their natural bodies. Trans activists branded it "terrorist propaganda" and "transphobic." She faced death threats, professional blacklisting, publisher distancing and event cancellations.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Rooney said: "This is the book that ended my career." She added: "You can't tell a child their body is wonderful while also encouraging them to believe they are the opposite sex. It's not rocket science." Rooney noted she expected activist attacks but was shocked by the response from industry colleagues who suddenly blocked her or apologised internally for her views. She has since announced she has given up writing children's books.

Her experience illustrates the chilling effect on anyone who states the obvious: no child can change sex.

In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex. Delivering the judgment, Lord Hodge stated: "The terms 'woman' and 'sex' refer to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act 2010."

The case, brought by For Women Scotland, clarified that individuals holding Gender Recognition Certificates are not legally women for the purposes of single-sex protections, quotas or spaces. J.K. Rowling praised the "three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women" who secured the victory, noting they had "protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."

That clear legal affirmation of biological reality has not slowed the institutional drive to embed gender ideology in schools, media, exam materials and now criminal law.

The through-line is unmistakable. While evidence of harm from social and medical transition of minors mounts, while the highest court has reaffirmed biological sex, and while ordinary parents simply want to protect their children from experimental pathways, the state is preparing to criminalise resistance. Exploratory talk or even polite disagreement risks being recast as abuse punishable by years behind bars.

Parents have the primary duty and right to safeguard their children's bodies and minds. Biology is not bigotry. Dissent is not conversion therapy. The government's approach inverts reality: it threatens jail for those defending children while actively enabling the spread of contested ideology to the youngest ages. That is not protection. It is state-backed ideological enforcement.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/28/2026 - 07:00

10 Sunday Reads

The Big Picture -

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• The deadliest branch of al-Qaeda on earth runs the ground the United States walked away from. You’ve probably never heard its name: JAMA’AT NUSRAT AL-ISLAM WAL-MUSLIMIN A detailed open-source profile of the Sahel’s most potent jihadist coalition. Niche, sober, and a useful primer on a conflict that rarely makes the front page. ( (The Omission)

• A Generational Collapse in Reading: Reading in America has become deeply polarized. Most books are now read by a small minority of heavy readers, while a large share of Americans reads none at all. Neil Howe’s shop charts the steady disappearance of the habit. Pairs grimly with everything else competing for our attention spans. (Demography Unplugged)

• They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket—but None of It Was Real. WSJ on the influencer ecosystem fabricating Polymarket P&L screenshots to sell betting subscriptions. The Polymarket-content economy is its own scam category now. The prediction market has flooded social media with deceptive videos by paid creators, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation (Wall Street Journal)

• Visa and Mastercard: The Original Gangsters of Electronic Collusion: A pointed antitrust argument against the payments duopoly that taxes every swipe. The swipe-fee fight, made readable. Pending legislation would force Visa and Mastercard to compete for merchant business and crack the cartel they’ve formed with banks. (The Sling)

• The Deadly Rise of Giant Trucks and S.U.V.s. In the early 2000s, more than half of the passenger vehicles on American roads were traditional cars like sedans. Their hoods were low to the ground. NYT’s interactive on the pedestrian-fatality consequence of the ever-larger U.S. light-truck fleet. The visualizations do the heavy lifting. (New York Times)

• Tulsi Gabbard, her guru and the mysterious messages that helped shape her political career: I obtained hundreds of confidential memos detailing politics and policy guidance for Gabbard from her years in Congress, then embarked on a quest to identify who was behind them. (Washington Post)

• A Citizen’s Guide to Ken Paxton: Paxton’s victory was even more impressive considering the ethical controversies that have plagued his tenure as an elected official. As Attorney General, Paxton has been indicted on felony securities fraud charges, investigated by the SEC, impeached by the Texas House, and sued by the State Bar of Texas for professional misconduct. He was repeatedly accused of using his government position for personal gain — including by members of his staff. Judd Legum assembles the rap sheet on the Texas AG turned Senate hopeful. Dense, sourced, and the kind of accountability reporting that travels. (Popular Information)

• A Definitive History of Tucker Carlson’s Shapeshifting Politics: Carlson’s latest anti-Israel pivot is born out of a three-decades-long track record of shapeshifting and lying in accordance with one highest purpose: doing what is best for Tucker Carlson. From bow-tied pundit to populist firebrand, charted in full. A useful map of a man who has been many things to many audiences. Carlson’s latest anti-Israel pivot is born out of a three-decades-long track record of shapeshifting and lying in accordance with one highest purpose: doing what is best for Tucker Carlson. (Talking Points Memo)

• Supreme Court rules against Rastafarian man over religious rights claim against prison officials: Officials at a Louisiana prison cut off Damon Landor’s dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. The case centered on whether he could seek damages. Guards shaved his dreadlocks; the Court narrowed his path to damages. A quietly consequential religious-liberty ruling that didn’t get the coverage it deserved. Officials at a Louisiana prison cut off Damon Landor’s dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. The case centered on whether he could seek damages. SCOTUS supports religion, just so long as it’s THEIR religion… (NBC News)

Video of the day: What We Know About Billionaire Peter Thiel’s Secret ‘Dialog’ Society

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this weekend with Carl Richards, a financial advisor who is also the creator of the Sketch Guy column, which ran weekly in New York Times for a decade. He hosts Behavior Gap Radio (1,300+ episodes) He co-hosts “Kitces & Carl — Real Talk for Real Financial Advisors” with Michael Kitces.” Richards latest book is Your Money: Reimagining Wealth in 101 Simple Sketches.”

 

 

The media business favors content provoking outrage, anger and/or fear, giving the audience a disproportionate sense of risk and reality

Source: Bruce Mehlman’s Age of Disruption

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The Shooting In The Strait Ain't Over, But...

Zero Hedge -

The Shooting In The Strait Ain't Over, But...

Authored by Larry Johnson via Sonar21.com

A little over a week since the US and Iran signed the MoU, some ships that had been trapped in the Persian rushed to travel through the corridor, with many trying to use an alternative route on the southern side of the Strait along the Omani coast. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had coordinated this alternative routing with Oman - hugging the UAE and Musandam Peninsula coastline, avoiding the central passage that Iran had mined. This route was significant because it bypassed Iran’s designated corridor entirely, which ran closer to Iranian territorial waters.

However, Iran and Oman agreed on a new framework (joint working group) for the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, June 24, 2026. The two countries agreed to establish a joint working group between their foreign ministries to discuss:

  • Future navigation rules and administration of the strait.
  • Services provided (e.g., safety, pilotage).
  • Associated costs (in accordance with international standards).

Both emphasized their sovereignty over their territorial waters in the strait.

The naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard issued a warning Thursday against using the new route. In a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, naval officials said the route was established without notice or coordination with Iran, calling it “unacceptable and completely dangerous.” According to the IRGC:

The only authorized route for passing through the Strait of Hormuz is the one declared by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Vessel traffic outside these routes is extremely dangerous and prohibited. Violators will be dealt with.”

The day before, the Guard had threatened one tanker over the radio, with a soldier warning “You are in range of my missiles and maybe (I) fire on you,” according to the private security firm Ambrey.

Iranian military, file image

On Thursday the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged ship operating in the fleet of Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, attempted to transit the strait using a narrow channel near the coast of Oman in accordance with a route organized by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) security monitor. The Ever Lovely was struck by a drone belonging to Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran allegedly shot at least four drones at ships traveling through the Strait on Thursday. One of those hit the upper deck of the Ever Lovely.

On Friday, the US attacked Iran in ‘response’ to strikes on the commercial vessel in Strait of Hormuz a day earlier:

Iran’s IRIB reported that an explosion was heard at 11:15 pm at the Taheroui pier in Sirik. A military source said the blasts were caused by a projectile hitting the pier area, adding that around five hours earlier, several warning shots had been fired from Sirik toward violating vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Reports also indicated that two warning missiles were fired earlier from around Karpan toward the strait.

US Central Command said its forces carried out strikes against Iran on 26 June in response to Iran’s attack the previous day on the Singapore-flagged cargo ship M/V Ever Lovely as it exited the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast. CENTCOM said US aircraft targeted Iranian missile and drone storage sites and coastal radar positions after the vessel was hit by a one-way attack drone.

Although CENTCOM presented this as a powerful strike on Iran, and the US media trumpeted it as an act of major retaliation, the US response inflicted little damage and could reasonably be interpreted as a symbolic gesture rather than a punishing attack.

The IRGC Public Relations department issued the following statement:

Following the Israeli regime’s violation of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, the treaty-breaking US regime also violated its commitments once again. Under various pretexts, including the transit of a vessel accused of navigating through an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormuz, the US launched an airstrike against the coasts of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In response to this aggression, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy struck positions where the US terrorist military is stationed in the region. Under Article 5 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, responsibility for regulating navigation through the Strait of Hormuz rests with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, the United States sought to violate this commitment by encouraging various parties to defy it. It received the necessary response, and the same will apply in the future. If the aggression is repeated, Iran’s response will be broader than this.

Instead of marking a return to war, this exchange of fire can best be categorize as military political theater. I believe that Iran, thanks to intel from the Russians or the Chinese, has learned that the US has issued orders that will initiate the return to CONUS of the aircraft, vehicles and troops that had been deployed to the region in preparation for the February 28 attack. Because of the limited damage inflicted by the US attack, I believe that Iran chose to respond in a limited fashion rather than escalate and run the risk of the US cancelling the redeployment order.

For now, Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz and ships wanting to transit the Strait are adhering to Iran's new policy.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 23:20

The Shooting In The Strait Ain't Over, But...

Zero Hedge -

The Shooting In The Strait Ain't Over, But...

Authored by Larry Johnson via Sonar21.com

A little over a week since the US and Iran signed the MoU, some ships that had been trapped in the Persian rushed to travel through the corridor, with many trying to use an alternative route on the southern side of the Strait along the Omani coast. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had coordinated this alternative routing with Oman - hugging the UAE and Musandam Peninsula coastline, avoiding the central passage that Iran had mined. This route was significant because it bypassed Iran’s designated corridor entirely, which ran closer to Iranian territorial waters.

However, Iran and Oman agreed on a new framework (joint working group) for the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, June 24, 2026. The two countries agreed to establish a joint working group between their foreign ministries to discuss:

  • Future navigation rules and administration of the strait.
  • Services provided (e.g., safety, pilotage).
  • Associated costs (in accordance with international standards).

Both emphasized their sovereignty over their territorial waters in the strait.

The naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard issued a warning Thursday against using the new route. In a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, naval officials said the route was established without notice or coordination with Iran, calling it “unacceptable and completely dangerous.” According to the IRGC:

The only authorized route for passing through the Strait of Hormuz is the one declared by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Vessel traffic outside these routes is extremely dangerous and prohibited. Violators will be dealt with.”

The day before, the Guard had threatened one tanker over the radio, with a soldier warning “You are in range of my missiles and maybe (I) fire on you,” according to the private security firm Ambrey.

Iranian military, file image

On Thursday the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged ship operating in the fleet of Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, attempted to transit the strait using a narrow channel near the coast of Oman in accordance with a route organized by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) security monitor. The Ever Lovely was struck by a drone belonging to Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran allegedly shot at least four drones at ships traveling through the Strait on Thursday. One of those hit the upper deck of the Ever Lovely.

On Friday, the US attacked Iran in ‘response’ to strikes on the commercial vessel in Strait of Hormuz a day earlier:

Iran’s IRIB reported that an explosion was heard at 11:15 pm at the Taheroui pier in Sirik. A military source said the blasts were caused by a projectile hitting the pier area, adding that around five hours earlier, several warning shots had been fired from Sirik toward violating vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Reports also indicated that two warning missiles were fired earlier from around Karpan toward the strait.

US Central Command said its forces carried out strikes against Iran on 26 June in response to Iran’s attack the previous day on the Singapore-flagged cargo ship M/V Ever Lovely as it exited the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast. CENTCOM said US aircraft targeted Iranian missile and drone storage sites and coastal radar positions after the vessel was hit by a one-way attack drone.

Although CENTCOM presented this as a powerful strike on Iran, and the US media trumpeted it as an act of major retaliation, the US response inflicted little damage and could reasonably be interpreted as a symbolic gesture rather than a punishing attack.

The IRGC Public Relations department issued the following statement:

Following the Israeli regime’s violation of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, the treaty-breaking US regime also violated its commitments once again. Under various pretexts, including the transit of a vessel accused of navigating through an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormuz, the US launched an airstrike against the coasts of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In response to this aggression, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy struck positions where the US terrorist military is stationed in the region. Under Article 5 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, responsibility for regulating navigation through the Strait of Hormuz rests with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, the United States sought to violate this commitment by encouraging various parties to defy it. It received the necessary response, and the same will apply in the future. If the aggression is repeated, Iran’s response will be broader than this.

Instead of marking a return to war, this exchange of fire can best be categorize as military political theater. I believe that Iran, thanks to intel from the Russians or the Chinese, has learned that the US has issued orders that will initiate the return to CONUS of the aircraft, vehicles and troops that had been deployed to the region in preparation for the February 28 attack. Because of the limited damage inflicted by the US attack, I believe that Iran chose to respond in a limited fashion rather than escalate and run the risk of the US cancelling the redeployment order.

For now, Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz and ships wanting to transit the Strait are adhering to Iran's new policy.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 23:20

Young Americans Expect To Buy A Home Later In Life (Or Not At All)

Zero Hedge -

Young Americans Expect To Buy A Home Later In Life (Or Not At All)

For decades, homeownership has been a key milestone of adulthood in the United States.

In recent years, however, the middle-class ideal of homeownership and suburban comfort, once an embodiment of the American Dream, has gotten out of reach for many families, as elevated home prices, high mortgage rates and a period of stagnant real wages have left many families unable to even consider it.

As Statista's Felix Richter shows below, only 25 percent of non-homeowners expect to buy a house in the next five years, according to Gallup – the lowest share since the question was first asked in 2013.

Young Americans Expect to Buy a Home Later or Not at All | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among those aged 18 to 34, a key group of prospective buyers, intentions have also fallen sharply.

The share expecting to buy in the next five years dropped from 57 percent in 2013/2015 to 29 percent in 2025/2026.

At the same time, the share of non-owners who don’t see themselves buying a home in the foreseeable future has increased from 13 to 30 percent.

The rest expects to wait longer before buying a home, either to build up savings for a down payment or in hopes that prices and mortgage rates will come down from their current levels.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:45

Young Americans Expect To Buy A Home Later In Life (Or Not At All)

Zero Hedge -

Young Americans Expect To Buy A Home Later In Life (Or Not At All)

For decades, homeownership has been a key milestone of adulthood in the United States.

In recent years, however, the middle-class ideal of homeownership and suburban comfort, once an embodiment of the American Dream, has gotten out of reach for many families, as elevated home prices, high mortgage rates and a period of stagnant real wages have left many families unable to even consider it.

As Statista's Felix Richter shows below, only 25 percent of non-homeowners expect to buy a house in the next five years, according to Gallup – the lowest share since the question was first asked in 2013.

Young Americans Expect to Buy a Home Later or Not at All | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among those aged 18 to 34, a key group of prospective buyers, intentions have also fallen sharply.

The share expecting to buy in the next five years dropped from 57 percent in 2013/2015 to 29 percent in 2025/2026.

At the same time, the share of non-owners who don’t see themselves buying a home in the foreseeable future has increased from 13 to 30 percent.

The rest expects to wait longer before buying a home, either to build up savings for a down payment or in hopes that prices and mortgage rates will come down from their current levels.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:45

Beijing's Trojan Horse Rolls Into Canada: National Security Expert Warns Carney's Chinese EV Deals Embeds Sabotage Risk

Zero Hedge -

Beijing's Trojan Horse Rolls Into Canada: National Security Expert Warns Carney's Chinese EV Deals Embeds Sabotage Risk

Submitted by The Bureau's Sam Cooper (emphasis our own), 

China keeps finding inventive ways to burrow into the West, and Canada's new appetite for Chinese electric vehicles may be the most consequential opening yet.

That is the warning at the center of a report published this week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and written by Brenda Shaffer, an energy and national-security specialist who teaches at the United States Naval Postgraduate School.

China, she writes, "continues to find creative ways to infiltrate and influence the West," embedding in its exports the capacity to surveil citizens, disrupt transportation and ports, and trigger blackouts and grid damage.

Shaffer situates the electric-vehicle question inside a wider argument about hybrid warfare. China, Russia and Iran, she notes, have each written attacks on Western domestic energy infrastructure into their war doctrines, erasing the old line between the home front and the battlefield. Even brief disruptions to electricity or transit, she argues, could spread public panic and erode support for a distant conflict — the defense of Taiwan being the obvious test.

The cars began arriving in June, the product of a strategic partnership Prime Minister Mark Carney signed in Beijing in January. Ottawa cut its tariff on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, opening an initial quota of roughly 49,000 vehicles in the first year. Carney has cast the imports as a low-cost route for Canadians switching to electric, and analysts cited by Shaffer expect Chinese brands to capture a fifth of the Canadian market.

Shaffer leans on an internal Public Safety Canada memo, obtained under access-to-information law, warning that opening the market to "high-risk vendors" invites connected cars that "collect significant amounts of data on Canadians, which can have intelligence value." Her account of the official response is withering. Asked how Canada would protect drivers, the chief of the defense staff, General Jennie Carignan, told reporters only that "we don't have a lot of Chinese vehicles so far," and Defense Minister David McGuinty said he would raise the question with base commanders.

The danger, in her telling, runs well past cars.

A congressional probe found hidden communications equipment inside Chinese-made cranes at major American ports; the same cranes are common in Canadian harbors, where Transport Canada began assessing the risk in 2023. More worrying still are solar power inverters — the devices that feed renewable energy into the grid — of which China supplies about 70 percent worldwide. American investigators have identified undeclared communication components inside some Chinese inverters that experts warn could be used to switch them off remotely and destabilize power grids.

Lithuania has banned Chinese inverters outright and the European Union has moved to bar them from public funding, while Canada, Shaffer writes, has imposed no comparable limits — even as the January partnership commits Ottawa and Beijing to deepen cooperation on solar, wind and battery storage.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's auto policy would prohibit Chinese-made vehicles from proximity to Canadian Forces bases and other sensitive or strategic infrastructure.

In Washington, where opposition to Chinese electric vehicles is one of the few genuinely bipartisan positions, President Donald Trump has called the deal a disaster for Canada, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Canada would live to regret it, and the U.S. ambassador, Peter Hoekstra, vowed the cars would never reach American roads: "We're not going to open the floodgates to have Chinese cars coming into the US from Canada."

Shaffer's alarm is echoed, from a different vantage, by Michael Kovrig, the former Canadian diplomat held in China for more than 1,000 days. In testimony to Parliament this spring, Kovrig described the deal as a "trifecta of risks" — structural dependence, unfair competition that erodes industrial capacity, and systemic pressure on government policy — and warned that the People's Republic "weaponizes technology, supply chains and market access" to force acquiescence to its agenda.

Commenting this week on his own testimony, Kovrig wrote on social media that opening Canada's market to Chinese electric vehicles "should be assessed not as a normal trade agreement, but as a tactical gamble that risks deep entanglement." The Chinese Communist Party, he wrote, "pours enormous resources into the sector to build scale and sustain overcapacity." He went on: "The pattern is to flood, consolidate and weaponize. We've seen China do this before with solar panels, steel, ships and drones, and EVs are now moving through the same stages in global markets."

The warnings have not slowed Carney's government, which is pressing ahead at full speed. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly spent much of last week in China, courting BYD, Chery, Geely and Shanghai Launch Automotive Technology to build electric vehicles on Canadian soil, and confirmed that the import quota will keep climbing — rising by 6.5 percent a year from 49,000 vehicles in 2026 to roughly 67,000 annually by 2031. Carney, caught on a hot microphone with Trump at the Group of Seven summit in France, defended the arrangement as "less than 3 per cent of our market, 49,000 cars," telling the president, "It's a cap, we capped, a hard line."

Beijing is pleased.

Geely Holding Group's Lotus-brand electric vehicles will reach Canada next month — the first such models sold under the 49,000-vehicle quota — China's ambassador to Canada, Wang Di, told Reuters on Friday. The cars would arrive, he said, "and they will be holding a ceremony when the cars are delivered in Montreal," a milestone in the trade pivot Carney has pursued to move Canada away from dependence on the United States.

On June 26, the Chinese Communist Party's state-run China Daily approvingly reported Canada's pledge to lift its exports to China by 50 percent by 2030. At a Canada Day reception at the Canadian embassy in Beijing, the mission's chargé d'affaires, Mark Richardson, called Canada "a stable, reliable partner — a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term," adding, "That includes with China." Of Carney's January visit, he said: "To say this has been a significant year for Canada–China relations would be an understatement. In many ways, it has been a turning point."

He noted that Canada had become a major energy exporter to China and observed that "the first shipment of Chinese-made electric vehicles has arrived in Canada under a new quota that was agreed in January."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:10

Beijing's Trojan Horse Rolls Into Canada: National Security Expert Warns Carney's Chinese EV Deals Embeds Sabotage Risk

Zero Hedge -

Beijing's Trojan Horse Rolls Into Canada: National Security Expert Warns Carney's Chinese EV Deals Embeds Sabotage Risk

Submitted by The Bureau's Sam Cooper (emphasis our own), 

China keeps finding inventive ways to burrow into the West, and Canada's new appetite for Chinese electric vehicles may be the most consequential opening yet.

That is the warning at the center of a report published this week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and written by Brenda Shaffer, an energy and national-security specialist who teaches at the United States Naval Postgraduate School.

China, she writes, "continues to find creative ways to infiltrate and influence the West," embedding in its exports the capacity to surveil citizens, disrupt transportation and ports, and trigger blackouts and grid damage.

Shaffer situates the electric-vehicle question inside a wider argument about hybrid warfare. China, Russia and Iran, she notes, have each written attacks on Western domestic energy infrastructure into their war doctrines, erasing the old line between the home front and the battlefield. Even brief disruptions to electricity or transit, she argues, could spread public panic and erode support for a distant conflict — the defense of Taiwan being the obvious test.

The cars began arriving in June, the product of a strategic partnership Prime Minister Mark Carney signed in Beijing in January. Ottawa cut its tariff on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, opening an initial quota of roughly 49,000 vehicles in the first year. Carney has cast the imports as a low-cost route for Canadians switching to electric, and analysts cited by Shaffer expect Chinese brands to capture a fifth of the Canadian market.

Shaffer leans on an internal Public Safety Canada memo, obtained under access-to-information law, warning that opening the market to "high-risk vendors" invites connected cars that "collect significant amounts of data on Canadians, which can have intelligence value." Her account of the official response is withering. Asked how Canada would protect drivers, the chief of the defense staff, General Jennie Carignan, told reporters only that "we don't have a lot of Chinese vehicles so far," and Defense Minister David McGuinty said he would raise the question with base commanders.

The danger, in her telling, runs well past cars.

A congressional probe found hidden communications equipment inside Chinese-made cranes at major American ports; the same cranes are common in Canadian harbors, where Transport Canada began assessing the risk in 2023. More worrying still are solar power inverters — the devices that feed renewable energy into the grid — of which China supplies about 70 percent worldwide. American investigators have identified undeclared communication components inside some Chinese inverters that experts warn could be used to switch them off remotely and destabilize power grids.

Lithuania has banned Chinese inverters outright and the European Union has moved to bar them from public funding, while Canada, Shaffer writes, has imposed no comparable limits — even as the January partnership commits Ottawa and Beijing to deepen cooperation on solar, wind and battery storage.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's auto policy would prohibit Chinese-made vehicles from proximity to Canadian Forces bases and other sensitive or strategic infrastructure.

In Washington, where opposition to Chinese electric vehicles is one of the few genuinely bipartisan positions, President Donald Trump has called the deal a disaster for Canada, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Canada would live to regret it, and the U.S. ambassador, Peter Hoekstra, vowed the cars would never reach American roads: "We're not going to open the floodgates to have Chinese cars coming into the US from Canada."

Shaffer's alarm is echoed, from a different vantage, by Michael Kovrig, the former Canadian diplomat held in China for more than 1,000 days. In testimony to Parliament this spring, Kovrig described the deal as a "trifecta of risks" — structural dependence, unfair competition that erodes industrial capacity, and systemic pressure on government policy — and warned that the People's Republic "weaponizes technology, supply chains and market access" to force acquiescence to its agenda.

Commenting this week on his own testimony, Kovrig wrote on social media that opening Canada's market to Chinese electric vehicles "should be assessed not as a normal trade agreement, but as a tactical gamble that risks deep entanglement." The Chinese Communist Party, he wrote, "pours enormous resources into the sector to build scale and sustain overcapacity." He went on: "The pattern is to flood, consolidate and weaponize. We've seen China do this before with solar panels, steel, ships and drones, and EVs are now moving through the same stages in global markets."

The warnings have not slowed Carney's government, which is pressing ahead at full speed. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly spent much of last week in China, courting BYD, Chery, Geely and Shanghai Launch Automotive Technology to build electric vehicles on Canadian soil, and confirmed that the import quota will keep climbing — rising by 6.5 percent a year from 49,000 vehicles in 2026 to roughly 67,000 annually by 2031. Carney, caught on a hot microphone with Trump at the Group of Seven summit in France, defended the arrangement as "less than 3 per cent of our market, 49,000 cars," telling the president, "It's a cap, we capped, a hard line."

Beijing is pleased.

Geely Holding Group's Lotus-brand electric vehicles will reach Canada next month — the first such models sold under the 49,000-vehicle quota — China's ambassador to Canada, Wang Di, told Reuters on Friday. The cars would arrive, he said, "and they will be holding a ceremony when the cars are delivered in Montreal," a milestone in the trade pivot Carney has pursued to move Canada away from dependence on the United States.

On June 26, the Chinese Communist Party's state-run China Daily approvingly reported Canada's pledge to lift its exports to China by 50 percent by 2030. At a Canada Day reception at the Canadian embassy in Beijing, the mission's chargé d'affaires, Mark Richardson, called Canada "a stable, reliable partner — a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term," adding, "That includes with China." Of Carney's January visit, he said: "To say this has been a significant year for Canada–China relations would be an understatement. In many ways, it has been a turning point."

He noted that Canada had become a major energy exporter to China and observed that "the first shipment of Chinese-made electric vehicles has arrived in Canada under a new quota that was agreed in January."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:10

Pages