Authored by Turner Wright via CoinTelegraph.com,

Cryptocurrency exchange Binance, whose application under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) framework is under consideration, has generally deferred responding to a report that the company’s licensed activities in the region could be at risk.

In a Tuesday blog post, Binance said that Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC), one of the regulators responsible for overseeing MiCA, had completed its review of the crypto exchange’s application and “considered it compliant with MiCA requirements,” subject to review at the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The post came just a few hours after Reuters reported that EU regulators were preparing to reject Binance’s licensing bid, potentially cutting off the exchange’s ability to offer services to residents.

“Binance serves more users in Europe than any other crypto exchange, and any delay or distortion in our MiCA path has consequences beyond Binance,” said the company. “It risks weakening liquidity, reducing competition and user choice, and pushing activity, jobs, investment, and tax revenue outside the EU.”

Source: Binance

Under the MiCA framework, companies operating in the EU only have until the end of June to gain approval to offer services to residents. Should Binance’s application with HCMC be rejected, the exchange would likely be unable to legally operate in the EU starting on July 1.

A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the company expected that ESMA “intended to progress the licence and move to authorise at an upcoming board meeting.” The company did not immediately respond to an additional request for clarification on the Reuters report, but added in the blog post it would update users by June 30, the deadline for the MiCA application.

The crypto exchange applied for its MiCA licensing in Greece under HCMC in January. Several regulators, including those in Germany and the Netherlands, have already approved licenses for crypto companies seeking to be compliant under MiCA with the deadline approaching in a matter of weeks.

Binance still under scrutiny by US authorities

In 2023, Binance reached an agreement with US authorities in which then-CEO Changpeng Zhao stepped down and pleaded guilty to one felony charge, and the company agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement with the US Treasury Department and Department of Justice and to follow a monitoring program. Amid the US-Israel war with Iran and reports that the exchange facilitated $1 billion to sanctioned entities, US lawmakers have been pressing for answers regarding Binance’s compliance.

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.

Truly a mystery why BBC iPlayer isn’t part of the ban, but YouTube is. pic.twitter.com/zgQ15REqKX

– Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 16, 2026

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.

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.

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.

Another church on fire in France last night. pic.twitter.com/7lzLToSOvg

– RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) June 13, 2026

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.

Hier une Chapelle à Tregastel est en feu mais aussi un cloître à Condom où des livres du XVIe siècle partent en fumée (plus de 4300 livres archivés).
C’est quand même curieux tous ces édifices religieux qui font la fierté de la France et ses racines chrétiennes qui brulent!
Et… pic.twitter.com/nc84Clfy0r

– ?? fred le gaulois ?? Uniondesdroites ?? (@FredGaulois) June 13, 2026

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.

Just a coincidence… pic.twitter.com/0GhfhSSPmG

– Gerda van de Pol (@Gerdavande12965) June 13, 2026

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.