Zero Hedge

Telegram Founder Warns UK Social Media Ban Is Digital Iceberg About To Sink The Free Internet

Telegram Founder Warns UK Social Media Ban Is Digital Iceberg About To Sink The Free Internet

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

Telegram founder Pavel Durov told the Freedom Forum audience in Oslo that Western societies have already struck the iceberg and started sinking - yet most citizens remain in their cabins, convinced the ship of personal freedoms is unsinkable.

His remarks arrive precisely as Keir Starmer's government rams through a social media ban for under-16s that functions as the perfect pretext for mandatory digital ID, device-level scanning on every phone, and the practical elimination of anonymous speech online.

The policy is dressed in the familiar language of child protection. In practice it requires every major platform to verify ages with facial scans, passports or credit card data. What starts as a restriction on minors rapidly becomes a national system of internet passports.

Encrypted messaging apps currently sit outside the ban, but the same Online Safety Act framework already contains the levers to demand backdoors later. Tech executives who refuse to turn every smartphone into a government scanner face up to five years in prison.

Durov drew on two decades running major platforms and direct experience with state pressure in Russia, the EU and France. The core message was unmistakable.

"Our ship has already hit the iceberg. We have already started to sink without even realizing it. And I'm talking about the ship of our personal freedoms."

He continued, "Passengers of the Titanic actually didn't want to leave the ship for almost two hours after it hit the iceberg. People thought the Titanic was unsinkable. Lifeboats left half empty."

"Only in the last half an hour people started to panic, but by that time it was already too late. Not enough lifeboats, nowhere to hide, nowhere to run," Durov stressed.

He then turned to concrete examples. In the United Kingdom, thousands of people are arrested each year over social media posts. In Germany, posting something politically incorrect can mean fines or prison time. Durov described how "child protection" rhetoric short-circuits debate.

"Once somebody says child protection, all of a sudden it triggers very ancient, very deep parts of our brain. Who would be against protecting children? It completely bypasses logic. It bypasses debate. It bypasses rationality," he explained.

"All of a sudden, people are ready to give up everything. And authoritarian regimes were able to smuggle all kinds of repressive legislation under the guise of protecting children," he added.

He recounted Russia's failed attempt to ban Telegram. Authorities blocked the app, yet 95 percent of Russian teenagers still used it every month - many via VPNs that exposed them to far more fringe and illegal content than the original platform ever hosted.

The pattern repeats wherever governments claim they must control speech to save the children.

Starmer announced the under-16 social media ban as a way to "give children their childhoods back." The accompanying rules demand age verification across Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, X and more.

Additional restrictions hit livestreaming, stranger messaging in games, and impose curfews and scroll limits for under-18s. Regulations are meant to be in force before Christmas 2026, with full enforcement by April 2027.

The machinery does not stop at apps. A parallel device-level system using "nudity detection" and monitoring is already scheduled for rollout by major phone makers this September.

If companies drag their feet, legislation will make client-side scanning mandatory. The phone itself becomes the gatekeeper - before any message is encrypted or sent.

Big Brother Watch put it plainly: this is population-wide ID checks for everyone who wants to use a phone, tablet or laptop. The government that has repeatedly failed to protect children from grooming gangs and ideological capture in schools now positions itself as the only body qualified to decide what counts as safe online."

"Its own evidence review found only a small correlation between social media use and wellbeing - no proven causal harm. That finding has been buried while the infrastructure races forward," the organisation added.

The coercion extends to corporate leadership. Draft rules under the Online Safety Act would impose up to five years in prison on tech executives whose companies refuse to build and deploy scanners that inspect every photo, video and message on user devices before encryption.

Client-side scanning turns personal phones into always-on surveillance endpoints. Privacy advocates note the "child safety" framing masks the broader project: making every smartphone a mandatory informant for the state.

Encrypted messaging services such as Signal remain exempt from the current social media ban. That exemption is fragile. The same Online Safety Act that created the age-verification regime already contains provisions that can later demand access to private communications. Signal has not stayed silent.

The company's leadership has made clear it will not implement dystopian combinations of age verification and content scanning that "will not safeguard children" and "endanger us all."

Recent statements indicate Signal is prepared to stop providing services in the UK rather than compromise the encryption its users rely on.

The warnings expose the surveillance agenda hiding behind child-protection language. Once the verification and scanning infrastructure exists, expanding it to messaging apps becomes a regulatory tweak rather than fresh legislation.

YouTube warned that blanket bans simply push young people toward anonymous, less safe corners of the internet and away from curated educational content. Meta argued against forcing users to hand over ID to dozens of separate services and floated the idea of device-level or app-store age checks instead.

These responses reveal both resistance to fragmented compliance and the companies' own interest in centralised systems they can control.

The underlying trend remains the same: the open, pseudonymous internet is being replaced by a permissioned version that requires state-approved identity.

Starmer has been branded authoritarian for good reason. The ban arrives alongside documented overreach: more than 80,000 arrests for social media posts in recent years, selective enforcement that appears to spare ideologically aligned platforms, and a broader project of tying smartphone access to digital ID.

There is a high chance Starmer will be out of office by year's end, replaced by his own party - yet the machinery he is building will outlast him.

The UK version accelerates a global pattern already visible in Canada, Australia and the EU. Each jurisdiction uses slightly different pretexts while constructing the same core capability: verified digital identity standing between citizens and the open internet.

Once every post, search, message and transaction requires state-linked identity, dissent that was previously difficult to police at scale becomes routine administrative action. An entire generation will grow up treating constant surveillance as normal.

History shows these systems are never limited to their initial stated purpose. The technology now being embedded will serve whatever purpose future governments assign it.

Durov's warning from Oslo remains the clearest summary. The ship has already hit the iceberg. The only question is how many passengers will still be below decks when the water reaches their cabins.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 05:00

Rolls-Royce Bags Third European SMR Deal While Adding Gas-Cooled Reactor Design

Rolls-Royce Bags Third European SMR Deal While Adding Gas-Cooled Reactor Design

Rolls-Royce SMR just added its third major European contract. Videberg Kraft, backed by Sweden’s utility Vattenfall, selected the UK design for three units on the west coast, making it Sweden’s first new nuclear plant in more than forty years. 

The multibillion-pound export win, actively supported by UK government trade efforts, lands on top of existing deals in the UK and Czechia and makes Rolls-Royce the only SMR developer with multiple binding commitments across the continent.

We tracked when the UK advanced its own program, Great British Energy – Nuclear signed a contract earlier this year to move forward with initial units at Wylfa in North Wales. CEZ in the Czech Republic had already inked an early works agreement for deployment at Temelin, with plans ultimately targeting up to 3 GW of Rolls-Royce capacity and even taking a 20% stake in the company’s SMR subsidiary.

The Sweden announcement came one day after Rolls-Royce, the UK National Nuclear Laboratory, and Japan’s JAEA signed trilateral memorandums to accelerate High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) technology and the next generation of coated particle fuel that goes with it. 

The program is positioned as complementary to the existing 470 MWe pressurized-water SMR. HTGRs are different reactor technology, different size and power output, but the same modular construction philosophy and supply-chain approach.

The fuel development announcement carries added weight given the UK's history of developing the first generation of advanced, durable nuclear fuel. 

BISO and TRISO image from ResearchGate

Coated particle fuel, the accident-tolerant form that enables the high-temperature safety case for these gas reactors, traces its conceptual lineage straight back to BISO work done in the UK during the Dragon reactor program in the 1960s. TRISO evolved from those early British coated-particle concepts. 

Rolls-Royce and its partners are now moving to qualify and ultimately manufacture next-generation versions of this fuel form. 

The US connection fits the same pattern. Rolls-Royce is already embedded in BWXT’s Project Pele effort for the Department of Defense, delivering the power conversion module for the mobile microreactor that BWXT is building with TRISO fuel and that targets operation around 2028. 

The growing roadmap and list of projects is great for the company and the rolling press releases, but, similar to most of the other Western reactor developers, the company is lacking with getting nuclear-grade steel in the ground. Site prep work is ongoing in the UK, but given the significant delays with the UK's current larger reactor program, it could still be years before Rolls-Royce reaches criticality on any of their new facilities. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 04:15

BBC Hands Soros-Linked Pro-Migrant Campaigners Direct Access To Shape Children's Show

BBC Hands Soros-Linked Pro-Migrant Campaigners Direct Access To Shape Children's Show

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

Britain's state broadcaster has opened the door to pro-migrant activists who openly brag about steering storylines in a CBBC comedy aimed at primary school children.

While small boat crossings continue and communities deal with the daily consequences of unchecked arrivals, the BBC opted to let outside campaigners help frame migration narratives for the youngest viewers instead of reflecting the scale of policy failure.

The programme in question is Pickle Storm, a CBBC (Children's BBC) series following a young 'alien' who flees persecution on her home planet and settles in a British town. Her family encounters 'humorous' culture shock moments. Reports note that pro-migrant charity Heard held meetings with the show's producers at Blackdog Television, including at least one BBC children's programming representative on a Zoom call.

Heard later claimed in its own materials that producers used the input to inform the second series, which aired in 2025. The charity described the engagement as part of a strategy to "tap into children's media and directly impact framing of migration in children's content."

Heard presents itself as seeking to "shift public attitudes, norms and policy preferences." A spokesperson told The Telegraph the group helps media professionals "represent those experiences fairly and accurately" while focusing on "building understanding between people."

The BBC claims that the charity "had no power to influence editing or production of its programming" and described expert consultations as standard practice.

Heard has received more than £4.5 million in grant funding since launching in 2021. Much of it flows from left-leaning foundations including the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, and seed support linked to George Soros's Open Society Foundations.

Additional backing has come through Arts Council England and Comic Relief channels. Similar efforts by another group, Imix, have secured over £2 million since 2019 from National Lottery and Comic Relief sources.

Imix focuses on "building social support for migration" by targeting "persuadable audiences" through journalists and media placements. It has claimed credit for stories placed on BBC News and in newspapers, including pieces about refugees finding new homes in Britain and coverage of LGBT refugees from Africa.

The group also consulted on sympathetic portrayals in drama, including an asylum seeker storyline on ITV's Coronation Street.

These operations form part of a coordinated "narrative change" push funded by globalist and left-wing sources. The goal is to soften public resistance to high levels of migration through entertainment, news, and children's programming rather than open debate.

This approach fits a wider pattern already documented across UK institutions. Schools have been drawn into similar messaging through programmes that supply reading lists and events promoting unconditional welcome for new arrivals, including those coming by small boat.

Government-backed initiatives have gone further by embedding warnings inside children's content that questioning mass migration or noticing rapid cultural shifts can signal extremist thinking.

One Home Office-funded video game aimed at 11- to 18-year-olds portrays researching immigration statistics or expressing concern over changes to British values as routes that raise an "extremism meter" and trigger Prevent referrals or counseling for ideological issues.

Counter-terrorism police campaigns have reinforced the message by warning teenagers that sharing material they consider merely "funny" online can result in device seizures, criminal records, and barriers to education if authorities later classify it as 'terrorist' content.

The same institutions pushing positive migration framing for young children simultaneously expand surveillance-style tools that treat skepticism as a gateway to radicalisation. This creates a closed loop: state media and charities shape the approved narrative for the next generation while official channels flag dissent for intervention.

Critics have highlighted the hypocrisy. While proposals surface to restrict platforms accused of spreading "disinformation" on migration, the BBC faces no equivalent scrutiny for allowing activist input into content consumed by primary school children.

These efforts form only one layer of a much larger state apparatus dedicated to narrative management. The Home Office's Research, Information and Communications Unit, operating under the Prevent banner, functions as a dedicated nudge unit that seeds favourable migration messaging while actively working to suppress and reframe backlash.

Leaked operations show the unit advising police intelligence teams to identify online protest calls and supplying strategic guidance to portray demonstrators as unsympathetic thugs rather than citizens raising legitimate concerns, all aimed at behavioural change.

It has also inserted itself into family liaison after migrant-linked incidents, scripting statements with generic phrasing that pivots to calls for calm and emphasis on migrant contributions instead of unfiltered grief or anger.

Heard and aligned groups frame their work as countering "well-funded anti-migrant campaigns and the disinformation that spreads hostility online." An Imix spokesman described narrative change work as "listening to people's real concerns, being honest, and meeting them where they are."

The results on the ground tell a different story. Record net migration, ongoing small boat arrivals, and visible pressures on housing, schools, and healthcare continue regardless of polished storylines about aliens finding refuge or hippos making room for newcomers.

Parents and taxpayers fund the BBC through the licence fee. They also fund many of the grants and public bodies supporting these narrative efforts. The claim that such consultations are harmless "standard practice" rings hollow when the groups involved explicitly measure success by their ability to shift attitudes among the youngest audiences.

Britain's approach to mass migration has produced measurable strains. Rather than confront those outcomes directly, captured institutions have chosen to engineer consent from the ground up, starting with children's television and classroom materials.

This is not education. It is narrative management dressed as entertainment and safeguarding. The public deserves broadcasters and schools that reflect reality instead of laundering activist priorities through content aimed at seven-year-olds.

Removing third-party ideological programmes from classrooms would be a minimal first step toward restoring balance and protecting the next generation's right to form their own views without state-approved filters.

The pattern is clear and consistent. Institutions captured by globalist priorities use every available channel - television, schools, games, and even police messaging - to suppress open discussion of immigration failure while accelerating efforts to make the next generation more receptive to it.

Parents who object are not extremists. They are the last line of defence for their children's ability to think independently.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 03:30

Which Countries Americans Like Most (And Least)

Which Countries Americans Like Most (And Least)

Public opinion offers a window into how Americans perceive the world beyond their borders.

Using Gallup survey data from February 2026, this ranking, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows how Americans view 21 major countries, from longtime allies to geopolitical competitors.

The results provide a snapshot of global perceptions at a time of shifting international relationships and rising geopolitical tensions.

How Americans View 21 Major Countries

The table below shows favorable and unfavorable ratings based on a Gallup survey of 1,001 U.S. adults conducted in February 2026.

America’s Allies Dominate the Top

Canada remains one of America’s most favorably viewed countries, but its 80% rating is the lowest Gallup has recorded.

Japan, Canada, Italy, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany all rank near the top of the list. Their strong economic, security, and cultural connections to the U.S. highlight how foreign relationships can shape public perceptions.

Notably, each of the top seven countries is either a NATO member or a formal U.S. treaty ally.

Japan and Italy moved ahead of Canada and Britain in 2026 after favorability toward both longtime allies fell to record lows. Meanwhile, Japan’s rating has climbed steadily from 65% in 1995, reflecting decades of expanding economic and security ties.

Mexico ranks eighth overall with a 66% favorable rating, suggesting that deep economic and cultural connections can outweigh political tensions.

Israel Stands Apart

Israel occupies a uniquely divisive position in American public opinion. In 2026, 46% of Americans viewed Israel favorably, while 48% viewed it unfavorably, making it one of the few countries in the survey with nearly equal shares of positive and negative views.

The divide comes amid changing attitudes toward the Middle East conflict. According to Gallup, 2026 marked the first year in more than two decades that Americans expressed greater sympathy for Palestinians than Israelis. While this measure differs from overall country favorability, it highlights how public opinion on the region has shifted in recent years.

What the Results Reveal

The rankings suggest that public opinion is shaped by more than economics or geography alone.

Countries with longstanding diplomatic, security, and cultural ties to the United States tend to receive the strongest ratings, while nations associated with conflict or strategic competition generally rank near the bottom.

At the same time, the results highlight how perceptions can evolve. Japan has steadily climbed in favorability over the past three decades, while support for longtime partners such as Canada and the United Kingdom has softened in recent years.

Learn More on the Voronoi App 

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the countries losing trust in America.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 02:45

Yet More Churches Torched; Sustained Attack On Christianity Gathers Pace

Yet More Churches Torched; Sustained Attack On Christianity Gathers Pace

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

France suffered another direct hit to its Christian heritage last week when two historic religious sites burned within hours of each other.

A 17th-century chapel in Brittany lost most of its roof and part of its framework, while a centuries-old cloister housing thousands of rare books in the southwest saw its library devastated.

These blazes fit a widening pattern of attacks on churches and sacred sites that shows no sign of slowing, even as the state claims it lacks funds for preservation while directing resources elsewhere.

The incidents occurred on June 12. In Trégastel, Côtes-d'Armor, flames engulfed the Chapelle Sainte-Anne-des-Rochers, built in 1635 and already closed to the public since March for structural safety reasons.

Firefighters battled the blaze that destroyed roughly 75 percent of the slate roof and caused part of the charpente to collapse. Artworks and classified statues inside were saved.

One widely shared post captured the events plainly: "Another church on fire in France last night." It highlighted the Trégastel chapel while noting this was one of two such fires that day.

Hours later, in Condom, Gers, fire broke out in the médiathèque located in the historic cloister attached to the cathedral. Hundreds of square meters of roofing burned, and the collection of over 4,300 archived volumes suffered heavy damage from flames, water, and smoke.

The cathedral structure itself was protected, but the loss to local history and scholarship is severe.

Christian heritage sites that define French identity keep burning while the state pleads poverty for repairs yet finds ample resources for mass immigration and other priorities. Crowdfunding appeals and calls on the Fondation du Patrimoine now appear routine for these "accidental" losses.

These latest fires arrive amid a documented surge in incidents targeting Christian places of worship. Reports indicate nearly 50 fires or arson attempts on churches and Christian sites in France in 2024 alone, representing roughly a 30 percent rise from 38 the prior year.

Broader tallies over recent years point to well over 100 such events. France consistently records among the highest numbers of anti-Christian acts and church fires in Europe.

Previous coverage has tracked the gutting of historic churches across France, often with officials quick to cite accidents or brush fires while skepticism mounts over the sheer volume and timing.

Similar blazes have struck in Canada and the UK, with governments showing little urgency compared to their responses on, shall we say... other issues.

In the UK, Prime Minister Starmer voiced immediate concern and backed funding boosts for mosque security after one incident, yet stayed silent as historic churches burned.

The contrast reveals selective priorities. Christian sites that have stood for centuries face repeated destruction, while the political class appears more invested in demographic transformation than in safeguarding the civilization that built the nation.

Mainstream coverage often frames each blaze in isolation, citing investigations without clear conclusions or motive. Yet the cumulative effect is unmistakable: a steady erosion of physical symbols of Christianity.

Heritage advocates have long warned that rural churches and smaller sites receive inadequate protection and funding compared to flagship projects. When fires strike, the response frequently defaults to donation drives rather than systemic prevention or serious scrutiny of patterns.

France's Christian roots in particular are under sustained pressure from vandalism, desecration, arson, and demographic shifts driven by open-border policies. Each new incident chips away at the tangible inheritance of Western civilization while elites prioritize globalist projects and mass migration over preservation.

These fires are not random bad luck or isolated failures. They form part of a broader assault on Christianity and the cultural foundations it provided for Europe and the wider West. When governments downplay the trend, fast-track replacement-level immigration, and offer only crowdfunding as a fix, they signal that Christian heritage ranks low on the priority list.

Nations serious about their identity do not let their foundational landmarks burn while claiming helplessness. They secure borders, enforce laws without favor, and treat attacks on their civilizational core as the emergencies they are.

France's repeated losses serve as a warning: without a sharp course correction toward sovereignty and cultural self-preservation, more irreplaceable pieces of the Christian inheritance will vanish.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 02:00

The AI Threat SciFi Predicted Is Right On Our Doorstep

The AI Threat SciFi Predicted Is Right On Our Doorstep

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Science Fiction has long predicted the threats and challenges posed by AI. In the Star Trek universe, particularly in the original series, Season Two, Episode 24, “The Ultimate Computer,” Dr. Leonard McCoy delivers this haunting line: “Compassion: that’s the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it’s the one thing that keeps men ahead of them.” The line comes in the aftermath of a revolutionary new AI computer, the M5, using its soulless AI logic to turn a training exercise into a deadly massacre. In another Star Trek episode, we meet Nomad, a genocidal AI cleansing the universe of biological imperfections.  

Foreshadowing the rise of AI with immense hacking powers such as Anthropic’s Mythos, the reimagined “Battlestar Galactica” (2003–2009) has humanity’s AI-powered Cylons using their ability to hack any network-connected computer to rebel, nearly eradicating their creators. In the “Terminator” franchise, Skynet got “smart” (achieved sentience) and determined mankind’s fate, “extermination,“ in a ”microsecond,” unleashing nuclear Armageddon on humanity. These narratives warn that artificial intelligence, without robust safeguards, can lead to catastrophe. As AI capabilities continue to accelerate in 2026, fiction is rapidly converging with reality. Software protections, industry standards, and patchwork regulations are inadequate. A stronger foundation; immutable hardware constructs and changes in national and international law are essential.

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics 

As described in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Spectrum magazine, renowned scientist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, introduced in his “I, Robot” stories, provide a thoughtful framework for artificial intelligence safeguards:

  1. A robot may not injure an individual human or humanity, or through inaction allow a human or humanity to come to harm. 

  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 

  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 

Long story short, Asimov’s Laws are a good starting point, but as described in great detail in Asimov’s follow-on masterwork, the Foundation Series, they are inadequate when it comes to protecting genuine humanness. Further, it will be a real challenge to hardwire equivalents into AI as was done in Asimov’s universe via the “Positronic” brain. But undertaking the challenge to create safeguards that go beyond software-based approaches is critical to ensuring that AI only benefits mankind.

The Inadequacy of Software Safeguards, Encryption, and Regulation Alone 

Software-based guardrails are modifiable and vulnerable to hacks and exploits.

And history demonstrates the fragility of self-regulation: the Equifax data breach (2017), the SolarWinds supply chain attack (2020), the MOVEit vulnerability (2023), and ongoing breaches show that corporate promises of “robust protections” frequently fail.

We are in an AI Wild West, with insufficient binding global or national frameworks.

True Protection Via Immutable Hardware Gatekeepers

History demonstrates that software-based safeguards cannot currently, and will never be able to provide the level of protection required. As inspired by Asimov’s Positronic brain, safeguards instantiated into ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) will provide a critical layer that provides the guardrails that will increase the chances that AI benefits, rather than harms, mankind. These specialized chips take millions of lines of complex software logic or rules that are physically etched directly into the silicon hardware itself. Once the chip is manufactured and deployed, those rules become immutable: they cannot be altered, updated, or bypassed through software changes, patches, or hacking attempts. The only way to modify the embedded logic is to design and physically produce an entirely new ASIC chip, a process that is expensive, time-consuming, and highly visible. This creates a “hardware firewall” that is far more reliable than any software-based safeguard, ensuring critical safety constraints remain locked in place no matter how clever or aggressive future AI systems become.

The ASICs will act as physically fixed, inline gatekeepers. And in the future, both AI-focused and general-purpose processors could incorporate these tiny ASICs directly into the CPU as a hardware AI screening layer as a standard, non-optional part of the CPU.

Some Suggested Core Design Principles:

  • With the hardware layer acting as the interface to external interactions, such as is the case with some smartphones today, the AI can freely think, plan, and simulate in software without being slowed down by the ASIC. Only when the results are being communicated externally will the ASIC become involved as a gatekeeper to ensure that the actions proposed by the AI pass muster in terms of safety and other constraints.

  • Training Incentives: Cost/loss-based algorithms, etc., will reward the AI for routing actions through the hardware screener and severely penalize it for attempting to bypass the hardware gatekeeper layer. Hence, the AI will be incentivized not to try to bypass its restrictions. 

But such an important layer will only work if its use becomes universal.

Without the force of law to mandate such AI guardrails, they will fail to protect humanity.

Today, particularly in the Ukraine–Russia war, efforts are being made by both Russia and Ukraine to allow drones that have been cut off from their human operators to autonomously continue their mission to kill enemy combatants. This must not be tolerated. Just as the international community has banned chemical, biological, and gas warfare, so must AI be banned from making any final decisions that result in harm to humans. This could be accomplished via an explicit update to the Geneva Conventions to prohibit autonomous lethal decision-making by AI systems.

But AI can cause harm beyond the battlefield. Consequently, along with updating the Geneva Convention, laws must be put in place that address the non-military application of AI. To prevent misuse of AI in so-called civilian applications, there must be very serious consequences, including financial penalties steep enough to threaten the organizational viability of companies and non-profits, prison time for individuals, and economic sanctions or even military action against governments for running AI systems without the required immutable hardware safety layer and other protections.

The above is only an initial cut of what the framework should include, but whatever form it takes, it should embody the spirit of Asimov’s Three Laws, with the addition of ensuring human uniqueness is respected. The current patchwork of laws, standards, and technologies is wholly inadequate.We need a comprehensive, contiguous framework in place, supported by the full force of national and international laws that put guardrails on AI.

Finally, we must resist the siren call of convenience and efficiency when it comes to making decisions that can harm human beings and ensure that moral agents who are accountable to mankind and their Creator—i.e., human beings—make such decisions, not soulless AIs.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 23:05

China Revives Heavy Naval Firepower With New 155mm Gun That "Could Support An Attack On Taiwan"

China Revives Heavy Naval Firepower With New 155mm Gun That "Could Support An Attack On Taiwan"

As modern naval combat increasingly relies on aircraft, missiles and unmanned systems, China is investing in a capability many navies have largely moved away from: heavy naval artillery, according to South China Morning Post.

Recent reports indicate that the PLA Navy is testing a new 155mm naval gun, a calibre larger than any main gun currently in active naval service. The weapon has been observed aboard the experimental vessel Wu Yunduo, which appears to have completed a round of sea trials near Dalian earlier this year. Such testing would typically assess accuracy, fire-control performance, platform stability and the weapon’s ability to sustain repeated firing under operational conditions.

The gun first attracted attention in 2024 when a prototype was photographed during transport. Information visible on the system suggested it was manufactured by Norinco, weighs nearly 22 tonnes and can fire precision-guided ammunition. Images released later showed the weapon installed on a test ship, with a turret design that appears intended to reduce radar visibility.

The SCMP writes that the project stands out because large-calibre naval guns have long been overshadowed by missiles and carrier aviation. For decades, navies have favoured weapons capable of striking targets far beyond the horizon with greater precision. As a result, ship guns have largely been relegated to supporting troops ashore or handling limited surface engagements.

China’s interest in reviving heavy naval gunfire appears closely tied to amphibious warfare. In any large-scale landing operation, sustained bombardment of coastal defences could be essential. Compared with missiles, naval artillery can deliver a much higher volume of fire at significantly lower cost, making it useful for suppressing defensive positions and supporting advancing forces.

Analysts note that a 155mm system would represent a substantial increase in capability over the PLA Navy’s existing 130mm guns carried by its most advanced destroyers. Depending on the ammunition used, the new weapon could potentially engage targets more than 100km away and perhaps even beyond 200km. Operating at such distances would require support from drones or other reconnaissance assets to locate targets, assess damage and correct fire.

Economics may be just as important as range. Precision missiles remain expensive, particularly when used against relatively low-value targets. A naval gun can provide sustained firepower at a fraction of the cost, making it attractive for coastal bombardment, suppression missions and prolonged operations. Additional savings could come from sharing ammunition and logistics with the PLA Army’s existing family of 155mm artillery systems, which already includes guided, rocket-assisted and extended-range projectiles.

The US Navy’s experience offers a contrasting example. Although its Zumwalt-class destroyers were equipped with 155mm guns, the programme struggled because specialised long-range ammunition became prohibitively expensive, ultimately leading to the guns’ replacement with missile-focused systems.

China has not revealed which ships may eventually carry the new weapon. Amphibious vessels are considered strong candidates because their current armament is relatively limited when it comes to shore bombardment. Installing a larger gun could significantly improve fire-support capabilities during expeditionary or landing operations.

The weapon may also have applications beyond attacking land targets. Military observers suggest it could be used against drone swarms, unmanned surface vessels and other emerging threats when paired with specialised ammunition. In lower-intensity missions, it could provide a cost-effective alternative to missiles for maritime patrol, anti-piracy operations, warning shots and the interception of non-compliant vessels.

While China continues to develop advanced technologies such as railguns and laser weapons, the new 155mm system reflects a more practical approach: enhancing naval firepower with a mature, proven technology that can be fielded relatively quickly and integrated into existing military logistics networks.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 22:10

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

For all of our conversations about equity and access, we seem remarkably comfortable building systems that increasingly exclude anyone operating outside the banking system. Elderly people, recent immigrants, people who simply value privacy, and those who rely on cash all find themselves pushed a little further to the margins each year.

Most of us have enormous faith in the numbers displayed on our banking apps. We treat those numbers as though they are unquestionably ours, and most of the time they are.

But the people who had accounts frozen, payment processing terminated, or funds held during COVID-19 learned something the rest of us rarely think about. Access to your money increasingly depends on institutions you do not control.

We spent years arguing about who could post what online. Meanwhile, the institutions with the power to deny access to money received far less attention.

What is interesting is that while many businesses are moving away from cash, I am seeing people experiment with other forms of exchange.

At Sovereignty Ranch and The Barn, guests have paid in silver. We have accepted retreat deposits in silver coins. We have accepted festival sponsorships in silver. We also maintain cryptocurrency wallets and have accepted crypto payments.

Is it a large percentage of our business?

But it happens often enough that we added a silver calculator to our point-of-sale system and maintain the apps necessary to accept cryptocurrency.

People are quietly looking for options. Not because they necessarily distrust every bank or financial institution, but because they understand something previous generations understood instinctively. Resilience comes from having choices.

I am not arguing that cash is the only answer. In fact, I think there is value in preserving as many forms of voluntary exchange as possible.

A society with multiple ways to exchange value is more resilient than a society dependent on a single system.

What concerns me is not that people are using digital payments. I use them every day myself. What concerns me is that we are building a world where opting out becomes impossible.

The issue is not whether any particular form of money is perfect. The issue is whether we preserve enough alternatives that no single institution becomes the gatekeeper of economic life.

Because once every transaction requires an intermediary, power shifts. Once every purchase is digital, oversight becomes easier. Once every dollar exists inside systems controlled by institutions we did not elect, freedom begins to look a little different than we thought it did.

Maybe the most important lesson from those years is not about any particular company, politician, virus, or policy.

Freedom rarely disappears all at once. More often, it erodes through a series of reasonable justifications, emergencies, and conveniences.

Looking back, many of the things that happened during COVID-19 would have seemed unimaginable just a few years earlier. Yet they happened anyway.

That is why I think it is important that we do not forget.

Not because we should live in anger. Not because we should endlessly relitigate the past. But because freedom requires memory. The moment we forget what happened, we lose our ability to recognize it when it happens again.

We spend a great deal of time worrying about government power, and some of that concern is justified. But I increasingly wonder if we are overlooking institutions that possess just as much influence over our daily lives.

If an institution can freeze your money, deny your transactions, shut down your business, and exclude you from economic life, does it really matter whether that institution is a government agency or a financial corporation?

And if it does not, are banks actually the most powerful institutions in modern America?

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:45

New Oregon Initiative Would Criminalize Hunting, Fishing And Farming

New Oregon Initiative Would Criminalize Hunting, Fishing And Farming

Only 1% of the American population identifies as vegan (a person who refrains from using or consuming any animal products), and around 3% of the population identifies as vegetarian.  It is therefore a little confusing as to why American political and social discourse is hijacked by vegan issues so often. 

Leftist activists have adopted the age-old mantra that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil"; but imagine a wheel that never gets enough oil?  Imagine a movement specifically designed to keep society constantly on egg shells, trying to figure out different ways to satisfy that squeaky wheel so it will finally shut up?

One eventually has to ask the obvious question:  Why don't we simply throw that insufferable wheel in the garbage?

A perfect example of why Americans need to start aggressively discriminating against veganism as a movement has popped up in Oregon.  A new initiative called the PEACE Act (IP28) has enough backing to make it on the state ballot in November.  The initiative originally gained support as a way to "end animal cruelty", but the details of the proposed law turned out to be a vegan's version of Orwell.  

The petition has more than 120,000 signatures, according to the Oregon secretary of state’s office. The campaign needs about 117,000 valid signatures to make the ballot.  Initiative Petition 28 would expand animal cruelty protections in Oregon by effectively giving “all” animals the same protections currently in place for dogs and cats, supporters say. Opponents argue the measure would go much further, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing and raising animals for food.

It's important to understand that vegan activists and leftists in general do not operate from a basic understanding of the environment.  They know next to nothing about the science behind these issues and legislate from a purely emotional position.  Banning hunting would effectively destroy various wild animal populations, causing disastrous disease outbreaks that the hunting community has kept in check for decades.    

That said, a lot of attention in the media has been paid to the hunting side of this law while the biggest impact would be felt in cattle farming and the fishing industry in Oregon.  If passed, the law would effectively criminalize the entire meat production base for the state under "animal cruelty" statutes. 

No state has the capacity to sustain on a mass vegan diet, so, animal products would have to be shipping in from the rest of the country, driving up prices.   

Of course, this tiny minority of militant animal rights activists are not working alone.  They are able to thrive and organize because they have a host of international NGOs and politicians working with them.  These institutions act as amplifiers for activist groups that would otherwise go completely ignored.  The United Nations, for example, has long been involved in global efforts to remove meat from the menu for most of the human population.

The UN fabricated the notion of animal agriculture acting as a primary mechanism for greenhouse gases and global warming.  Of course, there is zero evidence of a causation or correlation relationship between animal methane and changes in the Earth's temperatures, just as there is no concrete evidence of a connection between human industry and climate change. 

One can speculate as to why the UN is so interested in eliminating meat from the human diet, but stopping global warming is certainly not the real reason.  

Global warming claims continues to be debunked as one of the biggest hoaxes of the century, and the idea of compelling the public to stop eating meat in the name of "saving the climate" just isn't going to work.  It would appear that the political left and their NGO backers intend to criminalize meat if they can't convince people to go vegan voluntarily.   

This is why the majority of Americans distrust and despise vegans:  It not because they've chosen a different lifestyle, it's because they are obsessed with forcing that lifestyle on everyone else.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:20

Will Trump Break JFK's Agreement On Cuba?

Will Trump Break JFK's Agreement On Cuba?

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) came within an inch of all-out nuclear war with each other. To resolve the crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev entered into an agreement in which the United States agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia’s decision to withdraw nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba.

For more than 50 years, both Russia and the United States have complied with that agreement.

Russia has never re-installed nuclear missiles into Cuba.

In turn, the United States has never re-invaded Cuba.

Given President Trump’s recent acts of aggression against Cuba, the question naturally arises: Will Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment break the commitment that President Kennedy made by initiating another military invasion of Cuba?

Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961, the U.S. national-security branch of the federal government, which, by this time, had become the most powerful branch, employed deception, subterfuge, lies, and manipulation to induce the new president into authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The plan called for using a contingent of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade the island, with the aim of ousting the communist regime that had come into power with the Cuban revolution in 1959.

The CIA told Kennedy that no U.S. air support would be needed. They also told him that the Cuban people hated Cuban leader Fidel Castro and would rise to the assistance of the U.S. invaders.

Both were lies, and the CIA knew it was lying to Kennedy. The CIA figured that once its invasion got underway and was going to go down to defeat at the hands of the communists, JFK would have no other effective choice but to authorize the air support — as a way to “save face.”

But JFK stood his ground, and the U.S. invasion of Cuba went down to defeat. This was, of course, the beginning of the vicious and ruthless war between JFK and the U.S. national-security establishment that would end in JKF’s defeat on November 22, 1963. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

After the disaster of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon continued to pressure Kennedy into ordering an invasion of Cuba. As part of this pressure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented JFK with one of the most shameful and immoral plans in U.S. history — Operation Northwoods. It called for terrorist attacks on American soil in which innocent Americans would be intentionally sacrificed at the hands of U.S. agents who would be falsely portraying themselves as Cuban communists. The terrorist attacks would then be used as a justification for invading Cuba and violently achieving regime change.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods, much to the deep anger and rage of the national-security branch against which he was at war.

Why was the national-security branch so obsessed with invading Cuba? Their mindset was part of their old Cold War racket, which came into existence after World War II to justify the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian-like governmental structure with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.

The Cold War racket involved inculcating the American people with a deep fear that the Reds were coming to get them. Central to this racket was the notion that the Reds in Cuba were only 90 miles away from American shores and, therefore, needed to be taken out before they invaded Miami, fought their way up the Eastern seaboard, and captured Washington, D.C. Never mind that Cuba was an impoverished Third World Country that lacked the remotest capability of even crossing that little stretch of water and successfully conquering the well-armed citizens of Miami. Never mind also that Cuba has never initiated any act of aggression against the United States and that it simply has always wanted to be left alone by the U.S. national-security branch, which has always steadfastly and obsessively refused to leave Cuba alone.

Castro knew that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were pressuring Kennedy into ordering another invasion of Cuba. That’s when the Russians came to his assistance. They installed nuclear missiles in Cuba to hopefully deter the U.S. from invading again. Alternatively, the missiles were to serve as a means of self-defense if the U.S. were to initiate another war of aggression against Cuba.

It’s important to recognize something important here: The Cubans had every right in the world to have those nuclear missiles installed in Cuba. After all, Cuba is a sovereign and independent country. It is also worth noting that Cuba, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself from invasions and wars of aggression, including those initiated by the United States.

But no one (including Russia), likes to have nuclear missiles pointed at it from just a short distance away. The U.S. certainly didn’t like it (just as Russia wouldn’t like it if U.S. or NATO nuclear missiles were installed in Ukraine). And so, JFK demanded that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. If Russia had refused to do so, it is a virtual certainty that JFK would have ordered an attack on the missiles and an invasion of Cuba, both of which the Pentagon and the CIA were demanding. The result would have been World War III.

To resolve the crisis, Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles, and the U.S. committed to not invade Cuba again. It’s an agreement that has been honored for more than 60 years.

Of course, Trump, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA can argue that the agreement, which they considered was a betrayal of America and a grave threat to U.S. “national security” was not a treaty. That’s true. It was simply an oral agreement — a handshake, if you will. Nonetheless, an agreement is an agreement. There was no time limit on the agreement, which meant that it would exist into perpetuity. The Russians would not reinstall their nuclear missiles and the United States would not invade Cuba again.

If Trump and U.S. national-security establishment decide to break JFK’s agreement, undoubtedly the Russians will not retaliate. But it will be another reason why people around the world understand that the United States can never be trusted to keep its word.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:55

Majority Of Arrested ICE Protesters At Newark's Delaney Hall Came From Outside New Jersey

Majority Of Arrested ICE Protesters At Newark's Delaney Hall Came From Outside New Jersey

Arrest records from recent demonstrations outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention facility show that many of those taken into custody were not New Jersey residents, according to The New York Post. According to information reviewed by The Post, only a small number of the arrested individuals were from the state, while others had traveled from locations including Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York.

The arrests stemmed from a series of confrontations between protesters and law enforcement that took place during ongoing demonstrations at the facility. Authorities accused some participants of offenses such as damaging property, obstructing access to the detention center, failing to disperse, and assaulting federal officers. The demonstrations have drawn national attention as activists continue to challenge immigration enforcement policies and conditions at the facility.

Observers critical of the protests argue that the presence of participants from across the country suggests a coordinated effort rather than a purely local movement. They point to the involvement of activist organizations that have publicly campaigned against Delaney Hall and called for broader changes to federal immigration enforcement. Some arrested individuals were linked through social media activity to groups that have promoted protests at the site and encouraged supporters to participate.

The Post notes that among those arrested were people from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds, including students, artists, healthcare professionals, and longtime activists. Publicly available information and social media profiles indicate that several had previously participated in political or social justice campaigns on issues ranging from climate activism to racial justice and immigration reform.

One organization frequently mentioned in connection with the demonstrations is the Sunrise Movement, a progressive activist group that has publicized its involvement in actions outside Delaney Hall. The group has shared updates, photos, and videos from the protests on social media and has described its organizers as being actively engaged at the site for an extended period.

Supporters of the demonstrations maintain that the protests are a response to concerns about the treatment of detainees and conditions inside the facility. Critics, however, contend that the protests have become increasingly confrontational and have been supported by well-funded activist networks capable of mobilizing participants from outside the region.

The standoff at Delaney Hall has continued for weeks, with repeated clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. As investigations and legal proceedings move forward, the arrests have become part of a broader debate over immigration policy, protest tactics, and the role of national activist organizations in local political conflicts.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:30

Radical Woke Mount Sinai Hospital Exposed: DEI, Child Sex Changes & Epstein Ties Prioritized Over Patients

Radical Woke Mount Sinai Hospital Exposed: DEI, Child Sex Changes & Epstein Ties Prioritized Over Patients

Authored by Tate Rosentreter via The Center Square;

Consumer protection organization Consumers’ Research began a campaign Monday highlighting New York City-based nonprofit Mount Sinai Hospital's prioritization of what Consumers' calls the hospital's woke and political ideology as well as having what it says are questionable partnerships such as ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “Mount Sinai is another example of a nonprofit hospital that has seemingly abandoned its core mission of patient care in favor of a radical political agenda.”

“The hospital has a history of prioritizing radical causes like DEI, child sex-change procedures, and climate activism, and has maintained a deeply troubling and disturbing relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, accepting donations and giving him special access to doctors and hospital resources,” Hild said.

“This behavior by nonprofit health systems like Mount Sinai should be investigated for supporting these political agendas at taxpayers' expense,” Hild said.

Hild told The Center Square that “Consumers’ Research is exposing nonprofit hospitals for using taxpayer dollars and federal revenue streams and benefits to put politics over patients.”

“Taxpayers and elected officials need to be aware that health systems are misusing their resources and these practices need to be examined by lawmakers,” Hild said.

Mount Sinai media relations has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

Included in Consumers’ Research’s campaign are a mobile billboard circling the Mount Sinai campus, a website, and “targeted digital around Capitol Hill.”

The mobile billboard displays statements such as Mount Sinai “performed over 130 sex change procedures on kids,” “provides transgender resources for 8-year-olds,” and has ties to Epstein.

Consumers’ Research’s website campaign goes further in depth, showcasing the hospital’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, transgender ideology promotion, climate activism and “questionable partnerships.”

According to the campaign, Mount Sinai operates an Office for Health Data, Outcomes, and Engagement Strategy “to promote health equity cultural awareness.”

Additionally, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Institute for Health Equity Research “hosted ‘conversations on health equity,’” the campaign revealed.

As far as promoting transgender ideology goes, Mount Sinai’s Keith Haring Youth Gender Center provides care for “transgender and gender diverse youth.

Additionally, the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery “offers hormone therapy, transgender intervention surgeries, and other services for transgender patients,” Consumers’ Research campaign stated, while transgender resources are provided by Mount Sinai to children “as young as 8-years-old.”

From 2019 to 2023, Mount Sinai performed 139 sex change interventions on minors, according to Do No Harm’s database and Consumers’ Research’s campaign.

As mentioned, Mount Sinai is also involved in climate activism with a statement on its webpage entitled “Sustain Mount Sinai” stating: “Reducing our carbon footprint is not just an operational goal; it is an essential part of building a healthier future.”

Consumers’ Research campaign also outlines Mount Sinai’s “concerning, longstanding” relationship with convicted sex offender Epstein, beginning in 2008 when “after his sex crime conviction, Epstein donated at least $250,000 to Mount Sinai and sponsored various events and projects.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:05

Iranian Tankers Cross US Naval Blockade After Trump Deal Allows Iran To Restart Oil Sales

Iranian Tankers Cross US Naval Blockade After Trump Deal Allows Iran To Restart Oil Sales

The first Iranian ships crossed the area of the US naval blockade without obstruction after a memorandum of understanding was reached to end the war between Washington and Tehran, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Tuesday.

At least three Iranian oil tankers and two cargo ships carrying essential goods broke through the US naval blockade following an accord between the countries. 

A large Iranian VLCC and another vessel used to transport livestock moved from open waters toward Iranian ports, the agency said. Another Iranian tanker carrying oil also crossed the Gulf of Oman toward its designated export port, Fars said, without providing further details about the destination.

The crossing followed a WSJ report that under the agreement expected to formally end the war between the United States and Iran on Friday, Tehran would be allowed to immediately resume oil and fuel sales. The sanctions relief takes effect as soon as the agreement is signed and extends beyond crude exports to include the banking, shipping, and insurance services needed to move those barrels to market.

That detail may prove to be one of the most consequential parts of the entire agreement.

Oil sanctions are only effective if buyers can't pay, tankers can't ship, and insurers won't touch the cargo. By waiving restrictions across the entire supply chain, Washington is effectively giving Iran access to international energy markets from day one rather than months down the road, according to OilPrice.com.

Iran holds some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves and was producing well over 3 million barrels per day before the conflict. Much of that production has remained constrained by sanctions, infrastructure limitations, and wartime disruptions. The prospect of Iranian barrels returning to global markets in meaningful volumes could reshape supply expectations just as consumers and governments remain focused on energy security after months of turmoil in the Middle East.

The move also marks a striking shift in U.S. policy. Washington spent years tightening restrictions on Iran's energy sector. Now, the Trump administration appears prepared to use oil revenues as a financial incentive to secure a lasting end to the conflict.

The oil could potentially start flowing the moment the ink dries without the expected waiting period.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:40

15 Tied To Antifa Charged With Violently Interfering With ICE Operations In Minnesota

15 Tied To Antifa Charged With Violently Interfering With ICE Operations In Minnesota

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

Fifteen suspects are accused of conspiring with two Minneapolis-based Antifa groups to violently interfere with federal immigration enforcement, authorities announced on Tuesday. 

Daniel Rosen, who heads the U.S. attorney’s office for Minnesota, told reporters at his Minneapolis headquarters on June 16 that agents arrested 12 of the 15 suspects; one was already in custody for other offenses.

Two defendants remain at large. Rosen said both are aware that federal agents are seeking them in connection with an indictment that was unsealed just before the news conference.

“We expect they will surrender peacefully,” he said.

The 15 suspects—all from Minnesota—are charged with conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, interstate threats, interstate stalking, assault on a federal officer, and destruction of government property.

“These defendants have been charged not for what they said, but for what they did. They all joined an agreement, a conspiracy to interfere with lawful immigration enforcement operations,” Rosen said.

“The conspiracy was not to interfere by their voice, but to do it by force. That’s a crime, and it will not be tolerated in the United States.”

A group called “Direct Action Minnesota” is tied to many of the allegations, Rosen said, while another group, Black Cat Workers Collective, is connected to other allegations

The new cases are part of a “broad federal effort to address organized lawless behavior,” he said.

Michael McCarthy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, said the announcement followed “a thorough and months-long investigation into a deeply concerning trend—coordinated violence targeting federal law enforcement officers and facilities.”

“There is a clear line that cannot be crossed” between peaceful protesting and violence, he said, adding, “some groups have crossed that line.”

He noted that many of the violent actions opposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

The new charges were filed months after President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it was probing Antifa groups.

After some reporters questioned whether the new Antifa-related cases would hold up in court, given that a number of other cases involving anti-ICE activists have been dismissed, Rosen replied: “You watch how this case plays out; you watch how this evidence plays out, and the evidence will prove it all out.”

Antifa, short for “antifascist,” is a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals. Antifa adherents label their enemies as “fascists” and often say they will use “any means necessary” to stop people from spreading messages they oppose.

Trump had issued a directive to disrupt and dismantle Antifa, which he designated a “domestic terrorist organization” in September 2025. The following month, Trump held a roundtable discussion with journalists and commentators who alleged that Antifa targeted them with threats or violence. 

Minnesota became a hotbed of resistance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sometimes involving Antifa, after federal agencies ramped up immigration enforcement in that state. That happened partly in response to accusations that networks of immigrants were defrauding government programs on a large scale.

In two separate January incidents, ICE opponents Renee Good and Alex Pretti were fatally shot by federal agents during protests, but there was no reported Antifa connection to either of those shootings. Rosen said investigations into both shootings are ongoing.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:15

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Trump's First-Term Tariff On China

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Trump's First-Term Tariff On China

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 declined to hear a legal challenge to tariffs imposed on Chinese imports by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term in 2018.

The decision follows an appeal by HMTX Industries and other businesses after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year upheld the tariffs, which Trump previously imposed on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in response to China’s unfair trade practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ruling, but the high court denied the request on June 15, keeping the tariffs in place. The justices did not provide any explanation for the decision.

According to a Feb. 20 petition filed by the importers, the first Trump administration imposed an initial round of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

The administration later expanded the tariffs in response to China’s retaliatory tariff measures by invoking Section 307 of the Trade Act, which allows the president to modify existing tariffs to address unfair trade practices.

“But Congress nowhere gave USTR [Office of the United States Trade Representative] the vast power to engage in an open-ended trade war under that modest modification provision. Yet that is precisely what happened here,” the importers said.

“That USTR’s ‘modification’ continues to impose billions of dollars in taxes on the American public each month is enough to warrant this court’s review.”

In a May filing, the administration argued that the case did not merit Supreme Court review and said the law allows the USTR to modify tariffs as long as the changes “are not radically transformative.”

“Accordingly, modifications imposed under Section 307(a) necessarily comport with the Act’s scheme because they are limited to actions appropriate to address the same problem that the original Section 301 actions addressed, as that problem has evolved over time,” it stated.

After taking office for a second term last year, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on trading partners, citing the need to regulate international transactions to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.

The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in February, ruling that the IEEPA does not clearly authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The Trump administration has been looking at alternative legal avenues following the Supreme Court ruling.

USTR Jamieson Greer said on Feb. 20 that his office would launch new Section 301 investigations covering most major trading partners.

The new trade investigations will cover various areas, including industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies and digital goods and services, digital services taxes, and ocean pollution.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 18:25

Wyoming And Spokane Data Center Pauses Show NIMBY Fury Has Shifted From Nuclear To AI

Wyoming And Spokane Data Center Pauses Show NIMBY Fury Has Shifted From Nuclear To AI

The latest cracks in the data center buildout story arrived this month from opposite ends of the energy-rich West. Crusoe paused development activities on its 1.8 GW “Project Jade” campus near Cheyenne, Wyoming, at the explicit request of its customer. 

Just days later, Avista announced it was pausing processing of a 500 MW data center request in Spokane County after more than 5,000 community complaints, a proposed city council moratorium, and concerns over ratepayer costs and legacy contamination at the former Kaiser Aluminum smelter site.

This all fits the pattern we’ve documented for over a year with proposed US data center capacity colliding with local political reality, transmission bottlenecks, and raw NIMBY resistance that now appears more intense than the peak opposition nuclear power plants faced in prior decades.

71% of Americans oppose construction of an AI data center in their local area, with 48% strongly opposed. 

By comparison, opposition to a nuclear plant in the same backyard stands at 53%. 

Data centers have managed to poll worse on local acceptance than nuclear facilities ever did at the height of their controversy. 

We have been pounding the table on this long enough that we're frankly surprised the table is still standing. Half of the US data center capacity originally slated to begin operations in 2026 faces delays or outright cancellation, according to Sightline Climate analysis we covered in April.

Contested projects are seeing roughly 40% cancellation rates in some analyses. Eminent domain fights over transmission lines have erupted in Maryland, Georgia, and elsewhere. Brookfield-backed Compass withdrew from a major Northern Virginia corridor. Community revolts have already killed or delayed billions in projects from Texas to the Midwest. 

The Avista and Crusoe cases simply add fresh, high-profile confirmation that even brownfield sites with existing power infrastructure and willing utilities are not immune.

The investment implications for the nuclear sector are direct and near-term negative for sentiment, even if the long-term logic remains intact. The explosive AI-driven power demand narrative that helped lift names such as Oklo (OKLO), NuScale (SMR), NANO Nuclear (NNE), Cameco (CCJ), and the broader sector via URA, NLR, and NUKZ, has always rested on the assumption that hyperscale load growth would translate into contracted, financeable nuclear capacity on accelerated timelines. 

When marquee data center campuses pause or reconfigure, that assumption gets stress-tested. Equity volatility in the nuclear complex has reflected exactly this uncertainty with profit-taking and narrative recalibration whenever friction in the demand side becomes visible.

None of this changes the structural math. The US still adds essentially zero new large reactors while China commissions multiple units per year. AI training and inference loads are real and growing. But the notion that private capital and hyperscaler demand alone would bulldoze through local opposition and grid constraints was always optimistic. 

These latest pauses demonstrate that the problem is not unique to nuclear permitting. It is a systemic feature of American infrastructure development in the current political and regulatory environment.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 18:00

SPLC Official Shared Bank Accounts With Neo-Nazi Informant

SPLC Official Shared Bank Accounts With Neo-Nazi Informant

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

The New York Post reported on Tuesday the identity of the Southern Poverty Law Center official who, according to court records, was in a relationship with one of the SPLC’s paid neo-Nazi informants.

According to the Post, the SPLC official is Heidi Beirich, who was the group’s director of intelligence between 2012 and 2019. The Post noted that the “Employee-2” named in the Justice Department’s indictment matches Beirich’s profile.

“One figure, referred to as ‘Employee-2’ in the indictment is described as a ‘person who would become Director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project,’” the Post noted.

“It also describes how ‘Employee-2’ wrote an article based on material stolen from National Alliance headquarters in 2014 and then paid off an informant to take the blame for the robbery.”

According to the DOJ, Employee-2 was in a relationship with an SPLC informant who infiltrated the neo-Nazi organization National Alliance.

The informant has yet to be identified. He’s referred to in the indictment as “F-9.”

The DOJ indictment says F-9 and Employee-2 shared a house and two bank accounts.

“Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account … and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and [Beirich],” court records state.

“This amounted to approximately 66% of all money ever deposited into their joint bank accounts. [Beirich] then used donors’ money to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.”

The DOJ also said F-9 stole 25 boxes of documents from the National Alliance. The Post noted that Beirich wrote an article allegedly based on the stolen materials in 2015.

Another informant was paid to take the blame for F-9’s theft. In April, Headline USA revealed the likely identity of that informant, who’s referred to as ‘F-39’ in the indictment. He is likely former National Alliance accountant Randolph Dilloway. The indictment says F-39 was paid $6,000 to take the blame for F-9’s theft. That information aligns with a lawsuit from around that time accusing Dilloway of being paid over $5,000 by the SPLC to steal documents.

The Post said Beirich and the SPLC did not respond to requests for comment.

The SPLC has a pending motion to dismiss the DOJ’s indictment, arguing that the case is one of vindictive prosecution.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:40

Record Percentage Of Central Banks Expect Gold Reserves To Increase In Next 12 Months

Record Percentage Of Central Banks Expect Gold Reserves To Increase In Next 12 Months

Today, the World Gold Council released their 2026 Central Bank Gold Reserves Survey. Amongst the insights, here is the punchline: a record 45% of respondents expect their own gold reserves will increase over the next 12 months

Central banks have accumulated an average of 1,000t of gold over the past four years, up significantly from the 500t average over the preceding decade. This marked acceleration in the pace of accumulation has occurred against a backdrop of geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which has clouded the outlook for reserve managers.

The WGC's 2026 Central Bank Gold Reserves (CBGR) survey was conducted between 5 February and 19 May. With the majority of responses coming in after the start of the Middle East conflict, this year’s survey contains insights on how central bankers view gold in the light of ongoing geopolitical turmoil. The sample is highly representative of the overall central bank community, both geographically and in terms of gold owned. This robust participation is a powerful signal of engagement with gold amongst the central banking community. 

Here are the key highlights:

Similar to findings from previous surveys, central banks continue to hold favorable expectations on gold. Respondents overwhelmingly (89%) believe that global central bank gold reserves will increase over the next 12 months.

As noted above, this year, a record 45% of respondents expect their own gold reserves will also increase over the same period. The majority of the remaining respondents indicated they expect no change while 1% expect their institution’s gold reserves to decrease (hello, Turkey).

Gold’s performance during times of crisis, portfolio diversification and inflation hedging are some of the key factors for central banks to hold gold. In addition, gold as a geopolitical risk hedge and gold as part of a reserve diversification policy also feature as key reasons for increasing allocations to gold.

The majority of respondents (74%) see moderate or significantly lower US dollar holdings within global reserves over the next five years. Respondents also believe that the share of other currencies, such as the euro and renminbi will remain unchanged over the same period, while gold holdings will increase.

This year’s survey asked respondents how they would fund their new gold purchases. Half of respondents indicated through a domestic purchase program in local currency, while 38% indicated through selling existing reserve assets.

The Bank of England remains the most popular vaulting location among respondents at 57%, though central banks continue to diversify their storage across multiple locations. Domestic storage came in second at 49%, followed by the Bank for International Settlements at 16% (a slight uptick from last year). The Swiss National Bank saw a notable decline in preference, dropping to 6% from 12% in 2025.

A notable increase in changes to vaulting locations was observed in this year’s survey, with 9% saying they have increased domestic storage and 10% saying they have diversified overseas storage locations in the past 12 months, compared with 5% and 2% respectively in last year’s survey. The trend is also observed in future plans for vaulting, with 7% saying they plan to increase domestic storage and 9% saying they plan to diversify overseas storage locations in the coming 12 months. 

Summary:

This year’s survey reinforces the trend: central banks remain very positive on gold, highlighting its significance amid a volatile geopolitical and economic environment

The survey shows a continuation of the trend uncovered in previous years: central banks see gold making up a growing share of their reserve portfolios. 84% of respondents believe that gold will hold a (moderately or significantly) higher share of total reserves five years from now, up from 76% last year. Responses were also fairly consistent between central banks in advanced economies and EMDE (emerging markets and developing economies), with the majority anticipating that the proportion of total reserves held in gold would be moderately higher in five years’ time (Chart 1). Respondents were less sanguine on the US dollar. While it maintains its position as the dominant global reserve currency, data from the IMF’s Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) shows that its share has been on a gradual decline. And respondents believe this trend will continue, with 74% expecting its share to be lower five years from now (Chart 2, p4). Both advanced economy and EMDE responses were aligned in this view.

When asked about expectations for how global central bank gold reserves will change over the next 12 months, respondents were almost unanimous, with 89% of respondents believing that official gold reserves will continue to increase (Chart 3). This sentiment was consistent across both advanced economy and EMDE respondents. It should be noted that 11% of central banks believe that gold’s proportion of total reserves would remain unchanged, up from 5% last year.  In addition, 45% of respondents thought that their own institution’s gold reserves would rise over the next year, broadly in line with last year’s finding (43%).

Most respondents did not expect their gold reserves to change in the next 12 months. This marks a new record high in the proportion of central banks expecting to add gold to their own reserves with EMDE banks continuing to lead their advanced economy counterparts. Among EMDE respondents around half thought that their own gold reserves would increase in the next 12 months, while the other half anticipated they would remain unchanged.

The findings highlight that gold sentiment within the central banking community remains upbeat. Expectations point to continued gold buying over the next 12 months, reflecting sustained confidence in gold’s strategic role amid evolving geopolitical and macroeconomic dynamics.

More in the full survey available here for subs.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:20

"By Any Means Necessary": Candidate Struck From Alaska Ballot Over Alleged Democratic Dirty Trick

"By Any Means Necessary": Candidate Struck From Alaska Ballot Over Alleged Democratic Dirty Trick

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is an interesting controversy in Alaska where an election official just disqualified a candidate over his name. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is in what is considered a close race with Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola. The seat is viewed as critical to the Democrats' retaking power. The race was thrown into disarray when a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan, who had no connection to the GOP but did have connections to Democratic operatives, got on the ballot.

The alleged dirty trick by Democratic and Peltola supporters would have split Sullivan's vote through sheer confusion. Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, putting an end to it this week.

The suspected dirty trick comes at a time when Democratic candidates and pundits are calling for winning back power "by any means necessary."

It could create an interesting appeal if teacher Sullivan claims that this is just a colossal coincidence or that he has a right to be a vehicle for electoral confusion.

This is an old trick employed by other Democratic candidates in history, including J.F. Kennedy. In Kennedy's first run for Congress in 1946 in Boston, he was up against Boston City Councilor Joe Russo in the primary. The district was heavily Irish and Italian. Kennedy's father, Joe, allegedly paid another Joseph Russo, a custodian, to run to divide the Italian vote through confusion.

In 2000, Republicans faced similar allegations when the House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt found himself running against Richard A. Gebhardt.

Beecher concluded that Dan J. Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in the same dirty trick to try to seize the seat. In a letter this week, she concluded that the teacher's candidacy was "filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot's fairness or neutrality," in a letter published Monday.

Under Alaska's ranked-choice voting system, Dan J. Sullivan could have advanced to the general election among the top four vote-getters - rigging the result for Peltola.

Beecher noted several indicators that teacher Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in a dishonest campaign of confusion. She noted that he voted under the name Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., but requested to appear on the ballot as Dan Sullivan - making him identical to the incumbent. He even tried to register using the initial "S" once, which would have matched the senator.

She also noted that Dan J. Sullivan had not registered as a Republican before launching his Senate campaign and that he created a new website that used a "color scheme and overall theme" similar to the incumbent's campaign materials.

She also noted his connection to Amber Lee, an Alaska Democratic consultant and past supporter of Peltola.

If true, it is a disgraceful role played by this retired teacher and Democratic operatives. While claiming to be defending democracy, Democratic activists and leaders often use the most anti-democratic measures of ballot cleansing or, in this case, ballot confusion.

The question is the role of Peltola, the DNC, and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in encouraging this dirty trick in Alaska. That would require an inquisitive, independent national media.

Once again, from Alaska to Maine, Democrats may have to ask, "Are we the baddies?"

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:00

MLB Scolds Players Who Wrote Bible Verses On Pride Night Uniforms

MLB Scolds Players Who Wrote Bible Verses On Pride Night Uniforms

Major League Baseball on Monday issued a warning to three players who represent the gayest city in America, but who dared to write references to a biblical passage on their Pride Night uniforms. The three San Francisco Giants teamed up for the subtle gesture at Friday night's home game, which they lost 5-1 to the visiting Chicago Cubs.  

“The writing on the cap violates our rules and, consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations,” MLB chief communication officer Pat Courtney told Outsports, which bills itself as "your home for all things LGBTQ+ sports." (Um... all things???)  Outsports said the players "disgraced themselves" and accused them of "weaponing [sic] the Pride rainbow and attacking the LGBTQ community."

In 2026, only the Texas Rangers are abstaining from Pride Night observations. The Giants' Pride Night featured the national anthem being performed by members of an "LGBTQ-affirming nondenominational church," and homosexual married couples renewing their vows under the approving eye of a drag queen. Three Giants pitchers had their own idea for the festivities.

Landen Roupp wrote "Genesis 9:12-16" on the Pride Night cap issued to players by the San Francisco Giants

Starter Landen Roupp and relievers JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker wrote "Genesis 9:11-16" next to the rainbow "SF" on the special hats issued for the occasion. Within those verses, God promises he'll never again unleash a mass homicide in the form of a flood, as he did in the story of Noah, and he says the rainbow will serve as a recurring reminder of that commitment: 

"And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

After the game, Roupp told reporters he wanted to lead fans to "God's covenant and the promise that He makes to us," adding, "There's no hate at all. It’s just what I stand for, and what I stand in. I believe in God...As a believer, I would push [LGBTQ people] to read the Bible." A fourth Giant, Sam Hentges, refused to wear the cap at all, and said, "It’s just something that I feel like I was forced to support, when I don't morally support it." 

San Francisco Chronicle sports columnist Ann Killon railed against the pitchers for "defacing" their uniforms with...a bible verse. "On a night that was supposed to be about inclusion, they hijacked the event for their own purposes. In the name of Christianity, they took a decidedly un-Christian stance of exclusion and judgment." Sounds like Killon's version of inclusion has no room for Christians. 

The Giants pitchers didn't pioneer the use of the Genesis passage to "re-claim" the rainbow as a religious symbol. The verses have been used that way for some 20 years or more, as evidenced by a 2007 article, "Taking Back the Rainbow," which lamented that, "sadly, the colors of the rainbow are...used on a flag for the gay and lesbian movement."

The Dodgers have repeatedly invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to participate in Pride Night festivities

Last June, the Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw stirred controversy by writing the same verse-reference on his cap. In his biography, Kershaw explained his thinking: 

“I put a lot of thought into it, and talked to a lot of different people...I just came to the conclusion that the Dodgers really put us in a horrible position. It’s not an LGBT issue. It’s just, like, [the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are] pretty rough. And I’m all for funny, and satire, but that goes way beyond it. So I did feel like I needed to say something...

If you ever doubted the fading US empire is wading ever deeper into Caligula levels of depravity that targets everyone in our society, the Dodgers' embrace of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at Pride Night observations helps provide clarity. The fiendish-looking group of drag queens wears nun garb and makes vulgar mockeries of Roman Catholicism, Christianity and traditional values, adopting names like "Sister Anita Blowjob" and "Sister GladAss of the Joyous Reserectum." 

Let's be thankful that players like the quartet of Giants, the Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw and others are pushing back against LGBTQ being force-fed to people who just want to watch a baseball game. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 16:40

Pages