Aggregator

"I'm a rock star now."

The "Billy on the Street" star came close to quitting show business in 2009.

The "Billy on the Street" star came close to quitting show business in 2009.

The Rams hit the jackpot when they hired Sean McVay as their head coach in 2017. In the nine years he’s been in Los Angeles, the Rams have reached the playoffs seven times and been to the Super Bowl twice, winning once. He’s one of the game’s great offensive minds and has a deft feel...

Germany's First F-35 Stealth Fighter Moves Closer To Service With Key Engine Installation

Authored by Sujita Sinha via Interesting Engineering,

Germany's first F-35A fighter jet is now closer to delivery after its engine was installed during final assembly, according to Lockheed Martin. This milestone shows steady progress on one of Germany's biggest defense modernization efforts since the Cold War.

Germany's first F-35 reaches a key production milestone as its powerful F135 engine is installed.Lockheed Martin Europe/X

Lockheed Martin Europe posted the update on social media, describing the engine installation as "another key production milestone on the path to delivering advanced 5th Gen capability for Germany."

The company shared photos of the aircraft on the assembly line as workers installed the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. Now that the engine is in place, the jet will move on to final testing before its first flight and handover to the German Air Force.

Powerplant Transforms Aircraft Into Operational System

Germany's first F-35 uses the Pratt & Whitney F135, which is the most powerful engine in any Western fighter jet today. It produces about 43,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner and is a key part of the jet's design.

The F135 was made specifically for the F-35 and cannot be swapped for another engine. Besides providing power, it also helps the jet stay stealthy. Engineers shaped the exhaust nozzle and air intake to lower radar visibility from different directions.

Installing the engine is a major step in final assembly because it marks the change from a finished airframe to a working combat jet. After the engine is in, technicians start checking how the propulsion system works with the jet's controls, sensors, and software.

Die Power hinter Deutschlands erster F-35 🇩🇪

Mit dem erfolgreichen Einbau des Triebwerks hat das Flugzeug einen weiteren wichtigen Meilenstein erreicht - auf dem Weg zur Auslieferung modernster Fähigkeiten der 5. Generation für Deutschland. pic.twitter.com/foTw7YotgE

- Lockheed Martin Europe (@LMEuropeNews) June 4, 2026 Berlin's Response To A Changing Security Environment

Germany decided to buy the F-35A soon after Russia began its full invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The F-35A will replace the Luftwaffe's old Tornado jets, which have been used for NATO nuclear-sharing missions for many years.

As part of NATO, Germany keeps aircraft and trained pilots ready to deliver U.S. nuclear weapons if needed. With the Tornado nearing retirement, German officials looked for a replacement that could handle future missions.

The F-35A, which takes off and lands like a regular jet, became the top choice for its stealth, survivability, and certification for nuclear missions. German leaders found that no European jet matched these features for the job.

Multi-Billion-Dollar Investment In Future Air Power

Germany has ordered 35 F-35A jets for about $8.4 billion. The deal covers more than just the planes - it also includes pilot training, simulators, logistics, weapons integration, and the infrastructure needed to run the fleet.

This purchase puts Germany in a growing group of European countries that have joined the F-35 program. The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Finland, and Switzerland have all either received or ordered the jet.

As more European countries use the F-35, NATO is shaping its future air combat plans around this common fifth-generation jet. Using the same aircraft makes training, maintenance, and joint missions easier.

Next Steps Before Delivery

The engine was installed following the usual steps at Lockheed Martin's F-35 production line in Fort Worth, Texas. After installation, the jet undergoes additional system checks, fuel testing, and ground runs to ensure everything works properly.

Next, engineers check how the engine works with the jet's software and flight systems before allowing flight tests. Once these steps are done, the jet can be accepted by the customer.

For the Luftwaffe, acquiring the F-35A will give it new capabilities that Germany's current fighter jets do not have. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado can handle air combat and strikes, but neither was built to be stealthy.

The F-35's stealthy design allows it to fly in heavily defended airspace and makes it harder for enemy radar to detect. As advanced air defenses spread, this feature is expected to be key in Germany's future military plans.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/07/2026 - 08:45

A suspected Hamas terrorist was arrested in Greece on Sunday for allegedly plotting to attack an Israeli cruise ship, according to officials. The 37-year-old Palestinian electrician, who has not been identified, was taken into custody on the island of Crete after officials claimed he placed an online order for “chemical agents” that could be used...

Europe 2.0, Beyond Brussels: The End Of The European Union As We Know It

Authored by Frank-Christian Hansel via American Greatness,

Europe has reached the end of an era. Not the end of its history, but the end of its false form. For decades, the European Union served as the great substitute project of a continent that no longer dared to think politically. It promised peace without power, order without a people, unity without roots, and prosperity without cost. That was its founding lie, and it was a lie from the very beginning.

Political order does not grow out of procedural routines, commission papers, or moral self-incantation. It grows out of peoples, interests, borders, loyalties, and the willingness to defend what is one’s own. Legitimate authority rests on a people and its consent, not on an apparatus and its expertise. That older idea—that government draws its life from the governed rather than from the competence of its administrators—is precisely what Brussels has spent two generations trying to administer away.

That is why today’s EU is not the high point of European history but its bureaucratic state of exhaustion. It is too centralized to be free and too artificial to be binding. It commands an immense body of rules and possesses no sustaining political soul. It has institutions, but not the kind of historically grown legitimacy that holds a community together across generations.

And so it answers every crisis with the same reflex: more centralization, more redistribution, more standardization, more discipline. What is sold as the solution is only the problem enlarged.

Europe is not failing because there is too little Brussels. Europe is failing because there is too much Brussels. It is failing because of a political class that no longer sees the continent as a historical space but as an object of administration. It is failing because of an ideology that treats every organically grown difference as a defect and therefore regards peoples, traditions, and national particularities as raw material to be processed. And it is failing because of a functional elite that has learned to disguise power as morality and to pass off its own interests as universal values.

There is a name for this kind of governance: the administrative state—the permanent, unelected layer that survives every election, answers to no voter, and grows whether the public wants it to or not. Brussels is that layer raised to the continental power and freed from even the inconvenience of a national electorate. There is no European demos to vote the managers out. That is not a flaw in the design. It is the design.

The real scandal of Europe today is not even its material mismanagement but its intellectual arrogance. The Union behaves as though it could suspend history—as though cultures could be harmonized like technical standards, as though political loyalty could be decreed the way one issues a packaging regulation. As though a continent of radically different historical experiences, economic structures, demographic trajectories, and security realities could be pressed into one standardized form without damage. Yet the damage is already visible. The EU is not unifying Europe. It is wearing it down.

To see why, it helps to return to a text that saw the whole thing coming. In 2011, long before today’s disruptions, the German social scientist Gunnar Heinsohn published an essay whose title I have borrowed and broadened here: “Europa 2.0: Neuzuschnitt der Alten Welt” (Europe 2.0: Recutting the Old World). It was written in the first panic of the euro rescues, and it has aged with uncomfortable precision.

Heinsohn’s argument was not, in the first place, a complaint about Brussels. It was an argument about arithmetic. He began with the chain of liabilities that the productive European middle class—the net taxpayers, the people who put in more than they take out—had quietly been made to guarantee. First, the bank rescues of 2008. Then the Greek bailout and the great euro backstops of 2010, which shielded bondholders and the comfortable classes of the periphery at the expense of taxpayers who were never asked. Then the implicit guarantees extended to the aging, shrinking states of the European East. And beneath all of it, an ever-growing domestic population to be supported for life. The decisive point was simple and merciless: when all these promises—upward, downward, and outward—come due at once, no one will be left to bail out the people who were made to do the bailing.

The mechanism is general. A government that collectivizes debt, anonymizes liability, and blurs responsibility will always end by taxing the people who never agreed to the bad decisions of others. Heinsohn merely showed that the European Union had written this principle into its very constitution. Any order that treats difference primarily as a financing problem must degenerate into a transfer machine. And a transfer machine is, sooner or later, politically hated—because it morally expropriates the productive and politically infantilizes the weak, rewarding neither virtue nor reform but only dependency. What it produces in the end is not solidarity but resentment: a bureaucratically managed exhaustion of the common good.

But Heinsohn’s deeper move was to set this fiscal machine on top of a demographic one—and here the argument becomes genuinely radical. The transfers are not merely unjust; they are mathematically doomed, because the population expected to honor them is collapsing. Across much of Europe, and most severely in the East, birth rates have run far below replacement for two generations. The productive base shrinks while the dependent base grows and ages. You cannot underwrite an expanding empire of guarantees with a contracting nation of guarantors. The numbers do not forgive ideology.

From this, Heinsohn drew a conclusion that polite Europe still refuses to say aloud: not all human capital is equal, and a civilization that loses its capacity to attract and cultivate talent does not stay rich for long. Innovation is decided at the top of the distribution, by the density of the highly capable, not by raising the average.

Importing large numbers of low-skill dependents, he argued, costs billions and replaces not a single first-rate mind, while a society that selects for ability—as the Swiss and the Danes already do—renews itself. Strip away the provocation and a plainer proposition remains: a serious country runs immigration in its own interest, as a selective system, choosing the people it needs rather than absorbing whoever happens to arrive. A civilization unwilling to reproduce itself has, in any case, already mortgaged its own future. Whatever one makes of these claims, Heinsohn’s 2011 essay reads today less like a period piece than like a forecast.

What, then, is the alternative? Heinsohn’s answer was not “more Europe,” and it was not “back to the nation-states of 1914.” It was a recutting—a deliberate sorting of the continent into political spaces that can actually function, each organized around two hard criteria: a currency that is genuinely sound and a society genuinely attractive to the talent it needs.

His model for both was not an abstraction. It was a sort of Switzerland.

Consider what Heinsohn admired in it. Its central bank does not monetize the debt of badly run governments; it will not take their paper as collateral and will not buy it—which is exactly why a country of fewer than nine million can hold a reserve-grade currency. Sound money, enforced by the refusal to bail anyone out. Its cantons do not subsidize one another into permanent dependency; there is no grand equalization scheme shuffling money from the competent to the connected. Instead, the cantons compete—for innovative firms, for capable workers, for investment—and grow their revenue by winning that competition rather than by lobbying for a larger share of someone else’s. Tax competition, fiscal discipline, and federalism as a sport rather than a shakedown. And immigration authority sits at the local level: it is the communes, not a distant central ministry, that decide who settles where—which is why the children of Swiss immigrants tend to perform like Swiss children rather than like a permanent underclass parked wherever a bureaucrat finds room.

The list of features is easy to state: sound money, decentralized authority, local control over who settles where, tax competition in place of redistribution, and a central government that coordinates only the few things that genuinely must be coordinated and leaves the rest to the level closest to the decision. The European word for this is subsidiarity. Heinsohn’s quiet provocation was to note where it actually survives—not in the European Union, but in the small, stubborn confederation that the Union spent two decades trying to fine, pressure, and squeeze into compliance.

Heinsohn then took the principle to its conclusion and asked what Europe would look like if it were organized by those criteria rather than by inherited borders. The criteria themselves are the point, and they are worth stating plainly, because they describe a direction rather than a destination:

A viable space, in his account, is one that can secure its own sound currency without monetizing anyone’s debt; one attractive enough to draw and keep the talent it needs rather than merely the dependents it acquires; one governed closely enough to its people that consent is real and not merely assumed; and one freed from open-ended liability for the failures of others. Spaces that can meet those tests cohere on their own. Spaces that cannot have to be held together by transfers and decree—which is the very condition that Europe is now exhausting itself trying to maintain.

From this, he sketched a deliberately provocative map—not a forecast and not a plan, but a way of making the criteria concrete. He imagined the continent re-associating into a handful of post-national economic and cultural spaces, sorted by affinity and by their capacity to meet those tests:

A northern federation gathering the Scandinavian countries with the prosperous German north. An Alpine federation built around the Swiss core, drawing in the wealthy regions of southern Germany, Austria, and northern Italy that already share its economic temperament. A revived commonwealth across the old Polish-Lithuanian space to the east. A Mediterranean union with its own southern currency and its own vocation, reaching from the Iberian Atlantic to the eastern shore of the sea. And where the old centers of the postwar order remained, a residual western bloc around Berlin, Paris, and London. He even allowed himself the heresy of supposing that productive regions might one day choose, politically, which space to belong to—that belonging itself might follow function rather than inheritance.

I set this out as Heinsohn set it out: as a thought experiment offered to clarify a direction—not as anyone’s program, and certainly not as mine. Its value lies not in the borders it draws but in the question it forces. Political belonging is not a law of nature fixed forever by the cartographers of 1815, and spaces that generate neither real sovereignty nor genuine loyalty have no claim to permanence simply because they happen to exist. Heinsohn noted, dryly, that his redrawn map was the conservative, earthbound option—far more grounded than the libertarian dream of seasteading, of escaping onto artificial islands beyond the reach of any government at all. When the sober alternative is a recut continent, and the radical one is floating cities in international waters, you have a fair measure of how exhausted the inherited order has become.

The usable core of all this is not the map, but the principle, and the principle is what I want to carry forward. Europe should no longer be conceived as a project of uniformity but as a system of differentiated political spaces. This is not a regression into petty-state fragmentation. It is the overdue recognition of European reality. The continent has always been most productive when it combined diversity with form—when its political units stayed manageable, legitimate, and capable of acting, and broader cooperation happened only where it genuinely made sense. It grew weak whenever it manufactured institutions that produced neither real sovereignty nor genuine belonging.

A new Europe would therefore begin with a ruthless disentangling. Everything that does not absolutely require continental regulation goes back to sovereign states—not out of nostalgia, but out of reason. Border protection, major infrastructure corridors, selected security cooperation, raw-material and energy security, and certain trade questions: these may need joint coordination. But cultural policy, social policy, identity questions, vast stretches of economic and regulatory law, and above all the question of democratic self-government do not belong to a supranational apparatus. Wherever politics becomes existential, the decision must move back toward the people and the state.

This is also where the deepest and most delicate point lies, the one that separates a serious continental order from a managed bloc. Europe can think as a continent only if it stops organizing itself around a permanent architecture of enemies. An order built primarily against Russia is, in the long run, not a European order at all;

it is the strategic extension of outside interests carried out on European soil. A viable continental order would have to find a way to include Russia rather than excommunicate it forever.

This is not sentimental Russophilia, and it is not a denial that real conflicts exist. It is the recognition of a basic fact of geopolitics: a continent that permanently writes its largest eastern power off the map turns itself into the forefield of others. Peace does not come from moral outrage. It comes from a durable order of power, interests, and space—balanced security interests, limited spheres of influence, and reorganized economic interdependence. Whoever defines Russia out of Europe defines Europe as a geopolitically incomplete space, dependent for its security on decisions made elsewhere. And a continent that will not defend, fund, or even define itself can hardly be surprised when its allies begin to ask why they should keep doing so on its behalf.

And here Heinsohn’s monetary intuition returns one last time. He imagined that even the names of currencies could keep a European feeling alive—a Nordic crown, an Alpine franc, and an eastern and a western and a Mediterranean euro, competing for international trust. Strip away the specifics, and the principle is straightforward: competition disciplines money as it disciplines everything else. A single currency imposed on radically unequal economies is not a symbol of unity. It is a mechanism for converting other people’s indiscipline into your own inflation.

What follows from all this is a single European principle: cooperation without fusion. Proximity without centralism. Continentality without empire. Europe would no longer be a union of ideological conformity but a confederation of historic peoples and political spaces—able to breathe again because not everything would have to be forced to the same institutional, economic, and moral temperature. In place of harmonization at any price: the freedom to shape one’s own order. In place of integration as an end in itself: cooperation grounded in shared interests. In place of a normative superstate: a Europe of different speeds, forms, and focal points.

And that, precisely, is the only road to genuine European sovereignty. Europe will not become sovereign because Brussels accumulates more powers. It will become sovereign only when its states and peoples recover real political substance and form alliances on that basis. Sovereignty requires capabilities, not rhetoric—industrial, military, technological, and cultural self-assertion. A Europe that obsesses over censorship and regulation at home while failing to secure its borders, its energy, and its strategic infrastructure abroad is not sovereign. It is a normative colossus on geopolitical clay feet.

This is where the mask of European moralism finally falls away. The Union speaks of democracy while narrowing the range of permissible opinion. It speaks of diversity while pursuing cultural conformity. It speaks of peace while manufacturing new lines of confrontation through ideological bloc logic. It speaks of openness while losing control of its borders. It speaks of resilience while making itself dependent. None of this is an accident. It is the logical result of a project that replaced political reality with normative self-staging.

The alternative is not a naive nationalism but a European realism, a realism that understands that peoples do not vanish because elites find them embarrassing; that spaces do not lose their meaning because technocrats redefine them as functional zones; that history does not end because a bureaucracy tries to regulate it away; and that order endures only where freedom, belonging, and responsibility are brought back together.

Europe therefore does not need a cosmetic correction of its institutions. It needs a change of political form: away from a morally charged administrative union and toward an order of the continent; away from abstract universal ideology and toward a concrete civilizational politics; and away from the permanent effort to define the European against the very conditions that made Europe possible. Europe must stop trying to emancipate itself from its own inheritance and learn again to draw strength from it.

Only then could today’s zone of crisis become a historical space once more: a Europe no longer under the guardianship of its own apparatus; a Europe that does not treat every internal difference as a threat or every external border as a moral failing; a Europe that takes itself seriously as a continent—plural in its forms, clear in its borders, sober in its interests, and resolved to defend itself.

The time of the Union as we know it is running out. The only question is whether Europe will shape this transition itself—or whether it will be torn apart by the contradictions of its own artificial construction and have its place in the world decided by others.

The alternative is clearer than many care to admit:

Either Europe becomes political again - or it remains an apparatus until other powers decide its place in the world.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/07/2026 - 08:10

"In any other matrix, it would've just been about us and the show," Sheinelle Jones said of launching a new show just before Savannah Guthrie's ordeal. "But we didn't have time for that."

"In any other matrix, it would've just been about us and the show," Sheinelle Jones said of launching a new show just before Savannah Guthrie's ordeal. "But we didn't have time for that."

Sidora still doesn't understand why K. Michelle is mad at her.

The architect's lover and six others were slain in his estate.

Most Teens Aren't Going To Social Media For Politics

Teens turn to social media for multiple purposes: to catch up with friends, for entertainment and to connect with others over similar interests.

However, as Statista's Anna Fleck reports a possible misconception, however, is that many are going to platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok for politics.

According to a recent survey of 1,458 teenagers in the United States, conducted between September 25 and October 9, under one in three respondents said that keeping up with politics or political issues was a main personal draw towards each of the respective social media platforms.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While most teens said that politics was not one of the main reasons for using the apps, U.S. teens were most likely to turn to TikTok and Instagram for political content (29 percent and 28 percent, respectively, said they would), followed by Snapchat (19 percent).

More popular reasons to use TikTok were entertainment (96 percent) and to know what’s going on with family and friends (86 percent).

When it comes to social media platforms as a source for news, then TikTok was also more commonly chosen over the other two.

Still, under half of respondents (45 percent) picked it as a main reason for using the platform, followed by 39 percent for Instagram and 26 percent for Snapchat.

Pew analysts found that Black teens were more likely than white and Hispanic teens to turn to TikTok for news, product recommendations and keeping up with athletes or celebrities and connecting with others.

Meanwhile, white teens on Snapchat were most likely to message people every day.

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

The Live and Let Die star says she and Brosnan have "known each other forever."

A Serious Country Does Not Swap Its Greatest Leader On Banknotes For Little Animals

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

The Bank of England has now admitted the quiet part out loud. Historical figures including Winston Churchill were removed from future banknotes after researchers told officials they were "elitist and divisive."

The move replaces British legends with wildlife in a calculated step to sideline national heroes and accelerate cultural replacement.

This is not a neutral design update. It is institutional capture in action, where the man who rallied Britain against Nazi tyranny gets sidelined because focus groups and consultants found him too problematic for modern sensitivities and would prefer to look at a Fox or a hedgehog instead.

The Bank of England axed historical figures such as Winston Churchill from banknotes after being told they were "elitist and divisive", The Telegraph can reveal.

Read the full story here https://t.co/4et9ekywsg pic.twitter.com/V0WSXoKOfK

- The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 5, 2026

The revelation aligns precisely with plans first laid out months earlier. Back in March, the Bank announced it would phase out portraits of Churchill on the £5 note, Jane Austen on the £10, JMW Turner on the £20, and Alan Turing on the £50. In their place would come native British wildlife, plants, and landscapes.

King Charles III would remain on the front of the notes. Officials claimed the shift followed a public consultation with over 44,000 responses, where around 60 percent supposedly favored nature themes for security reasons and to celebrate the environment.

Critics at the time called the idea absurd and bonkers. They warned it represented a war on history and showed the Bank had been captured by progressive ideology. One former business minister said notes should honor the historical giants who shaped the nation rather than fuzzy animals.

Another asked what came next - squirrels running the economy. Observers noted it fit a wider pattern of erasing or downplaying Britain's past under the banner of progress and diversity.

That pattern includes London museums draping portraits to "reclaim Caribbean history," the removal of Shakespeare, Thatcher, and Churchill artworks from 10 Downing Street in favor of pieces by artists with Caribbean ties, Cambridge panels labeling Churchill a white supremacist whose empire was supposedly worse than the Nazis, and a London primary school renaming "Churchill House" after Marcus Rashford to promote diversity. Statues of Churchill have faced vandalism and calls for removal, including during pro-Palestine protests earlier this year. Each step chips away at the symbols that once unified national memory.

Now the June reporting makes the motive unmistakable. Research commissioned by the Bank concluded that figures such as Churchill, Alan Turing, and Jane Austen were "contentious and not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity." Officials received advice to replace the portraits with nature images because historical figures represented "a backward-looking vision of the UK that carries too great a risk of division and controversy."

A serious country does not swap its greatest leader on its banknotes for little animals

Imagine India ditching Gandhi for a monkey. Or the USA dropping Washington for a racoon

This is the rot that is eating away at our confidence, identity and cohesion:

Bank dropped Churchill...

- Alex Phillips (@ThatAlexWoman) June 5, 2026

The Bank has insisted the decision was not driven by that specific research but by an earlier poll showing public preference for nature. Yet the Freedom of Information details tell a different story about how the process unfolded behind closed doors.

A public consultation is currently running on the wildlife shortlist. Proposed replacements include an owl, hedgehog, badger, or common frog. One commentator summed up the national mood: "We are not a serious country anymore."

The Bank of England is removing historical figures from banknotes and replacing with wildlife. They are currently running a public consultation on the wildlife shortlist. So on its next issue of banknotes, Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner will be replaced with the likes... pic.twitter.com/rshMcbol0g

- James Melville ? (@JamesMelville) June 4, 2026

Some of the animals under consideration are not even native to Britain. That detail alone exposes the move as more than harmless environmental appreciation. It functions as a psyop to further erode British culture - stripping away recognizable national symbols and replacing them with generic or imported imagery that weakens any sense of rooted identity.

'Some of them aren't even native to the UK! It seems like a very, very bizarre choice?'

@samfrancisuk reacts to the Bank of England removing Winston Churchill from banknotes, opting instead to feature animals. pic.twitter.com/T2uQXhDhmx

- GB News (@GBNEWS) June 6, 2026

This fits the same ideological framework that has infected other institutions. DEI priorities and critical race theory obsessions treat any strong assertion of British heritage as inherently suspect. The man who helped defeat fascism is recast as "divisive" while the focus shifts to animals that supposedly better reflect "cultural and natural diversity." The result is a currency that no longer celebrates the people who built and defended the country. It celebrates detachment instead.

The broader assault continues without pause. Schools, museums, government buildings, and now the Bank of England itself participate in softening, diluting, and apologizing for the past. Historical giants are judged not by their achievements but by whether they pass modern committee tests on representation. When they fail, they are quietly retired in favor of whatever the latest advisory group deems safe and inclusive.

Britain's wartime leader did not save the nation so that unelected researchers and captured bureaucracies could later declare him unfit for the money supply. Yet that is exactly what has happened. The same institutions that owe their continued existence to Churchill's stand now treat his image as a liability.

A country that systematically removes its heroes from public view is not evolving. It is forgetting how to value itself. The Bank of England's choice to prioritize "non-divisive" wildlife over the figures who actually shaped the United Kingdom sends a clear message: national pride is now considered too risky for everyday transactions.

Britons who still believe their history is worth defending have every reason to push back. This is not about banknote design. It is about whether the nation retains the confidence to honour the people and events that made it possible. Replacing Churchill with a hedgehog is not progress. It is surrender dressed up as sensitivity.

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

Even though Knicks coach Mike Brown earned some of his coaching chops as a Spurs assistant under Gregg Popovich from 2000-2003, he didn’t dare to reach out to him ahead of the NBA Finals. The fear? Sabotage. Knicks coach Mike Brown is two wins from an NBA championship. “He’s savvy,” Brown said before Game 1...

"The American Dream is intrinsic and fundamental to the founding of this country, it’s enshrined in the Declaration of Independence," said Chinweze Ahaghotu, Head of Portfolio Management at Galderma.

"Being able to support myself and my son as a single mom, that to me was my dream," said Rubylinda Zickafoose, principal at Ola Elementary School in Florida.

Beauty deals are already live!

When one Anne Rice book closes, another opens.

When one Anne Rice book closes, another opens.