Aggregator

Rip and Beth vs. Texas.

Witnesses watched in horror as the F/A-18 Hornet was heard making a loud “popping sound” before it smashed into the cliff. 

Swiss Voters Reject Proposal To Cap Population At 10 Million

Summary:

• Swiss Voters Reject Population Cap of Ten Million Propsal 

• The initiative "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million) is being voted on by the Swiss and is likely to be rejected at the ballot box

• New Projection by research institute GFS Bern, commissioned by SRG SSR, 1 pm local time

Final Vote

In a national vote, Swiss voters rejected the proposed 10-million-person cap, with 54% voting against the measure and 46% backing the initiative.

Public broadcaster SRF wrote:

Some had expected a close vote on the "No 10-Million-Switzerland" initiative. But shortly after noon – with the first projection showing 55 percent voting against – it became increasingly clear: the initiative would not find a majority among the Swiss electorate.

The relief among the broad political opposition was correspondingly great. The Social Democratic Party (SP) wrote in a statement: "The clear result sends a signal to the Swiss People's Party (SVP) and right-wing populist forces: The population no longer wants any new Schwarzenbach initiatives."

Furthermore, the population supports stable relations with the EU. "This gives momentum to the upcoming debates on the Bilateral Agreements III," the SP continued.

The Greens are also relieved after the public rejected the initiative. "The bourgeois parties must finally end their long-standing pandering to the SVP's misanthropic narratives," demands President Lisa Mazzone.

Like the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Greens want to secure European cooperation through the Bilateral Agreements III. "Switzerland is not an island," parliamentary group leader Greta Gysin points out.

Vote Projection: 52% against Population Cap 

Swiss voters are likely to reject the "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million), according to public broadcaster SRF, which cited a political scientist at GFS Bern. These early projection results come after voting closed on Sunday. 

As of 1 pm local time, GFS Bern political scientist Lukas Golder says the new projection of the "No 10 Million Switzerland" initiative shows 47.6% of voters in favor and 52.4% opposed.

The measure, backed by common-sense right-leaning politicians, including the Swiss People's Party, argued that out-of-control migrant population growth was worsening overcrowding, housing costs, public transport pressure, and overbuilding. 

Switzerland, with 9.1 million people, has the highest proportion of foreign-born of any major country, and the Swiss are sick of it.

On Sunday, Swiss vote on a referendum to cut family reunification and asylum claims to zero, if popultion reaches 9.5 million. At 10 million, not… pic.twitter.com/7Brx9CNPFj

— Jared Taylor (@RealJarTaylor) June 12, 2026

Opponents, including the government, parliament, globalist CEOs, and economists, warned that the cap would restrict access to foreign labor, damage growth, and reduce long-term economic output.

Related:

• Globalist CEOs Sound Alarm Over Swiss Population Cap Vote

Switzerland has been pursuing largely unchecked mass-migration policies, with roughly one-quarter of its resident population being foreign nationals.

Consequences of mass-migration:

Switzerland is doing the right thing. Poor immigration policy has resulted in more crime and ghettoization of their cities. pic.twitter.com/u8qCxwvyGw

— Casa ♱ 🇺🇸 (@geezindigenous) June 13, 2026

Last year at the UN, President Trump warned globalists in the West who pushed nation-killing open borders and the migrant invasion: "When prisons are packed with 'asylum seekers' who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed."

🚨 Trump at UN: “When prisons are packed with ‘asylum seekers’ who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed.”
2024 stats:
• Germany: ~50% inmates foreign/migrant
• Austria: 53%
• Greece: 54%
• Switzerland: 72%

Close the borders.

pic.twitter.com/AXXqzlbXec

— 𝔉🅰𝒏 Karoline Leavitt (@WHLeavitt) December 6, 2025

Across Europe and the U.S., years of top-down nation-killing open border policies by globalist politicians have collided with public outrage. In many countries, voters never gave left-wing political elites a mandate for the invasion of migrants. Now, out-of-control migrant crime, combined with pressure on housing, public services, wages, and social cohesion, is helping fuel a broader populist backlash against the left-wing political establishment.

Globalists Spread Doomer Propaganda As Switzerland Votes On Immigration Cap

Switzerland is not a part of the European Union; it's an independent state operating in the midst of the EU apparatus, but you wouldn't know it with so many EU representatives and globalist proponents demanding the right to dictate Swiss immigration policy. 

The Swiss public is voting on June 14th on a population cap which is aimed at ending the steady stream of mass immigration into the country over the past 10 years.  In response, globalists and multiculturalists from within the country and without have launched a propaganda campaign to frighten voters with fears of economic collapse should they vote yes. 

It's a narrative that has been repeated in the UK, the US, and a number of EU member states:  "Without steady immigration, western economies will dry up from the lack of a skilled labor pool." 

The Guardian has platformed a member of the German branch of the Council on Foreign Relations (an institution specifically tasked with ending national sovereignty and erasing borders) who claims the Swiss are about to undermine their own prosperity by refusing to accept more immigrants.  They refer to the vote as a "Swiss Brexit by stealth..."

But Switzerland cannot "Brexit" if they were never a member of the EU to begin with.  This does not seem to concern The Guardian:

"If there is one near-uncontested lesson from modern economic history, it is that open societies win. Openness to immigration was long the defining superpower of the US. Japan's strict immigration policy explains its dismal growth performance, and the fact that its average effective retirement age for men stands at 69.5 years. 

Switzerland's remarkable ascent from peasant backwater to high-tech economy in 200 years tells the same tale. With no natural resources, Switzerland has grown wealthy because it has provided a stable economic climate that attracted foreign innovators..."

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, the data shows quite the opposite is true.  Mass immigration, specifically immigration from the third world, consistently drags the economy down.  The US has seen this problem surface over and over again and it is largely due to the quality of the migrants.  Third worlders do not bring wealth or skill value to any first world nation.

The EU, as an authoritarian body, might seek to punish the Swiss for defying the globalist agenda, but that is an engineered consequence, not a natural one.

Switzerland is the richest economy in Europe per capita and they do have an extensive migrant population.  Around 30% of the nation's current citizenry is foreign born.  However, 80% of these "migrants" are western born and are not from the third world.  The "skilled labor" is coming from other western nations, not India, not Pakistan, not the north of Africa. 

The increasing tide of migrants from these parts of the world into Europe is starting to bleed into Switzerland, and the Swiss see the writing on the wall.  The EU members with the most immigration are also dealing with the worst economic stagnation. 

For example, Germany continues to deal with an unemployment rate hovering around 6.3%, with about 2.9 million people out of work. The labor market is experiencing a slowdown. Despite the rising joblessness, severe skilled labor shortages persist.  In other words, migrants are not filling the job roles most needed within the German economy.  

France's unemployment rate climbed to 8.1% in the first quarter of 2026, reaching its highest level in five years and surpassing mainstream expectations. The increase brings the total number of unemployed job seekers to approximately 2.6 million.  The French government has been flooding the country with migrants for over a decade and the system is drowning.  

Spain has recently instituted an amnesty program for hundred of thousands of third worlders, which has triggered another migration rush.  It's important to understand that migrants from developing nations view the west as a target to be fleeced, not as a new home.  Many migrants continue to maintain residency in their home countries while they siphon welfare benefits from Europeans. 

Spain has the second-highest unemployment rate in the EU at 10.8% and a 23% unemployment rate for young workers 25 years old and under. 

All of these countries are also facing a disastrous housing crisis.  Mass immigration is destroying the rental and home owner markets.  Germany has seen a 15% rise in rental costs, France is at 20% and Spain is at 25%. Rental availability is tight across the board with around 2% vacancy in medium to large population centers.   Home prices in all three countries have skyrocketed by 15% to 40% depending on the region.  Structural shortages continue to plague home buyers.

Switzerland has seen these numbers and they have seen the rising tide of third worlders trying to gain entry.  It makes perfect sense for them to cap immigration.  The Guardian Op Ed is revealing in the way it exposes the globalist ideology - Their argument is, essentially, that foreigners are entitled to access western economies as a kind of "civil right". 

"...Beneath the economics lies something even more troubling. What makes the Dubai model so appealing to the radical right is that abandoning EU treaties would not only allow the SVP to cut immigration but also to strip foreigners of their rights entirely. For instance, they have proposed barring German and French workers from bringing their families. Switzerland would join the league of autocratic states that deny foreigners what conservatives claim to hold most dear: a life rooted in family."

It might sound like empathetic advocacy, but it is actually insanity.  If it is "autocratic" for a nation to limit foreign access, then so be it.  Foreigners (whether from the West or the Third World) are not entitled to the fruits of the Swiss economy.  The idea that limitations are "unjust" or despotic is a product of leftist tripe and globalist disinformation. 

Whether the vote on the population cap succeeds or fails, the Swiss have a renowned reputation as purveyors of order and common sense.  It would be a shame for them to abandon it simply to avoid meaningless accusations of "xenophobia" or "autocracy".  Frankly, their economy will remain far better off than the rest of Europe by applying a measure of logical discrimination.     

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:15

Monica McNutt interviewed the NBA Finals 2026 MVP after he and his team beat the San Antonio Spurs to win the championship.

Monica McNutt interviewed the NBA Finals 2026 MVP after he and his team beat the San Antonio Spurs to win the championship.

Fans aren't just buying Knicks merch this postseason — they're hunting for pieces that feel as unique as the team's improbable run.

Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods tore into a reporter during a press conference on June 12, when a journalist asked an off-topic question. The press conference was to shed light on a massive child predator sting operation conducted by the county.

Israel had carried out strikes near Beirut Sunday in response to Hezbollah firing shots towards Israeli territory.

The first round of 32 US-built F-35 stealth fighter jets were delivered to Poland on June 12. The jets’ arrival marks a major strengthening of the NATO alliance amid the continuing war in Ukraine.

Sundays aren't the same without Marshals.

New users can apply the Kalshi promo code NYPMAX to receive $10 in bonus trades for the World Cup.

Jeffrey Springs will get back on track and help lead the host A's past the Rockies on Sunday afternoon, Stitches predicts.

The former 49ers star, 36, was declared dead on Saturday afternoon at Good Samaritan Hospital in San Jose.

Shortly after the Knicks won their first NBA championship since 1973, captain Jalen Brunson had a simple message for people denying his status as a "1A" player.

Judge John Roach defended the jury’s verdict at the end of the high-profile trial last week that saw Anthony sentenced to 35 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf, 17.

Increasingly, Americans, and indeed all Westerners, are saying no to green haranguers, gender and sex demagogues, the race-baiting industry, the open-borders conglomerate and ungrateful immigrants.

He couldn't wait to show them off.

Strategy's New Math: Dilution Equals Accretion?

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Strategy’s Bitcoin is worth roughly $12 billion less than the company paid for it, yet Michael Saylor’s message last week was simple: “Business is Good.”

But today’s article isn’t really about unrealized losses. It’s about whether Strategy is changing the way it measures shareholder accretion and company performance on the fly — also known as “moving the goalposts”.

As a short seller, I’ve watched innumerable companies “move the goalposts” and try and focus the market on new metrics when old ones aren’t showing the story they want them to anymore. Sometimes, companies outright delete key performance indicators (KPIs) and use new ones.

Strategy has taught investors that the objective was to increase Bitcoin ownership on a per-share basis. The company created “BTC Yield” as a KPI specifically to measure whether capital raises and Bitcoin purchases were benefiting existing shareholders.

Strategy repeatedly argued that traditional accounting metrics were largely irrelevant and that what mattered was how much Bitcoin each share represented. For example, from the Q1 2026 earnings call:

“Our ultimate objective is for our common to outperform Bitcoin by accreting Bitcoin per share…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“Which should increase the Bitcoin per share in our common stock, which is ultimately our goal…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“One is Bitcoin per share accretion is our primary goal.” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

These statements leave little room for interpretation. Bitcoin per share isn’t merely one metric among many. It is presented as the central measure of equity performance.

That’s what makes the recent capital raise and bitcoin buy so interesting. According to Strategy’s own website, BTC Yield declined between June 1 and June 8.

Under the framework the company spent years promoting, that’s a problem. If BTC Yield measures whether shareholders are becoming owners of more Bitcoin on a per-share basis, then a decline means the transaction was dilutive to existing shareholders on that metric.

That doesn’t automatically mean the raise was a bad decision. A company can improve liquidity, strengthen its balance sheet, or position itself for future opportunities while still reducing Bitcoin per share in the short term. But it does mean that under Strategy’s own preferred scoreboard, shareholders ended up with less Bitcoin exposure per share after the transaction than before.

Rather than defending the raise on BTC Yield grounds, Saylor now appears to be emphasizing a different framework. His argument is that when both Bitcoin and cash are included, the transaction was accretive. In other words, shareholders may own less Bitcoin per share, but they own more total assets per share.

That not an enormous shift in narrative — not unlike how selling 32 bitcoin wasn’t a huge sale — but it’s a shift nonetheless. For years, the pitch was Bitcoin per share. Now the defense is assets per share.

Critics have noticed the change. One observer on X summarized it this way:

“Changing his own definition after the fact. When BTC Yield goes up, bulls celebrate it as proof of shareholder accretion. When BTC Yield goes down, suddenly we’re supposed to ignore BTC Yield and invent a new metric that includes cash.”

Another pointed out the deeper tension. Saylor spent years building a valuation framework around Bitcoin-per-share growth. Yet when defending the recent raise, he relied on net asset value logic. The problem is that Strategy’s premium has never been justified by the current value of the assets sitting on the balance sheet.

Investors have ostensibly historically paid a premium because they may have believed management could continue growing Bitcoin ownership per share over time. The valuation, to the best of my understanding, rested on future Bitcoin-per-share growth, not a static snapshot of current assets.

That’s why the debate matters. If the relevant metric is Bitcoin per share, then the decline in BTC Yield raises uncomfortable questions about the transaction. If the relevant metric is current net assets per share, then the raise may look defensible, but the rationale for a substantial premium over net asset value becomes harder to explain.

🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever

Saylor appears to be trying to have it both ways. The old framework supports the premium but makes the recent raise look dilutive. The new framework supports the raise but weakens the logic behind the premium. Investors can reasonably prefer either framework, but they should notice when management switches from one to the other.

Saylor is also engaging in what appears to be ticky-tacky doublespeak to explain his actions...

“I told YOU never to sell $BTC.
I never said the COMPANY wouldn’t sell $BTC .”

That’s how Saylor responded to the question about selling 32 $BTC pic.twitter.com/vn7o1DqKP1

— newry | 𝔽rAI (@NeWry24) June 13, 2026

The real issue isn’t whether the weekend raise was good or bad. It’s whether the company is still using the same definition of shareholder accretion that it spent years teaching investors to use. When BTC Yield was rising, Strategy told shareholders that Bitcoin per share was the metric that mattered most. Now that BTC Yield has fallen, Saylor is increasingly talking about total assets per share instead. Investors should decide for themselves whether that’s an evolution in thinking or simply moving the goalposts. And Saylor better hope bitcoin doesn’t keep crashing.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 10:30

Whose side are you on? Team Black or Team Green?

Japan will look to spring another famous upset the World Cup on Sunday.