90 F
Chicago
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Home Blog Page 13

Federal Court Clears Way For Gulf Of America Energy Development

Federal Court Clears Way For Gulf Of America Energy Development

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal court has quashed a lawsuit objecting to federal supervision of oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America following the government’s steps of exempting those activities from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing national security reasons. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decreed the case moot and said it did not hold jurisdiction to continue. The dismissal comes after the Endangered Species Committee’s unanimous March 31 move to exempt all Gulf of America oil and gas operations from the ESA. 

The committee made the decision after the secretary of war concluded an exemption was required for national security reasons, marking the first time the committee has issued an exemption based on national security reasons.

The exemption rescinded the legal foundation for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2025 biological opinion and incidental take statement regarding those activities. 

Without underlying ESA requirements to enforce, the documents “retain no legal force,” the Justice Department said Thursday when announcing the court decision. 

“The Endangered Species Committee’s exemption reflects a judgment at the highest levels of government that producing American energy in the Gulf of America is essential to our national security,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement.

“Today’s decision clears away litigation that threatened development in the Gulf, in furtherance of President Donald J. Trump’s directive to unleash American energy.”

The Endangered Species Committee is composed of six senior federal officials and is chaired by the secretary of the interior. 

Congress empowered the panel to exempt agency actions from Section 7 of the ESA and directed it to grant an exemption whenever the secretary of war finds national security requires it. The exemption now governs the Gulf oil and gas program. ESA rules cannot be deployed to disrupt energy production that the government views as key to the nation, the department said.

Attorneys with the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Wildlife and Marine Resources Section handled the matter for the government.

The decision marks a significant change in how ESA applies to major energy projects in the Gulf. 

Section 7 generally requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service prior to taking actions that could affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. 

The service examines potential impacts and, if appropriate, issues a biological opinion and an incidental take statement to allow limited harm to protected species if steps are taken to minimize effects.

The dismissed lawsuit challenged the 2025 biological opinion and incidental take statement for Gulf oil and gas operations. The exemption nullified those documents as irrelevant to the projects, putting an end to the legal dispute over their validity or sufficiency.

By dismissing the case, the court did not have to issue a ruling on the substance of the environmental claims. 

The result precludes one potential legal case that could have delayed or impacted energy development in the region.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/27/2026 – 09:20

Feds Nab Iranian In Montenegro Over Alleged $3.4BN Cyberattack Campaign Targeting US Institutions

Feds Nab Iranian In Montenegro Over Alleged $3.4BN Cyberattack Campaign Targeting US Institutions

In the years leading up to President Trump coming into office and ordering Operation Epic Fury targeting the Islamic Republic for regime change, which failed to accomplish this (early-stated) goal, Iran had frequently been accused of orchestrating major cyberespionage campaigns targeting the United States and its allies.

But rarely was any individual or group apprehended for such alleged cyberattacks, much less was definitive proof uncovered of backing from the Iranian government. But on Friday there has been a reported capture of an Iranian suspected cyber-attacker, said to be behind dozens of significant sabotage attacks on American institutions, mainly of higher learning.

A high-profile international manhunt ended in the coastal town of Kotor on Thursday, as Montenegrin police, reportedly acting on an FBI tip-off, arrested an Iranian-Turkish dual national accused of masterminding a catastrophic, decade-long cyberwar against US infrastructure.

via Reuters

The 39-year-old suspect, identified by authorities only as “A.B.”, is wanted by the United States for allegedly orchestrating cyberattacks that inflicted a staggering $3.4 billion in damages.

The suspect is facing a laundry list of charges from a New York court – among them computer fraud, hacking, identity theft, organized crime.

Authorities allege that from 2013 onwards he carried out “massive hacking attacks” systematically targeting American intellectual property. Astoundingly this included more than 150 US universities, which saw their networks infiltrated and proprietary data plundered.

The actions apparently weren’t just for profit, as investigators allege the stolen data and compromised university accounts were weaponized “for the benefit of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other Iranian beneficiaries, including universities.”

However, it’s as yet unclear what evidence exists for this, or the degree to which authorities have found ties to state entities or intelligence – but one can imagine that operations of this scale might likely have had state backing.

The suspect is currently being held ahead of an appearance before a court in the Montenegrin capital, Podgorica, which will ultimately rule on the US extradition request – something which will likely be granted, given the FBI assist to local investigators.

Back in 2018, the Department of Justice unsealed a sweeping indictment that accused nine Iranian nationals of hacking universities and other organizations to steal academic research and data.

So far, US authorities have not specifically indicated whether the latest arrest is connected to that prior case, leaving open the question of whether “A.B.” was a lone operator or part of a much larger state-backed or intelligence-linked apparatus.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/27/2026 – 08:45

EU Joins US-Led Pax Silica Alliance To Secure AI Supply Chains

EU Joins US-Led Pax Silica Alliance To Secure AI Supply Chains

Authored by James Xu via The Epoch Times,

The European Commission, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands have joined the U.S.-led Pax Silica partnership, expanding a group focused on securing supply chains for artificial intelligence and other critical technologies.

Semiconductor chips on a circuit board of a computer on Feb. 25, 2022. Florence Lo/Illustration/Reuters

The announcement came at a summit in Washington on June 23 hosted by the U.S. State Department. The partnership aims to strengthen cooperation on semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and advanced manufacturing.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg welcomed the new members.

The European Union does not join Pax Silica as one more name on a list. It arrives as what it is: the largest single market on Earth,” he said.

Helberg highlighted Germany’s industrial base, Greece’s shipping industry and strategic location, and the Netherlands’ longstanding role in semiconductor equipment, where it has long been a key partner.

According to the U.S. State Department, members signed a declaration committing to “mutual prosperity, technological progress, and economic security.” The agreement also calls for reducing excessive supply chain dependencies and building trusted technology ecosystems with private industry.

The European Union joined after EU member states authorized the European Commission to sign on behalf of the bloc.

Trusted Supply Chains

Pax Silica was launched in Washington in December 2025. Founding members included Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Israel, among others. They signed the initial declaration to strengthen cooperation on technologies considered critical to future economic security.

The partnership has grown steadily since then. Members now also include Australia, India, the Philippines, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Taiwan has endorsed the initiative’s principles through a separate joint statement but is not a formal signatory.

U.S. officials say the partnership is intended to build trusted supply chains among allies. The move forms part of broader U.S. efforts to reduce dependence on China for technologies such as advanced chips, critical minerals, and AI infrastructure.

China currently dominates global rare earth processing, accounting for roughly 80 to 90 percent of refined supply. It also holds a significant share of mining output for several key critical minerals used in electronics and renewable energy technologies.

In April, the United States and the Philippines announced plans for a 4,000-acre economic security zone in the Luzon Economic Corridor to support production for strategic supply chains under the partnership.

This zone is described by officials as the first AI-native industrial acceleration hub under Pax Silica.

Helberg said similar cooperation on critical minerals is under discussion with Kazakhstan, though no agreement has been announced. Such projects mark the initiative’s move into practical application.

Further announcements on new members and projects are expected in the coming weeks.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/27/2026 – 08:10

When Extremists Run The Government

When Extremists Run The Government

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Two can certainly play the “extremist” game…

Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day.  

For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious.  For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking.  For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”

“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word.  It means nothing.  It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct.  Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss.  Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.  The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic.  Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.”

Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.”  To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism.  To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith.  One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.”  Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes.  We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congresswho define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.”  For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.”  Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.”  If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.

In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure.  

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections.  By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American.  Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists!  If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.

In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism.  

Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt.  Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens.  Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices; Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food.  Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities.  Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct.  Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy.  Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars.  Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world.  Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet.

On the most important issues, Congress is filled to the brim with extremists They should be put on official security lists and monitored whenever they travel more than fifty feet from their taxpayer-financed homes.  Instead, in the United States and throughout the West, the extremists run things.

That would explain why Christians are targeted for their beliefs.  That would explain why the governments of Europe and North America have flooded their countries with unassimilable malcontents from the third world.  That would explain why men are allowed into women’s restrooms and why pedophiles are accorded more respect than heterosexual married couples.  That would explain why Western governments have declared war on “climate change” when most people don’t care about elites’ obsession with the weather.  That would explain why so many European and North American politicians are willing to risk a nuclear war with the Russian Federation, while ordinary citizens have never been less willing to fight for the defense of their respective countries.

Perhaps the more that ordinary Westerners realize that it is the people running their governments, universities, and bureaucratic institutions who are most extreme, the less willing they become to do what those extremists say.  Six years ago, the extremists locked down the world because of COVID.  They closed churches, bankrupted businesses, disrupted childhood education, prevented family members from being together, and killed a lot of people with fake “vaccines.”  If public health extremists tried to pull another COVID today, would ordinary Westerners do what the politicians and bureaucrats say?  Or would Western citizens conclude that extremist governments endanger both their lives and liberties?

Two can certainly play the “extremist” game.  Two-hundred-fifty years ago, the British Empire believed the patriots of America’s thirteen colonies to be extremists.  The patriots disagreed.  They considered it extreme for members of Parliament to make decisions on their behalf while residing 3,500 miles away.  The two sets of “extremists” fought it out, and we American “extremists” now celebrate July 4 as Independence Day.

My question is this: How much longer can the governments of Europe and North America continue to ignore the wishes of their national populations before we find ourselves in a situation where there is an explosion of public declarations of independence from the political and bureaucratic extremists who have ruined people’s lives?  For, as much as Western governments appear to be betting on mass surveillance, central bank digital currencies, censorship, propaganda, and technocratic oppression as weapons of control to help maintain power well into the future, there’s nothing so unpredictable as a fed-up populace ready for a little revolution.  When enough people recognize themselves as average representatives of the public will and their government officials as extremists representing only their own interests, things get interesting.  Being labeled an “extremist” by government extremists means nothing.

One might even ask: Isn’t globalism tantamount to extremism when a politician puts other nations’ interests ahead of his own?  Surely, when a government official undermines the nation he serves by championing open borders policies or wasting taxpayer dollars on “climate change” boondoggles at the U.N., that official deserves to be labeled an “extremist.”  Globalists certainly don’t represent the average North American or European citizen.  But they do represent the average cosmopolitan bureaucrat who sees no country as home.

In a world of nations whose populations require different things, globalism is extremist.  

In a world of varying cultures and competing beliefs, forced multiculturalism is extremist.  

In a world where some people wish to be free, international government is extremist.

Fighting for liberty is not extremist.  It is government tyranny that is extreme.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/27/2026 – 07:00

Russia’s Lavrov Admits That Anchorage Only Bought Time For Ukraine To Rearm

Russia’s Lavrov Admits That Anchorage Only Bought Time For Ukraine To Rearm

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Lavrov sheepishly said during a roundtable event last week that “I do not even want to suspect that Alaska, like the actions of the Europeans, was designed to buy time to rearm the Kyiv regime. I don’t even want to think about it. But in reality, things turned out the way they did.”

 

This came three and a half years after former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted in December 2022 that the Minsk Accords were just a ruse to buy time for Kiev to rearm.

Putin famously responded a month later that “We endured for a long time, tried to reach an agreement for a long time. But, as it turns out now, we were simply led by the nose, deceived. It’s not the first time this has happened.” Given that he cautioned Russia’s strategic forecasters against indulging in “wishful thinking” during a speech at the headquarters of his country’s Foreign Spy Service in summer 2022, it was widely assumed among “Non-Russian Pro-Russians” that he wouldn’t fall for a similar ruse.

Lo and behold, that’s precisely what happened after Trump reneged on the “Spirit of Anchorage”, which an RT contributor described as him having agreed to coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass in exchange for Putin then declaring a ceasefire. It’s a matter of speculation whether Trump intended to dupe Putin or whether he just caught too caught up in retrospect planning Maduro’s capture and the Third Gulf War. The outcome, nevertheless, is the same since Trump didn’t do what he promised Putin.

Trump is now “escalating to de-escalate” through a “war of attrition” because he senses weakness from Russia due to the new “cordon sanitaire” around it and thus believes that strengthening Ukraine’s strike capabilities, imposing more sanctions, and provoking unrest can coerce energy-related concessions. The Wall Street Journal reported on the aforementioned three-phase strategy last fall so Russia would have presumably been aware of it but still maintained hope that Trump would implement his deal with Putin.

This “wishful thinking” has now been shattered after he signed the G7 joint statement calling for more arms to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, which preceded a report that he told Zelensky to act “more boldly” against Russia after being impressed by its recent US-backed strategic strikes. To be sure, Russia had realized even before this that something was wrong after Putin’s close advisor Yuri Ushakov played dumb about the “Spirit of Anchorage” last month, but now it’s indisputable that it no longer exists.

Seeing as how there’s no longer any credible hope that Trump will coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass by cutting off arms, funds, and intel to Ukraine, not even in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia, only three options remain for Russia.

  1. It can either decisively “escalate to de-escalate” in its own right to swiftly end the conflict on as many of its terms as possible,

  2. carry on as usual amidst this new “war of attrition” at tremendous risk to itself,

  3. or freeze the conflict.

Unless he’s bluffing about “escalating to de-escalate” and abruptly implements his half of the “Spirit of Anchorage”, which is unlikely after all that’s recently happened, then it would mean that the past year since their meeting achieved nothing at all other than getting Russia’s guard down. Even if they agreed on that quid pro quo, however, Russia would have probably kept the same tempo. Now that its “spirit” is discredited, Russia has the pretext for ramping everything up, but it’s still unclear whether Putin will.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 23:25

The Average Asian American Household Makes More Than Double That Of Blacks

The Average Asian American Household Makes More Than Double That Of Blacks

Median household income differs significantly across racial and ethnic groups in the United States, with one group sitting well above the rest.

In 2024, Asian households reported a median income of $121,700, nearly $30,000 higher than White alone, non-Hispanic households and more than double the median income of Black households.

These differences reflect a mix of factors, including education, geography, occupation, household composition, immigration patterns, and historical inequalities.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks median household income by race and Hispanic origin in 2024, using inflation-adjusted dollars.

The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Asian Households Lead by a Wide Margin

Asian households had the highest median income in 2024, at $121,700. This was well above every other group shown in the Census dataset.

White alone, non-Hispanic households ranked second, with a median income of $92,530. Hispanic households followed at $70,950.

American Indian and Alaska Native households had a median income of $59,050, while Black households had the lowest among the listed groups at $56,020.

Asian households had a median income that was $29,170 higher than White alone, non-Hispanic households in 2024.

This group has ranked at the top of the dataset for every year shown, from 2002 to 2024.

It is important to note that these are median household figures, not individual earnings. Household income can be affected by the number of earners in a household, local cost of living, age distribution, educational attainment, and where people live and work.

A Persistent Income Gap

The gap between the highest and lowest median household incomes was $65,680 in 2024.

That difference compares Asian households at $121,700 with Black households at $56,020. In practical terms, the top group’s median income was more than double the lowest group’s.

The long-term trend also shows that these gaps have persisted across multiple economic cycles. While incomes have generally risen since 2002 in inflation-adjusted terms, the distance between the highest- and lowest-income groups remains substantial.

Hispanic Household Income Continued to Rise

Hispanic households had a median income of $70,950 in 2024.

That was up from $67,240 in 2023, and well above the 2002 level of $54,670 in 2024 dollars.

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic as people of Hispanic or Latino origin, regardless of race. This means Hispanic households can include people who identify with any racial group.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Number of Indian Tribes in the US on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 23:00

The Other Problem With Socialism

The Other Problem With Socialism

Authored by Chris Talgo via American Thinker,

In 1976, Margaret Thatcher said during a television interview, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

Over the years, that quote has been whittled down to the renowned proverb: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

This is a powerful argument against socialism. Even better, it has been validated time and time again, most notably when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in 1991. The Soviet Union was an economic basket case, and the whole world witnessed its demise.

But socialism has an even bigger problem: it is immoral.

Even if it did somehow work efficiently and effectively at an economic level, it would still be immoral.

A broad definition of “moral” is “conforming to a standard of behavior that is considered right and good by most people.” Morality is synonymous with truth, honor, honesty, fairness, righteousness, and virtue.

Immorality is the antithesis of morality. It is synonymous with wickedness, callousness, evil, sin, vileness, viciousness, darkness, and ruthlessness.

Socialism, in its depraved but effective way, appeals to people’s worst instincts and impulses. It presents the world as a zero-sum game in which there are winners and losers. It pits groups of people against each other based on arbitrary measures. For the narrow-minded, it makes sense.

It embodies most of the seven deadly sins.

Pride: Socialists have zero humility because they reject the fallibility of humanity. They can micromanage an entire society. They can create a centralized, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control utopia. They know all and know best.

Envy: Taking one’s property because they have too much to give to others who have less is not noble; it is theft. Stealing with state-sanctioned approval is unjust. The sheer resentment that some have more, better, or bigger material possessions is the driving force of socialist ideology.

Wrath: Socialist doctrine fuels anger, rage, violence, and a desire for vengeance against the so-called oppressors. Instead of mimicking the successful, the people turn their ire toward them.

Sloth: Because socialism is about passing the buck and the blame, it excuses idleness and promotes laziness. It allows one to shirk personal duties and retards personal growth.

The above is far from a comprehensive list of socialism flaws or features, depending on where one sits on the moral relativity scale.

For those who outright reject moral relativism, deconstructionism, postmodernism, and critical theory in favor of universal truth, reason, logic, and fairness, socialism is obviously not up your alley.

Alas, for millions of Americans, especially Americans born after the Cold War, socialism has been branded very differently. Socialism has been presented to them with a smile. For America’s youth, socialism is like a happy meal because it brings nothing but joy.

I know this from first-hand experience in several public schools over the years. It is no big secret that the K-12 education system leans left.

However, it is a well-kept secret that young Americans have been, and are being, indoctrinated that socialism is just, fair, and good in public schools. In the meantime, they are being purposely miseducated about American history, especially the nation’s founding.

Such is why young Americans are champing at the bit to vote for socialists.

The left’s long march through the institutions has created a culture that champions socialism under the misguided assumption that it is moral.

This is incredibly dangerous because these young minds are also unaware that socialism, as Thatcher said, leads to bankruptcy.

If socialism can be rebranded as morally wholesome despite its undisputed track record of mass murder, misery, and poverty, it can rise from the ashes in the United States.

It would be tragic if the United States, which fought on the side of freedom throughout the Cold War, succumbed to socialism in the end. I worry the rising tide of suicidal empathy, coupled with a lack of knowledge about socialism’s history and sheer immorality, could bring a socialist revolution to the United States. I hope I am wrong.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 22:35

Trump Expands Critical Minerals Push With Army Bases

Trump Expands Critical Minerals Push With Army Bases

The Trump administration is taking another step to strengthen the nation’s critical minerals supply chain, announcing plans to build a series of mineral processing facilities on U.S. military bases through partnerships with private industry, according to Bloomberg.

The initiative marks the first time commercial mineral processing operations will be located on Army installations.

The U.S. Army said it has reached preliminary agreements with REalloys, Titan Mining, EnergyX, and Australia’s ioneer to develop facilities that will process rare earth elements, graphite, lithium, and boron. REalloys is slated to build a rare earth separation plant at the Tooele Army Depot in Utah, while Titan Mining will establish a graphite purification facility at either Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas or Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. EnergyX will develop a lithium processing facility, and ioneer will construct a boron plant.

Bloomberg writes that the projects are part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to rebuild America’s domestic critical minerals industry and reduce reliance on overseas suppliers, particularly China, which dominates much of the global processing market. Critical minerals are essential for military equipment, electric vehicles, semiconductors, renewable energy systems, and a wide range of consumer electronics.

Unlike traditional government subsidy programs, the Army said these agreements require the companies to pay for and carry out infrastructure improvements at the military bases in exchange for operating rights. The Pentagon expects the facilities to provide the military with more reliable access to strategically important materials while expanding U.S. processing capacity. Construction could begin as early as 2027, with production expected to come online in 2028.

The announcement follows a series of recent moves by the administration to boost domestic mineral production through loans, investments, and strategic partnerships. Those efforts have accelerated as geopolitical tensions with China continue to reshape global supply chains, with both countries taking steps to secure access to the raw materials increasingly viewed as essential to national security and advanced manufacturing.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 22:10

Psychology Journal Under Fire For Retracting Publication Challenging Claims Of Racism

Psychology Journal Under Fire For Retracting Publication Challenging Claims Of Racism

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

We have previously discussed academic journals canceling publications that challenge the orthodox views of mainstream scholars. The latest such example can be found in the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, which pulled the 2025 article of Arna Mitchell who questioned claims that psychology as a field is a tool of “white power.” The editors reportedly declared that such conclusions are “inconsistent” with the publication’s “values.”

Dr. Kumari Valentine, a psychologist and former editor of the journal, wrote an article raising concerns over the retraction: “The reason given for the removal was not research fraud, plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or factual error. Rather, the NZCCP Council determined that retaining the article was inconsistent with the values of the College and could perpetuate harm to Māori.”

The article, “He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand,” took issue with the “broad,” unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism in “psychology across all levels of the discipline,” including that “science itself is a social construct of white Europeans” and “white power.”

Mitchell, a Māori woman herself, also took issue with the view that tribal “ways of knowing should be given equal weight to scientific ways of knowing in the training and practice of psychologists in New Zealand.”

One would think that such a viewpoint, particularly from a Māori woman, would, at a minimum, be welcomed as a provocative and interesting perspective. However, various readers were less interested in reading it or even responding to it. They campaigned to cancel it.

Some did respond, saying they felt the critique was based on a misunderstanding of Kaupapa Maori psychology. That should also be a welcome perspective in allowing a free exchange of viewpoints on the subject.

Some faculty have cried foul, calling the cancellation raw censorship.

This is reminiscent of the controversy at the Emory Law Journal and the firing of an editor at JAMA.

These controversies are a reflection of the viewpoint intolerance that has taken hold of much of academia, supporting groups, and journals.

Journal retracts paper skeptical of ‘white power’ in psychology, says it conflicts with ‘values’

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 21:45

Rebound In Used Luxury Watches Continues

Rebound In Used Luxury Watches Continues

During the COVID-era flood of free money, from stimulus checks to the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest-rate policy, luxury watch prices skyrocketed to the moon. But once that liquidity boom faded and interest rates were pushed sharply higher to rein in the inflation monster fueled by helicopter money, the secondary luxury market slid into a multi-year correction.

Over the last year and a half, however, that downturn appears to have bottomed out (see here and here), with prices continuing to rebound.

The Bloomberg Subdial Watch Index, which tracks prices for the 50 most-traded watches by value on the secondary market, bottomed in January 2025, about 1.5 years ago, and has been tracking higher ever since.

  • Subdial’s used Rolex index bottomed around $11,000 in January 2025 and has since rebounded to nearly $12,000.
  • And used Audemars Piguet watch prices.

A more granular look at the used Rolex watch index shows the Rolex Submariner Date …

… bottomed in the summer of 2025 at around $9,800 and has marginally increased to about $10,200 this month – still far from the $13,500 COVID-era highs.

However, price action across the luxury watch market has not been uniform and largely depends on shifting consumer tastes and the interest rate environment. 

Great reads:

Industry insights: 

In recent weeks, Audemars Piguet and Swatch launched an affordable $400 pocket watch that generated massive consumer demand – mostly because of the price point.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 21:20