Month: May 2025

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

Since last November, Democrats and their friends in the media have spent a great deal of time wondering what they can do to win back male voters. Now they’re prepared to spend a great deal of money to help them figure it out. The “gender gap” in American politics was traditionally about Republicans’ inability to win over a majority of women voters, but this imbalance has more than evened out over the last few election cycles. Today, the Democrats’ struggle to win male voters—and young male voters, in particular—is as pronounced—if not more so—than their opponents’ struggle with women. Some of them, at least, would like to know why and would like to spend $20 million of their donors’ money in the process.

The explanations and consequent solutions offered so far range from the seemingly practical to the hopeless to the head-scratching. One might think that $20 million would buy something more insightful than this, but then, this is the same party that triumphantly chose Tim Walz as its vice-presidential nominee, fully expecting him to be the answer to their gender gap problem. Or in other words, don’t hold your breath.

In reality, the odds that the contemporary Democratic party will be able to win back men, now or in the foreseeable future, are vanishingly small. The party, as it is currently constituted, lacks both the will and the ability to make the changes that would be necessary to do so. What I mean by this is that the contemporary Democratic party is built on a handful of foundational notions that are, by and large, incompatible with the goal of appealing to men.

To start, historically, biologically, and evolutionarily, men need a purpose. That may sound trite or even sexist, but it’s nevertheless true. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that men need an externally imposed purpose. Whatever the case, women, by definition, have a purpose, namely to create and nurture new life. While men are necessary to create life as well, their role is, obviously, not as involved or enduring. Once upon a time—which is to say from the dawn of history until about 50 or 60 years ago—man’s purpose, therefore, was to provide for and protect the family, to enable the nurturing of new life as safely and successfully as possible. There is an evolutionary reason that men are, generally, bigger and stronger than women—because they had to be able to hunt and work for food and defend their loved ones from danger.

Over the course of the last half-century or so, men’s historical purpose has been undone. There is no sense whatsoever in lamenting this development, of course. It is what it is, which is an inevitable consequence of modernization. As the physical requirements of providing for a family have dissipated, so has men’s exclusive purview to that aspect of human existence. Women’s equality in society and the workforce is both an important and positive occurrence. The pretense that women are somehow “less than” men was always a profane notion and one that modern societies have, rightly, abandoned.

But while women have retained their evolutionary purpose and have taken on additional societal purposes, men have largely only found themselves displaced, their purpose arrogated. Again, there is no use lamenting this, but there is no use in celebrating it either, which is precisely what the contemporary Democratic party is built to do. Rather than sympathizing with men as they struggle to find their purpose in modern society, Democratic progressivism often seems to gloat at their disorientation. The Democratic Party still sees men as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It is fundamentally defined by its belief in a constitutional (i.e., Creator-granted) right that applies only to women and, in fact, aggressively rebukes men for even thinking that they might, theoretically, have an interest in the effects of their own behavior. Although it may not state its animating spirit quite as brashly, the Democratic party essentially functions according to the Steinem Principle (popularized by its namesake, the feminist icon Gloria Steinem) that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Democrats lament the fact that men are attracted to Joe Rogan and other “manly man” new-media stars, and (as noted in a link above), they desperately want their own Joe Rogan, a “liberal” who appeals to young and restless men. What they don’t understand is that men don’t listen to Rogan for his deep political insights. I mean, the “liberal” Joe Rogan would be… Joe Rogan, who, up until 15 minutes ago, was a Bernie Sanders guy. Rather, men listen to Rogan because he is interested in the things that used to comprise men’s purpose. He is a practitioner and a professional observer of martial arts/combat sports. He likes to fight (in a controlled environment), and he celebrates men who share that interest and those abilities. Rogan also likes to hunt. He likes to kill things and then eat them. That too appeals to otherwise lost and purposeless men. Rogan laughs, swears, and is irreverent. He doesn’t see himself as part of the problem—or as part of the solution. He just is who he is, which is someone who celebrates the things that used to define men as men.

The Democrats—in the aggregate—don’t get any of that at all.

A second, related problem for the Democrats is that they are completely out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist among men, making their hopes of outreach painfully incoherent and cringeworthy. A few weeks ago (again, as detailed in a link above), Democratic National Committee vice chairman (and longtime anti-gun activist) David Hogg told Bill Maher that his party’s problem is that it is governed by nannies, who wish only to scold men for behaving like men. “Young people,” he said, “should be able to focus on what young people should be focused on, which is how to get laid and how to go and have fun.”

To be fair, this isn’t the most insane thing I’ve ever heard, and in some ways, it makes sense. But what neither Hogg nor his Democratic compatriots realize is that it’s no longer 1965, when the inimitable P.J. O’Rourke admittedly headed off to college and decided immediately to become a hippie liberal because, of course, the hippie liberals got all the girls. Much has changed in this country over the last 60 years, including the things that animate and interest young men.

It is inarguably true that young men are today and will always be concerned with how to attract and impress the fairer sex, but that’s not all there is to it. Young men today have been profoundly and negatively influenced by the nihilistic view that all there is to life is enjoying hedonism. Whether they recognize it cognitively or not, many have rejected that stunted and ultimately dispiriting view and desire something more substantive in their lives. There is a reason, after all, that religiosity and orthodox religiosity especially are resurgent primarily among young men. There is also a reason that young men are drinking and binge drinking less than young women today. Men are lost, and they want to find not only their way home but also their way to a brighter and more fulfilling home.

Right now, Democrats can do none of those things for men. And if I had to guess, I’d say that they wouldn’t be able to offer any of them, even if they spent $20 billion trying to figure it all out. It’s not who they are anymore. It’s not in their nature. It’s just not who they are.

China is pushing back hard against new Western criticisms of its foreign policy, as French President Emmanuel Macron and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went on the attack, hurling sharp criticisms at Beijing during the ongoing Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, which noticeably China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun chose to skip.

A fresh, strident Chinese denunciation was formulated at the United Nations in New York. Beijing typically is very careful with its Ukraine war statements, seeking to present itself as an outside, neutral and objective mediator, urging peace. But now Chinese officials are blistering angry over the ramped-up anti-China messaging coming from Washington and Europe. The rhetoric is clearly getting less restrained on all sides, as increasingly hot spots in Eastern Europe get closely linked to Asian flashpoints.

Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations blasted the United States for playing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, saying Washington bears “major responsibility” for the outbreak of the conflict.

China’s ambassador to UN further underscored that Beijing “has never provided lethal weapons” to any side US should “stop boring blame game” and instead focus on achieving peace. 

“It is not conducive to achieving a cease-fire and ending the war, and runs counter to the common expectations of the international community,” he told the Security Council.

French President Emmanuel Macron called on Indo-Pacific nations to establish a “new coalition” to counter the “constraints and side effects” stemming from the growing U.S.-China rivalry. –CNBC

“We urge all parties to actively forge an atmosphere conducive to peace talks by creating conditions and providing support. We also call on the parties to the conflict to work collectively toward de-escalation and a political solution, rather than persisting with military confrontations and attacks.”

“Just now, the US Representative, once again, spread misinformation and smeared China. This is utterly unacceptable,” said Geng, according to Xinhua. Hegseth’s message in Asia was apparently coming through loud and clear via US representatives in New York on Friday. The Trump administration has of late held the threat of further sanctions over both Moscow and Beijing, given the export of ‘dual-use’ (military/industrial) Chinese items to Russia.

US bears ‘MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY for outbreak’ of conflict in Ukraine and its ‘continuation’ — China’s ambassador to UN

China ‘has never provided lethal weapons’ to any side

US should ‘stop boring blame game’ and focus on making peace pic.twitter.com/SQkw3xhlp0

— RT (@RT_com) May 30, 2025

The occasion of the Shangri-La Dialogue conference has only served to heighten tensions between the US and China globally, and in the Indo-Pacific region.

“It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth told delegates, also on Friday, in Singapore.

Hegseth in his remarks blasted China’s regular military drills around Taiwan, as well as ‘aggressive’ interventions in the South China Sea, which has of late involved squabbles with coast guard vessels over fishing rights, whether involving US allies The Philippines or Japan. He warned of “devastating consequences” should China seek to “conquer” Taiwan.

“There’s no reason to sugar-coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,” Hegseth declared in the provocative speech.

He further highlighted that China’s defense chief was a no-show at the key regional summit:

“Here in the Indo-Pacific, our futures are bound together,” Hegseth told attendees. “We share your vision of peace and stability, of prosperity and security. And we are here to stay.”

“And as a matter of fact, we are here this morning, somebody else isn’t,” he added.

NEW – Hegseth: “There’s no reason to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real and it could be imminent.”pic.twitter.com/ptnFvptey9

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) May 31, 2025

He urged Asian nations to boost their defense spending, pointing to Germany in Europe, as the latest example of a country realizing the seriousness of threats posed by ‘bad actors’ like Russia and China.

“It doesn’t make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat,” the US defense chief said.

Regional analyst and commenter on China affairs Arnaud Bertrand had this reaction to Hegseth’s speech in Shanghai:

This was easily one of the most unhinged and fear-mongering speeches by a Pentagon chief in Asia ever, with relents of the worst times of the Cold War. Funnily enough, Hegseth started his speech by saying that “for a generation, the United States ignored this region” because they were “distracted by open-ended wars, regime change, and nation building” elsewhere. Good start to the speech.  

But then his assessment turns negative:

But fear not, Hegseth says, the US are doing their utmost to “shift our focus to this region” in order to answer “the threat China poses”, which “could be imminent”. I’m sure the audience was very reassured  How does Hegseth define this “China threat” he’s so worried about? As an “alteration of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific”, the US being “pushed out of this critical region” and China “conquering Taiwan by force.” In short the “China threat” is… China daring to become more powerful than the US in its own neighborhood.

Below: regional media is full of headlines like the following on Saturday…

Bertrand concludes, “Peak American exceptionalism… Anyhow, all this would be funny if it wasn’t so fundamentally disgusting: at heart this is the US determined to prevent China, the only great power to ever reach this status peacefully, from continuing to modernize and develop itself – because in their zero-sum view of the world the very idea that 1.4 billion people might achieve prosperity without American dominance is apparently intolerable.”

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court on Friday denied the Trump administration’s bid to pause a lower court ruling that had blocked President Donald Trump’s directives for workforce reductions at federal agencies from taking effect.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled—with one judge dissenting—that Trump’s executive order directing agency leaders to carry out mass firings “far exceeds the president’s supervisory powers under the Constitution.”

Circuit Judge William Fletcher stated that the administration has “not identified a federal statute” granting the authority to conduct large-scale workforce reductions, and that the reorganization plans outlined in Trump’s order have “long been subject to Congressional approval.”

In her dissent, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan stated that federal agencies have statutory authority to lay off staff, which “contemplates that agency [reductions in force] may affect a significant number of employees.”

Callahan said that Trump’s order aimed to advance his “policy objective of reducing the size of the federal government” by directing agencies to initiate large-scale workforce reductions and to target departments that “perform functions not mandated by statute or other law.”

The court’s decision follows U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s temporary restraining order on May 9 that blocked the implementation of Trump’s order for two weeks. Illson determined that Trump overstepped his authority by issuing an order for large-scale reductions in force across agencies without getting congressional approval.

The judge said the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) do not have statutory power to direct other federal agencies to conduct large-scale staff terminations and restructuring.

The order applies to multiple federal agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Federation of Government Employees, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Public Health Association, Center for Taxpayer Rights, and the cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washington.

The coalition said in a statement released by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization representing the plaintiffs, on May 9 that the administration’s actions would disrupt critical services.

Since the start of the Trump administration on Jan. 20, thousands of government employees have been laid off across multiple agencies, while others have opted to leave under a buyout program offered by the administration, amid ongoing cost-cutting efforts by DOGE, which has been tasked by Trump to identify and eliminate fraud and waste within the federal government.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House for comment and did not receive a response by publication time.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“The modern politics of division have become a banally hectoring faux morality play put on by the theater kids for the other theater kids.”

– El Gato Malo on X

While Jake Tapper leads the Mea Culpa Chorus singing Kumbaya in a minor key, absolutely nobody is fooled that the grotesque psychotic deformities of US politics can be reduced to a few White House factotums lying to the news media about “Joe Biden’s” cognitive abilities. For one thing, the news media was not lied to. The news media (including Jake) lied to the nation, consistently, flagrantly, mendaciously, for years, and most of all they lied about the gigantic racketeering operation that government had become in the age of Anything Goes and Nothing Matters.

Cases-in-point, as reported by Alex Krainer, the $93-billion barfed out of the Department of Energy between the November election and January 20 to scores of hastily-formed NGO gangs with no business model or record of competency. . . and the staggering $375 billion spread around similarly out of the EPA from a slush fund run by John Podesta (as Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy and Clean Energy Innovation).

That was pure grift, you understand, and it was how the Democratic Party kept its activist troops of the so-called “marginalized” paid and happy. As it happened, the “marginalized” who dwell on the edge of society — and also just beyond the set of agreements that define reality — are out-numbered by the rest of us, who voted against the tyranny of the margin and their hallucinations. And so now, the country goes through a convulsion attempting to readjust to reality — for instance, the unhappy fact that all that money was unreal, mere bookkeeping entries by dishonest accountants.

One reality we struggle with is the doleful fact that there is no work-around for the nation’s monumental debt. Since it can’t possibly be paid off, there are two stark paths for it: default and ruinous deflation (that is, money vanishes and the nation goes broke); or a futile attempt to inflate it away with more fake money creation (you’ll have money, but it’s increasingly worthless, so you’re effectively broke). Either way, you’re broke. In the meantime, the remorseless interest that has to be paid on $36.2-trillion squeezes out everything else we’re supposed to care for as relates to the common good.

Every broke-ass family or individual person knows how debilitating money-worries can be. And since unpayable debt is the common denominator across all of Western Civ, this perhaps explains the gross, suicidal mental disorder displayed lately by leadership all across Europe, North America and Anglo-Oceania. Europe, especially, exhibits behavior that is completely cuckoo — inciting war with Russia, inviting in murderous hostiles from foreign lands, and sadistically policing their own citizens.

The exception is Mr. Trump, a businessman-outsider to government trying to pull off an escape from the deadly debt quandary. It’s probably impossible, but he is trying nonetheless. It has three main features:

1) to readjust trade relations that, in theory, would restore industrial production across the land — a bootstrapping operation to kick off “growth.”

2) to engineer a severe re-set of the money system that would effectively amount to defaulting on debt but somehow without the feature of disappearing money. At best, this would induce some kind of fall in living standards, but mostly among the small sector of financial buccaneers who thrive on swindles and the Boomers living on investment accounts (figment wealth), who are now dying off anyway — which is to say, Great Depression Lite. And

3) the least understood feature of Trumpism: to decouple the USA from the resource scarcity in the rest of the world, and the consequent strife it’s inducing, and withdraw into a sort of Fortress North America that can somehow carry-on self-sufficiently while everybody else collapses.

As big pictures go, this is a pretty wild one, stupendously ambitious, risky, and perhaps improbable. But what do Mr. Trump’s domestic opponents have to offer? To go back to their asset-stripping operation with its insane sideshow of race-and-sexual hoaxes and hustles? Let’s face it, the Democratic Party has utterly shot its wad. If it tries to start another civil war, it will have its ass handed to it. Despite all the desperate, rear-guard lawfare underway now, the party is already withdrawing into the political thickets to hide while it considers some drastic reorganization of its purpose and personnel. It may skulk there for many years, just as it did between James Buchanan (1857) and Grover Cleveland (1885).

And despite his daunting agenda, Mr. Trump at least presents a sense of confident determination to get the country righted in some fashion, to recover a sense of purpose and enterprise after years of feckless, dissipative drift into the hallucinatory madness of the Left. You must give him a chance. There is no one else right now with no other way.

Earlier this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for a three-way summit with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, despite that at this moment the war is arguably hotter and more dangerous than ever, given aerial strikes between the warring sides have been escalating for many consecutive days. “If Putin is not comfortable with a bilateral meeting, or if everyone wants it to be a trilateral meeting, I don’t mind. I am ready for any format,” Zelensky had said in the middle of the week.

Zelensky said he’s ready for a “Trump-Putin-me” meeting, but simultaneously called for Washington to slap more sanctions on the Kremlin. “We are waiting for sanctions from the United States of America,” the Ukrainian leader said. And Trump’s response?… “If I think I’m close to getting a [peace] deal, I don’t wanna screw it up by doing that,” he told reporters at the White House.

Deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former president Dmitry Medvedev has written in a Friday Telegram post that Zelensky is merely clout-chasing in wanting the two more powerful leaders at the table.

Describing that the reason is “obvious enough” – Medvedev wrote that:

“A three-way conversation means [he] can get a massive legitimacy boost by latching onto the clout of those at the table,” the Russian official claimed. Medvedev also surmised that Zelensky could capitalize on such a meeting domestically, using it as a pretext to put off elections further and to convince Ukrainian elites that “now is not the time to change horses in midstream.”

Indeed Zelensky could be feeling greater pressure on the domestic front, especially given the ongoing deeply unpopular mobilization and recruitment policies, which has involved preventing most able-bodied men from leaving the country, and which has seen brutal efforts to grab potential recruits from off the streets. Russia has called him ‘illegitimate’ for having long ago canceled elections amid martial law.

Naturally, Moscow is not taking kindly to Zelensky simultaneously calling for yet more US sanctions on Russia, even as he calls for a three-way meeting.

“Trump confirmed that if Russia does not stop, sanctions will be imposed,” Zelensky had said in the comments which were published Wednesday. 

“We discussed two main aspects with him – energy and the banking system. Will the U.S. be able to impose sanctions on these two sectors? I would very much like that.”

Trump admin officials have meanwhile been teasing a timetable of weeks, saying the clock is ticking for Moscow to show progress in peace negotiations – the next round which is set for Monday in Istanbul – as the US president himself has warned Putin against “tapping us along”. Trump has said he is two weeks away from having an understanding if Putin is serious about peace.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At some point in this century, I began to watch movies with grave trepidation. There is a good chance that somewhere in whatever film, the moment would come when the producer would send some strange political message with a barely guarded attack on some fundamental tenet of bourgeois society. They began eschewing art for hectoring.

We watch movies by choice. We pay to see them mostly. Why should we do this if the point of the movie is to sneakily attack core values and preach some strange woke creed? Stung too many times, I’m far more careful to avoid anything that seems coded with a political purpose in mind. Life is too short.

This is why I never bothered to watch the live action version of “Snow White” that came out this year. It was coded left and revisionist even in the promotion. It was met with terrible reviews, and goes down in history as one of the worst film investments ever made by Disney. It could easily have been otherwise.

The mystery to me is why Disney could not have known the result from the beginning. Why would this company spend $250 million on a sure loser? To understand, we need to explore the ways in which ideological fanaticism eats away at rationality.

Fortunately in our times, anyone can hop over to a free movie site that is ad-supported like Tubi (the third most popular service after Netflix and Amazon Prime) and have thousands of great shows and movies immediately available. It’s not all there but there are true treasures awaiting.

I vaguely recall when “On Golden Pond” came out in 1981. It was considered old-fashioned and slightly boring, an attempt to deploy two scions of Hollywood (Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn) in their late years toward box office success. The movie then won three Oscars and was a huge triumph. Apparently Fonda and Hepburn had never met before the film but they were just magic together.

The beauty of the film is indescribable. It is set at the classic New England lake of a New Hampshire summer cottage at the height of nature’s beauty, revealing the tender relationship of this aging couple. She is an ebullient lover of nature, games, and life, and he is a crabby retired professor with a crusty outer way but beautiful inner soul. The theme of death looms large throughout. I cannot think of a film that more authentically portrays the struggles of aging.

Their daughter is played by Jane Fonda at her prime. She arrives with a new boyfriend who is a single father of a boy of 13 who is already jaded and cynical. A relationship forms between the old man and the boy, based on various activities of summer like boating, fishing, and swimming.

The father reveals a secret that there is a big trout he calls Walter who has evaded capture for many years. They hunt this fish for weeks, catching many others along the way but not the one they want. As the movie closes, they finally do snag Walter but let him go out of respect for his size, might, and long life.

All of which recalls the huge drama of another great book made into several films: “Moby Dick” by Herman Melville. It’s one of the great American novels, oddly dreaded more than thoroughly read. Written in 1851, its tremendous fame is due to its detailed accounting of the whaling industry and culture in a time when whale oil was the resource most in demand for lighting before electricity came along.

Captain Ahab puts together a whaling expedition but with a fanatical desire to get the biggest whale of all, the one that caused him to lose a leg. The purpose of the trip is not profits but revenge, which the sailors on the boat knew but had underestimated the power of their captain’s obsession. The journey takes them as far as the South China Sea and ends with a grave lesson about the problem of single-minded obsessions untempered by concern for others and the larger context.

The reader or viewer is a fan of the Captain and his genius for as long as possible, truly hoping that he gets his wish. The lesson of the story only comes with the ending of doom, and only in reverse is it obvious that he allowed his obsession to cloud all his judgment.

The search for the fish in “On Golden Pond” is rational and sporting by comparison. Both stories are set in New England and surely the parallels here are not accidental. One shows destructive fanaticism and the other shows a tempered and loving ambition.

Both films are what my mentor Murray Rothbard called “movie movies,” meaning that they are deep, exciting, emotionally rich, wonderful and evocative to watch, and barren of hidden and manipulative attempts to browbeat or manipulate the politics of the viewer. Young people today who don’t watch older movies probably do not know the meaning of such things.

Murray did not review “On Golden Pond,” so far as I know, but I feel sure that he would have adored the film. Truly, I was taken aback by the innocence of the plot and the comfort that comes with realizing that at no point in the movie would the other shoe drop and we would be presented a lecture on the evils of normal society.

That’s true for most movies made in the 20th century before ideology came along to ruin them. We can think of identitarian politics as the equivalent of Captain Ahab’s whale, something the left has pursued with fanatical vigor even to the point of its own self-destruction. I see this operating at the New York Times, in large corporations, and in sectors of government where a single idea has swamped all rationality and even concern for the metrics of profitability.

The role of Moby Dick in this case is occupied by a malevolent vision of “white” Christian society—and the values that undergird it—as irredeemably corrupt and worthy only of being destroyed. In the past 10 years, it got so out of hand that a small but powerful coterie of writers tried to change the date of the founding of America and wage a wild war on the president who they believed to represent everything they hated.

There is truth to the observation that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has ruined vast amounts of art, journalism, commentary, and culture. There is plenty with which to disagree in Trump’s first and second term, and nothing wrong at all making that clear. The problem comes with the single-minded obsession that pursues the whale at the expense of everything else.

The right approach is the one taken by Henry Fonda toward “Walter” the trout. There is adventure in the hunt. Politics as a normal sport is a great thing. It sharpens skills at observation, argumentation, and rhetoric. Unlike Henry who lets the fish go once it is caught, Trump’s enemies have raised the stakes to the highest-possible level, attempting to jail him and worse.

We live in changing times when woke ideology is on the ropes, banned in many sectors of society and defunded according to policy. That said, the apparatus of understanding behind the ideology will long endure in culture, deeply institutionalized in academia, professional societies, and media. It’s true for films too.

Good movies might make a comeback—and perhaps that is happening now—but if you are like me, I wait until the reviews are out and eschew anything coded left simply because I don’t want to pay to be insulted. For now, I take recourse in the beauty and luxury of the older movies without the fanaticism that has compromised so much elite culture.

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

Goldman energy analysts, led by Adam Wijaya, are closely tracking wildfires in Alberta, where over half a million barrels per day of crude production are at risk. 

“Good morning and happy Friday! Coming in this morning to see Brent at $64/b and WTI at $61/b… quiet on the macro front this morning for the most part, with most of the focus on (a) monitoring progression of Alberta Wildfires (number is now above 50… 28 considered out of control from 24 prior, with 19 under control),” Wijaya told clients. 

The latest data from Bloomberg shows that 29 out-of-control fires are raging 12 miles from massive oil sands well sites that produce 459,000 barrels of oil daily. 

The fires are now spreading dangerously close to major oil sands operations:

• MEG Energy’s Christina Lake site (93,000 bpd) is just 4 km from the flames; production continues, but non-essential staff have been evacuated.
• Canadian Natural Resources’ Jackfish site, with 38,000 bpd within 3 km and 83,000 bpd within 10 km of fire zones, is also at risk.

Important context: Canada is the largest foreign oil supplier to the U.S., accounting for approximately 60% of total crude imports, with the vast majority of that coming from Alberta’s oil sands.

According to a person familiar with prices, Canadian heavy crude’s discount to WTI has narrowed to $8.70/bbl, reflecting supply concerns. The discount on Thursday was $9.70/bbl. 

Fire danger remains extreme in most of Alberta but may ease in the next few days with expected cooler weather and rain. Meanwhile, high winds in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are expected to worsen fire conditions. 

Smoke is drifting into the U.S. Upper Midwest…

Lots of smoke on satellite this evening in Canada as dozens of wildfires burn out of control, particularly in Alberta where pyrocumulus clouds can be seen. Around 17,000 people are under evacuations in Manitoba and a 30 day provincial emergency has been declared in Saskatchewan. pic.twitter.com/YGAPCkKUS4

— Collin Gross (@CollinGrossWx) May 30, 2025

Any severe disruption in Alberta’s oil production will tighten North American supply, raise prices, and could force U.S. refiners to source costlier supplies elsewhere. Something to certaintly keep an eye on, as per what Goldman’s Wijaya noted, mainly because the summer driving season has kicked off. 

Authroed by Lika Kobeshavidze via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Across college campuses, on TikTok feeds, and in everyday conversations, a familiar narrative is gaining steam: capitalism is broken.

Rising rents and stagnant wages fuel the claim among some young people that free markets have failed an entire generation. According to a 2024 poll by the Institute of Economic Affairs, more than 60 percent of young Britons now view socialism favorably. In the United States, the trend is similar, with Generation Z increasingly skeptical of capitalism’s promises.

But much of this idealism is rooted in distance—many of the young people romanticizing socialism have never lived through the economic dysfunction or political repression it often brings. For those who experienced Soviet shortages, Venezuelan collapse, or East Germany’s surveillance, the word socialism doesn’t suggest fairness or opportunity—it suggests fear, failure, and control. There’s a reason so many fled those systems to come to freer countries. What sounds utopian in theory has too often turned dystopian in practice.

But blaming capitalism misses the mark. The real culprit is cronyism, the unholy alliance between big government and big business that twists markets, blocks competition, and rewards political connections over genuine innovation.

The Myth of Market Failure

Capitalism, in its true form, is based on voluntary exchange. It rewards businesses that meet people’s needs and wants, with consumers deciding what succeeds and what fails. Competition drives improvement, innovation, and lower prices. No one is forced to buy or sell anything; choice reigns.

Cronyism is a different beast altogether. In a crony system, businesses succeed not by serving customers but by lobbying politicians. Profits come through subsidies, bailouts, and regulations designed to crush competition.

The 2008 financial crisis, often cited as proof of capitalism’s failures, actually showcased what happens when markets are rigged. Reckless banks, instead of collapsing as they deserved, were bailed out with taxpayer money. Ordinary people lost jobs and homes, while the politically connected survived and thrived.

This wasn’t free enterprise. It was cronyism.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a grim sequel. Small businesses were forced to shut their doors under government mandates. Meanwhile, corporate giants like Amazon, able to operate under looser restrictions or pivot online, soared to record profits. Policies, written in the name of public health, often privileged the biggest players while leaving Main Street devastated.

Cronyism on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Cronyism is not limited to one country or one political party. Across the United States and Europe, the symptoms are the same.

In the U.S., Canada, and the UK, the dream of homeownership slips further away for young people. Sky-high housing prices are blamed on “market failure,” but the real cause lies in layers of government-imposed barriers: restrictive zoning laws, burdensome permitting requirements, and endless bureaucratic delays. Big developers who can afford to navigate or influence the system survive. Everyone else gets locked out.

In Europe, the pattern repeats. France’s labor laws, designed to protect workers, instead stifle opportunity. Hiring becomes risky and expensive, especially for young people. Large corporations, with the resources to manage compliance costs, consolidate their dominance. Small firms and startups never get off the ground.

There’s also a persistent myth that big business fears government intervention. In reality, the largest corporations often embrace it, because it keeps them on top. Tech giants like Facebook and Google now lobby for more regulation, knowing that complex new rules will strangle smaller competitors who can’t afford fleets of compliance officers. Green energy subsidies, meant to combat climate change, often end up showering billions on well-connected firms while locking out emerging innovators.

Cronyism doesn’t reward the best ideas. It rewards the best lobbyists.

Why Gen Z’s Frustration Is Justified

Gen Z values fairness, creativity, and freedom. The very principles cronyism undermines. When political influence matters more than merit, and when success depends on government favoritism instead of consumer satisfaction, opportunity shrinks and innovation slows. But they are wrong when they think “socialism” would be a better option, not least because of the rampant cronyism that has existed in every socialist state.

The temptation to seek salvation through government power is not new. The Soviet Union began with a promise of equality and delivered oppression and scarcity (except for the party elites). Venezuela promised 21st-century socialism and delivered hunger, economic collapse, and political repression. Meanwhile, countries that embraced market freedom—even imperfectly—created unparalleled prosperity. Free markets have lifted billions out of poverty, and unleashed innovation that reshaped the modern world.

Markets aren’t flawless. But they leave the door open for anyone to succeed, not just those born into privilege or connected to power.

Aim Your Anger at the Right Target

Gen Z’s frustration is real, and it deserves an outlet. But the answer is not to tear down capitalism; it’s to tear down cronyism. A freer, fairer future depends on separating business from political power, not binding them closer together. It means ending corporate welfare, simplifying the rules of the game, and making sure that competition, not connections, decides who wins.

The fight for fairness is worth waging. But it must be aimed in the right direction. If we rage against cronyism, not capitalism, we can build a future where innovation thrives, opportunity is real, and every member of Generation Z has a genuine chance to rise.

From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

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

A rare mass emergence of cicadas is underway across the eastern United States as Brood XIV—one of the largest 17-year periodical cicada broods—surfaces for the first time since 2008.

Found only in eastern North America, periodical cicadas are known for their long underground life cycles, synchronized mass emergences, and piercing mating calls, according to researchers at the University of Connecticut.

As Chase Smith reports for The Epoch Times, Brood XIV is considered a keystone brood because of its size and central role in cicada evolution.

Researchers say it may have given rise to nearly all other 17-year broods through rare timing shifts known as “four-year jumps.”

This year’s emergence spans a wide area, including parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York state. Disjunct populations also exist in places like Cape Cod and Long Island, though scientists say those groups may be in decline.

University of Connecticut researchers are urging caution when interpreting sightings this year due to the presence of “stragglers,” cicadas that emerge early or late compared to their expected brood. These misaligned appearances, along with a phenomenon called “shadow brooding,” may confuse mapping efforts and lead to mistaken conclusions about the size or expansion of Brood XIV.

Accurate data is critical, researchers said, because Brood XIV plays a key role in understanding the distribution of other broods. Its interactions with adjacent broods, like Brood VI, X, and I, are still being studied, particularly in areas such as southwestern Ohio, northeastern Tennessee, and northern Kentucky.

The cicadas began appearing in April in Southern states and are expected to continue emerging through June in Northern regions as soil temperatures 7 to 8 inches below ground reach about 64 degrees Fahrenheit. Their emergence is typically triggered by warming weather. Once above ground, the insects climb nearby trees, molt into adults, mate, and die within several weeks.

Eggs hatch six to 10 weeks later, and the tiny nymphs fall to the ground to begin another 17-year cycle.

Periodical cicadas are not harmful. They do not bite, sting, or carry disease. While they may damage young saplings during egg-laying, they are not considered pests and do not require pesticide treatment. Most adults feed briefly on woody plants before dying.

Cicada densities can vary extraordinarily, the researchers stated. In some areas, estimates suggest up to one million insects per acre. This overwhelming presence is believed to protect the population from predators through a process called “predator satiation,” where animals eat their fill without impacting the entire population.

So far, citizen scientists using the iNaturalist platform have reported the most sightings in Townsend, Tennessee; across North Carolina; and in Clermont County and Miamiville, Ohio. According to project data, Townsend alone has logged 174 confirmed reports.

Scientists encourage residents in affected states to document sightings using platforms such as iNaturalist or the Cicada Safari app to aid researchers in real-time mapping. Since Brood XIV emerges only once every 17 years, this season offers a rare chance to witness one of nature’s most distinctive phenomena.