Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Conservative movements are often depicted as unyielding and uncompromising; dangerously incapable of adaptation when new ideas come to light. This image of the political right is rooted in a number of misconceptions. In reality, modern conservatives are often far too compromising – Far too willing to go along to get along. None of us wants to be seen as a dictator.

Perhaps the most important and defining characteristic of conservatives (at least in the US) is a regard for freedom, but ONLY freedom that is tempered by responsibility. When leftists (or libertarians) scrutinize the conservative ideal they usually reach back around 50 years to the days of evangelical censorship – The attempts to shut down the porn industry, temper the gay agenda in media, warn about satanic references in movies and violence in video games.

This was the era of the Christian “busybody” and a lot of people made fun of them for it. To be clear, they were wrong in some instances, but as our current predicament in the west proves, they were right about many things, too.

The supposed balance to the evangelicals was Liberalism. Most liberals today are certainly not the staunchly individualist and freedom minded people they once were. In fact, the majority of them joined woke activists without question or kept their mouths shut while the far-left pulled a speed run into Orwell’s 1984.

Perhaps in a desperate attempt to save their ideology from losing all relevancy, some liberals slipped over to the center and criticized the woke mob. Most of them didn’t have the balls to jump into the culture war until a few years ago. Those of us in the conservative sphere had already been exposing the existential dangers of post-modernism, futurism and luciferianism for decades.

Centrist liberals say they want to temper the political left’s addiction to Marxism and Communism. As recent events have proven, they are simply not up to the task of controlling their political cousins. The woke movement spread like a cancer throughout the entire liberal body and they bowed in fealty. The only thing that stopped the rot was the right wing finally taking a stand and going on the offensive.

With conservative principles currently gaining momentum there is a chance that America could actually turn back the clock on mores and social cohesion to a time when traditional values were held in much higher regard. This can only be a good thing in my opinion, but it requires a reconsideration of our concept of personal liberty. Maybe some behavior needs to be reined in? Maybe total unchecked chaos and limitless individualism is a bad thing?

Liberals warn that conservatives are gaining too much power after the success of MAGA in last year’s elections and therefore we must be kept in check. Their argument? The woke left is beaten, but now the world must put a leash on the “woke right”.

The “woke right” label in itself is a rather remedial and silly attempt to divert popular discussion away from traditional values (a development that hasn’t taken place in the US in a long time). Morals, nobility and responsibility might become “cool” again, and liberals simply can’t have that.

They argue that their way (a continued idealization of individualism without taking inherent narcissism, psychopathy and the mentality of mobs into account) is the best way. However, we have seen where liberalism without boundaries ends. The cult of chaos (wokeness) is simply a natural extension of the liberal ideal. They demand an end to ALL restrictions, even the restrictions of objective truth.

They want total open multicultural expansion, unfettered freedom to interpret biology and morality according to subjective preference, unchecked sexual deviancy, no consequences whatsoever for their actions. Liberals are not as far from this end of the spectrum as they pretend. They don’t like cultural structures and rules either. They don’t like collective limitations (unless they control those limitations). They don’t even believe in evil; they only believe in circumstances.

Conservatives now stand atop the fray of the culture war and many of us are suggesting that, in order to prevent the nightmare of wokeness (or something even worse) from ever happening again, we might need to instill some enduring rules of social conduct. The liberals in turn are freaking out. They especially seem to despise Christian Nationalists who want to bring America back to an era of carefully defined moral order.

A decade ago I might have agreed with this concern, at least in part. I’m not fond of the idea of a theocracy in which the church rules the state. I also agree that most people have a conscience outside of biblical teaching (If we didn’t then humanity would have gone extinct long ago).

That said, Christian Nationalism does not require theocracy, and if you do have a conscience then you should already be in agreement with most Christian fundamentals anyway. Living in a society where Christianity is more widely embraced wouldn’t make any difference for you. It would only be incompatible if a person harbors post-modern delusions that view Christianity as the enemy. If that’s the case, you shouldn’t be living in America anyway. All you have to do is go elsewhere.

I think liberals need to acknowledge that they are a product of a very narrow moment in time and that time is fading. For most of American history Christianity was the preeminent cultural compass. The US was always Christian and nearly all of our leaders were Christian. America has in fact always been a Christian nation and Christian Nationalism was the norm. Christians are still the majority today (62%) despite the endless negative campaign to shut them down.

As recently as the 1990s, over 90% of all Americans identified as Christian. Things have only changed in the past 30 years, and they have done so dramatically to the negative.

In light of the unfettered horrors of wokism I’m increasingly convinced that Christian doctrine is a necessary firewall designed to filter out otherwise malicious ideological malware. If the progressives (and their liberal counterparts) are not kept in check by someone, then the woke march could repeat by the next generation.

So, what is to be done?

The underlying debate is this – Should one group define western culture above all others and defend it against existential threats. Are Christian Nationalists that group? I would say yes to both questions, because of America’s spiritual history and the fact that there’s no other viable alternative. Do we continue to allow liberals to anoint themselves the arbiters of American culture? Or, do we try something different?

Is this hard-right position also “woke right”? The term “woke right” is often linked back to Kevin DeYoung’s 2022 review of Stephen Wolfe’s book The Case for Christian Nationalism. In his article entitled “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” he argues that:

“Besides trafficking in sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about the totalizing control of the Globalist American Empire and the gynocracy, Wolfe’s apocalyptic vision—for all of its vitriol toward the secular elites—borrows liberally from the playbook of the left.

He not only redefines the nature of oppression as psychological oppression (making it easier to justify extreme measures and harder to argue things aren’t as bad as they seem), he also rallies the troops (figuratively, but perhaps also literally?) by reminding them they’re victims. “The world is out to get you, and people out there hate you” is not a message that will ultimately help white men or any other group that considers themselves oppressed…”

“…If critical race theory teaches that America has failed, that the existing order is irredeemable, that Western liberalism was a mistake from the beginning, that the current system is rigged against our tribe, and that we ought to make ethnic consciousness more important—it seems to me that Wolfe’s project is the right-wing version of these same impulses.”

While DeYoung’s analysis seems to be coming from a sincere place and he does defend Christian culture as an important part of American life, his analysis requires a certain level of ignorance to stay afloat. Liberals and left leaning Christians refuse to consider one important factor:

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

The entire premise behind the notion of the “woke right” requires that none of the threats above prove to be real. That there is no globalist conspiracy to destroy the west and Christianity. That the subversion of conservative principles is imagined. That there is no white replacement in the US and Europe. That conservatives are not being oppressed and that tribal organization against our attackers is unwarranted or impractical.

DeYoung (and most liberals) prefer passive Christianity. If Christians had thought like DeYoung in the Middle Ages, the entire west would have been wiped off the face of the Earth by Muslim invaders centuries ago. Instead, they took direct action to save themselves. The issue is not even particularly nationalist in origin, it’s only that nations are the easiest barrier to rally and defend. At bottom, Christians must at times act to prevent their own erasure.

Wokeness is largely about false witness – Leftists claim they are being oppressed when they are provably not. The political right cannot be woke because the western world and Christianity are indeed under constant attack. This is not debatable.

In Europe today, the war on Christians and conservatives (or populists) is evident and it is undeniably systemic. Europeans have been under siege by engineered mass immigration from the third-world. Most of the migrants come from places (Islamic) that despise Christianity and view personal liberty as an aberration or heresy. The governments of France, Germany, England and Romania are actively imprisoning right leaning political opponents and silencing them online, all in the name of liberal democracy.

In the US, woke zealots and the global elites have used everything from mass censorship to medical tyranny to mob violence to shut down and terrorize the political right. The Biden Administration made multiple public proclamations declaring conservatives a domestic threat to democracy. We were accused of being insurrectionists. We were painted as terrorists, and all we did was ask questions and demand truthful answers. This isn’t an exaggerated tale of victimhood conjured up for sympathy, it’s just the facts.

The debate over Christians and conservatives taking direct action instead of waiting around for the next crisis reminds me of a fascinating film directed by Bill Paxton called ‘Frailty’. If you haven’t seen it then I recommend doing so before I spoil it for you here.

In the movie, Bill Paxton plays a father with two sons living a relatively normal life as a devout man with a good heart. One day, he approaches his sons with a terrifying tale: He was visited by an angel from heaven that told him he has been chosen for a mission to destroy evil. The evil, he says, is enacted by demons that take the form of human beings. He claims that God has demanded that he and his sons remove these demons before they do anymore harm.

The youngest son believes his father without question and in full faith. The older son does not and asserts that the man might be going dangerously insane.

What follows is an escalating conflict between father and son as Bill Paxton begins to kill the people he believes are demonic. When he touches them, he says he can see the crimes they’ve committed. The older son refuses to participate in the murders and tries to sabotage Paxton’s efforts. Finally, Paxton accuses his oldest of being a demon as well. The boy eventually kills his father in order to stop the murders.

Plot Twist: Bill Paxton really did receive a vision from God. He really was killing demons, and his eldest son was also a demon the whole time.

Liberals who perpetuate the woke right narrative remind me of the oldest son in Frailty.

They play at being even handed, fighting to keep the scales of power from tipping in either direction. In truth, they are blinded by their own self righteousness and their belief that there is no such thing as evil. The rest of us see it, but if we try to do something about it these same people obstruct and sabotage and accuse us of “becoming monsters to defeat the monsters”. They allow the sparks of woke chaos to survive.

Should western civilization be allowed to discriminate? Should we be able to refuse to associate? Should we have the right to be tribal (like everyone else) and deny entry to malicious cultures and ideologies? Is our heritage valid and enduring? Is Christian Nationalism the solution to the woke luciferian agenda? It seems to me that the elites want conservatism dead so badly that it must be a threat to them.

We ARE fighting demons, and a culture without a spiritual consensus is a dying culture. Christian Nationalism was the natural default of American society for centuries. Many people who are not Christians are still perfectly capable of living and thriving within such a society as long as they don’t try to tear it down. The Overton Window has merely been rigged so far to the left that any return to the old standard sounds like madness; it is in fact the most sane thing we could possibly do to save our country.

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

China has approved plans to build 10 new nuclear reactors for 200 billion yuan ($27.7 billion), positioning it to surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest nuclear power producer by 2030, according to Nikkei Asia.

The decision, made at a State Council meeting last month, includes eight Hualong One reactors—developed by state-owned firms based on U.S. and French designs—and two CAP1000 units, based on Westinghouse’s AP1000 model. The reactors will add about 12,000 megawatts of capacity.

Construction will take place along the coast in Shandong, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, and Guangxi, with state-owned companies like China National Nuclear Corp., China General Nuclear Power Group, and China Huaneng Group operating the plants.

China paused new nuclear projects after Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011 but resumed approvals in 2019, accelerating to around 10 reactors per year since 2022. President Xi Jinping is promoting nuclear power to reduce air pollution, curb oil dependence—China imports about 70% of its crude—and meet climate goals. In 2020, Xi pledged to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve net-zero by 2060.

Nikkei Asia writes that by the end of 2024, China had 57 reactors generating 59,760 MW, ranking third globally behind the U.S. and France. Capacity is projected to hit 110,000 MW by 2030, making China the global leader if current trends continue. Nuclear power made up 4.7% of China’s energy mix in 2024, with projections reaching 10% by 2040.

While high construction costs have stalled nuclear projects in the U.S. and Europe, China’s state-owned enterprises continue building efficiently, controlling costs and boosting expertise.

Recall, last week Axios reported that The White House is poised to issue executive orders aimed at accelerating the deployment of nuclear reactors across the United States. The White House actions are expected to leverage the Departments of Defense and Energy to expedite reactor deployment, potentially circumventing delays from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

These developments are part of a broader trend toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector.

The ADVANCE Act of 2024, signed into law in July, aims to streamline the licensing process for advanced nuclear technologies, reduce regulatory costs, and promote the development of next-generation reactors.

Additionally, in a rare show of bipartisan agreement, the Biden administration had formerly expressed intentions to triple the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050, recognizing nuclear energy’s role in achieving carbon-free electricity goals.

The anticipated executive actions reflect a concerted effort to modernize the U.S. energy infrastructure, with nuclear power playing a central role in ensuring energy security and meeting future demands.

As of early 2025, 411 nuclear reactors operated worldwide with a combined 371-gigawatt capacity. Amazon, investing over $1 billion in nuclear projects, is exploring small modular reactors, while Meta and Google are also considering the emerging technology.

As we have continued to report, accelerating power demand growth from AI data centers has sparked a nuclear power revival in the US. For those who missed it, in our note “The Next AI Trade” from April 2024, more than one year ago, we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, most of which have dramatically outperformed the market since then. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Legislation has been introduced to direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to investigate the psychological and social roots of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’.

Ohio Republican Rep. Warren Davidson has presented the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Research Act of 2025, intended to shed light on what has been a serious cultural affliction. 

Described as an “intense, irrational hysteria” triggered by the mere mention of President Trump, TDS has become a catch-all for the unhinged reactions of his critics— whether it comes in the form of spittle-flecked blue hair rants, protest effigies, or social media meltdowns.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has led to nationwide violence, including two assassination attempts on @POTUS.

That’s why I introduced the TDS Research Act—we must study the root causes of this toxic state of mind! https://t.co/J2ZOYl2oEC

— Rep. Warren Davidson (@Rep_Davidson) May 16, 2025

Co-sponsored by Alabama Rep. Barry Moore, the research will look to explain why leftists lose their collective minds at the sight of a red hat.

Davidson’s legislation defines TDS as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons” reacting to Trump’s policies, presidency, or very existence, manifesting in “verbal expressions of intense hostility” and even “overt acts of aggression and violence” against his supporters. 

The bill points to real-world consequences, citing two assassination attempts on Trump in 2024 as evidence of TDS’s toxic grip. 

“This isn’t just about hurt feelings,” Davidson said in a statement, adding “TDS has divided families, fueled nationwide violence, and turned dinner parties into screaming matches.”

“The NIH needs to study this so we can find solutions,” he further urged.

Immediately proving the entire point of the bill, Leftists accused Republicans of weaponizing mental health against supporters of their political opponents.

This isn’t the first time TDS has made legislative waves. In March 2025, five Minnesota Senate Republicans pushed a bill to classify TDS as a mental illness in state law, defining it as “Trump-induced general hysteria” that clouds the ability to distinguish policy disagreements from “psychic pathology.” 

That effort, led by Sens. Eric Lucero and others, crashed and burned amid backlash from Democrats, who called it “possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history” and an affront to free speech. 

One co-sponsor, Sen. Justin Eichorn, later resigned after a scandal involving charges of soliciting a minor, which didn’t exactly help the bill’s optics.

Davidson’s bill takes a different tack, framing TDS as a public health issue worthy of NIH scrutiny. It calls for reallocating existing NIH funds—no new taxpayer dollars—away from what Davidson calls “ludicrous studies like giving meth to cats” toward something “relevant to everyday Americans.” 

The bill tasks the NIH with probing the media’s role in amplifying TDS, analyzing its impact on political polarization, and hunting for “patient zero” of the phenomenon. 

Within two years, the NIH would report its findings to Congress, potentially shedding light on whether TDS is a genuine psychological condition or just a snarky political jab.

Trump supporters argue the bill is long overdue. They point to extreme anti-Trump rhetoric—comparisons to Hitler, nationwide protests, and the assassination attempts—as evidence that the left has gone haywire.

Literally no matter President Trump says, the left and the media will come out against it.

From kids surviving brain cancer to deporting gang members to tariffs — something the left championed for decades.

The TDS consumes them so completely that they lose their ability to…

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) May 13, 2025

The left is beyond repair as it pertains to their TDS condition. There is NOTHING Trump could do that they would ever praise or give him credit for. He could literally fulfill a policy promise proposed by their own party to help the American people and they would still oppose it…

— Mark (@MarkM90388714) May 14, 2025

If DJT promised to drop 500.00 a day into each citizens account the Liberals would have tantrums. All of a sudden it would be “what about the deficit “”what about the unbanked”” what about illegals” NOTHING President Trump does will ever be seen as positive because it’s HIM.…

— 🇺🇲🏈BamaEllie🏈🇺🇲 (@Elsinbama) May 14, 2025

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is the hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment. They can’t help themselves anymore. They have gone totally batshit crazy! pic.twitter.com/gW7ejbTRDc

— Raymond Ng (@rayngls) May 10, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Essentially all of America’s major cities on the west coast are experiencing a period of steep economic decline.  The reason for the financial squeeze and the exodus of major business chains is obvious – Democrat run cities enforce progressive criminal policies and progressive tax policies.  The two elements combined make it nearly impossible for most companies to function and turn a profit.  Even worse, businesses are finding it difficult to ensure their employees stay safe.

The theft issue is astronomical, even after the California State Government (and city governments) reversed a law which made prosecution of anyone stealing under $950 in goods almost impossible.  Criminal residents took full advantage of the lack of enforcement and gutted numerous retail outlets, forcing them to lock up their stock behind plastic and chains.  The elimination of the law might lesson the incentive to steal, but too many criminals know they are still unlikely to be caught or have their cases pursued by the city. 

Denny’s, Walgreens, Michael Kors and others have shuttered San Francisco locations. So far in 2025, the San Francisco Police Department has recorded more than 8,100 crime reports, including 530 robberies and over 4,600 instances of larceny theft.

In San Francisco’s once bustling Union Square shopping district, some of the largest retailers are running for the hills.  Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Saks Fifth Avenue, Uniqlo, Adidas, American Eagle, J. Crew, Madewell, Aldo, L’Occitane, as well as Psycho Bunny, Sunglass Hut, and Razer have all closed stores in the area or are in the process of leaving. 

However, the city is placing hope in the arrival of a brand new Nintendo flagship store in Union Square, which they think will help rejuvenate shopping activity.  The store is one of only two in existence outside of Japan.

It probably doesn’t need to be spelled out, but the desperation and delusion are palpable here.  The store is a unique item to the US, but not enough to draw in a shopping revival in the already hollow Union Square.  San Francisco’s reputation as a tourist destination is undeniably sullied.  A single successful store is also not going to drive other businesses to take a chance in a market they already escaped. 

Why Nintendo would choose to establish a flagship operation in the area is a mystery, but the city government has recently created a “Downtown Revitalization Program” (including something called the “San Francisco New Deal”) which offers a number of financial incentives, grants, low interest loans and rewards for “beautification”. Nintendo may have gathered enough taxpayer cash already to pay for their first year of operations. 

In other words, no company is going to put down roots in San Francisco unless the local government pays them to do so.

Via Middle East Eye

A summit of the Arab League began in Baghdad on Saturday, with Syria’s president absent following Iraqi outcry. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas was the first Arab leader to arrive in Baghdad on Friday, followed by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on Saturday.

However, a diplomatic source told AFP that most Gulf leaders would not be attending. Other figures present in Baghdad on Saturday include United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.

The summit is expected to discuss the numerous crises afflicting the region, including Israel’s ongoing attack on the Gaza Strip.

US President Donald Trump, who has been touring the Gulf states, sparked outrage in the Arab world earlier this year when he declared his country would take control of Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

In response, Arab leaders announced the development of a post-war plan at the previous summit in Cairo in March to rebuild the territory.

The Iraqi government has said this month’s summit would endorse the plan, which calls for a $53bn fund to finance Gaza’s reconstruction over five years. Under the proposal, the territory would be administered during a transitional period by a committee of Palestinian technocrats, before the PA regains control.

“We are not just rebuilding Iraq, we are also reshaping the Middle East through a balanced foreign policy, wise leadership, development initiatives, and strategic partnerships,” Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani wrote in an opinion piece earlier this month.

Syrian al-Qaeda founder

Iraq is still trying to stabilize after years of violence sparked off by the US-led invasion in 2003 that overthrew long-time ruler Saddam Hussein.

Controversy had swirled around an invitation extended by Sudani to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who came to power after overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in December. Numerous Iraqi politicians had called for him to be blocked from attending over his past membership in al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis during the 2000s through often indiscriminate and sectarian attacks.

On Saturday, it was reported that Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, who was also a member of Syria’s al-Qaeda wing alongside Sharaa, would be attending the summit rather than the president.

Iraqi media reported last month that at least 50 MPs from Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataeb Hezbollah – two Iran-backed armed political factions that provided military support to Assad against Sharaa and other Syrian opposition groups – had filed criminal complaints in Iraqi courts against the Syrian president.

The Islamic Dawa Party, which held the prime ministership during the bulk of the al-Qaeda insurgency, also warned against inviting Sharaa to Iraq. Though they did not mention the prime minister by name, they said that anyone invited to the Arab League conference should have a “spotless” legal record, both at home and abroad.

However, Sudani – like several other Arab leaders – has been keen to normalize ties with Syria following 13 years of civil [proxy war for regime change] war that have destabilized the wider region, including fueling the rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq.

The summit also comes shortly after Sharaa met with Trump, who announced the lifting of sanctions imposed on Syria during the Assad era. Still, not everyone has been so open to mending relations with Iraq’s western neighbor.

Safaa Rashid, a Baghdad resident who lost three cousins in al-Qaeda blasts in 2005, told Middle East Eye last month that he was appalled by Sudani’s decision to invite Sharaa.

“[Sharaa] is the face of terrorism,” he said. “He must be held accountable. I lost three cousins to his group’s violence… How can someone like this be welcomed as if he were an honored guest?”

Last week we noted new report from the New York Federal Reserve, which showed that while Americans’ credit card debt is falling, credit scores are starting to decline due to an uptick in student loan delinquencies. 

The NY Fed’s Center for Macroeconomic Data’s quarterly report reveals that overall household debt rose by $167 billion – with credit card debt declining by $29 billion. Yet, the delinquency rate for student loans surged from below 1% to nearly 7.7% after a pandemic-era pause on student loan payments was lifted in September 2023.

While the payments were resumed, policymakers extended a one-year ramp-up period that shielded borrowers’ missed payments from being reported to credit bureaus. This extension expired in October 2024, with delinquencies starting to hit the first quarter of 2025. 

Needless to say, it’s total carnage among borrowers, as one can see from Reddit’s ‘StudentLoans‘ forum.

“My credit score dropped 240+ points. i dont know what to do!!” said one Redditor, who says she can’t pay her bills because she doesn’t have a job after graduating in 2024.

“My score was in the high 700s and dropped to about 480,” said another Redditor, who said they were notified by reporting agency Experian that their credit “took a massive hit.”

“My transunion and equifax scores took a -100 hit due to my loans “just being recognized this January,”” reported another borrower.

“My credit dropped from a 720 to a 550,” said yet another – who reported having “6 total loans from school” that have been “deferred for a while.”

“Credit Got Torched” reads a Friday post. “i am unfortunately 1 of the 9 million people who received delinquency marks on my credit report from the dept of education for student loans, which decreased my credit score by 118 points.”

Interestingly, several redditors said their scores tanked from loans taken out in their names that they were unaware of – including the first example, who said “I have 10 student loans overall, 5 sub, 5 unsub, and have never had anything else on my credit or anything, no cards or loans, etc. I did get my identity stolen, but I disputed the loans that were taken out fraudulently, and my score was barely affected at all from it.”

According to the NY Fed report, while over half of the newly delinquent borrowers already have subprime credit scores, around 2.4 million borrowers who entered delinquency this year had scores over 620 – which could have allowed them to qualify for auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards, prior to the delinquency being reported. 3.2 million borrowers whose scores were under 620 (56.6% of the newly delinquent population) saw their scores decline by an average of 74 points.

Another 2 million borrowers with scores between 620 – 719 (35.9% of new delinquencies) saw their credit scores fall by an average of 140 points – while there were 400,000 borrowers whose scores were above 720 (7.2% of new delinquencies) that saw their scores fall by over 100 points.

Over 1 million borrowers saw drops of at least 150 points. 

The report found that seven states have a conditional student loan delinquency rate — which excludes borrowers who don’t have a payment due — above 30%, including Mississippi (44.6%), Alabama (34.1%), West Virginia (34%), Kentucky (33.6%), Oklahoma (33.6%), Arkansas (33.5%) and Louisiana (31.8%).

At the end of the first quarter, over 20 million federal student loan borrowers weren’t in repayment and five million had a zero-dollar monthly payment. –Fox News

“After a five-year hiatus, student loan delinquency has returned to the pre-pandemic ‘normal’ with more than 10 percent of balances and roughly six million borrowers either past due or in default,” according to the NY Fed report, which noted that the collections process that resumed in May includes the “garnishment of wages, tax returns, and Social Security payments.”

“Additionally, millions of borrowers face steep declines in their credit standing which will increase borrowing costs or seriously limit their access to credit like mortgages and auto loans.”

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Los Angeles County is launching a new program to warn criminals and deter retail theft, according to District Attorney Nathan Hochman, who says local businesses have lost millions of dollars to theft since January.

Retailers can contact local law enforcement to obtain one of 10,000 yellow warning decals to post at their business and inform the public that thefts will be prosecuted by the regional retail theft task force.

The sticker also has a QR code for the public to use to report any crimes.

According to the National Retail Federation, the Los Angeles area is the worst in the nation for organized retail crime.

At a press conference on May 14 in front of a 7-Eleven convenience store in West Los Angeles, Hochman said ending the cycle of catch-and-release in recent years that sent serial retail thieves back on the streets to reoffend is a top priority.

“Small businesses, stores, and even big-box retailers constitute the lifeline of our communities, and the lifeblood of our communities are under attack,” Hochman said.

“They’ve had to deal over the last several years with criminals who had the mistaken belief that you can come into a 7-Eleven, for instance, take whatever you want, leave, and nothing would happen.

“We are here today to explain to them the exact opposite,” he said. “You will be held accountable, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

The district attorney said he intended to use new authority afforded by Proposition 36, passed by state voters last year, to prosecute thieves and repeat offenders.

The proposition—also known as the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” went into effect on Dec. 18, 2024.

The new law increased penalties for certain drug and theft crimes, and reclassified some misdemeanors as felonies for repeat offenders. The penalties can include sentences of up to three years in jail or prison if the defendant has already been convicted for certain thefts.

Since December, the county has filed over 1,000 Prop. 36 felony theft charges against repeat offenders, according to Hochman.

“We are armed with an additional set of laws under Prop. 36,” Hochman said.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said 10,000 warning decals will be available for local stores beginning May 16, 2025. Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Before Prop. 36 went into effect, petty thefts under $950 were classified as misdemeanors, and thefts could not be aggregated to meet the felony threshold, creating a “culture of impunity,” Hochman’s office stated.

One of the felony arrests made since the new law took effect was of Corry Summerville, 38, who was allegedly a serial shoplifter at the 7-Eleven featured in the news conference.

Summerville has been charged with 12 felony charges and one count of robbery related to alleged thefts at the convenience store owned by franchisee Jawad Ursani between January and March.

Four employees resigned, allegedly out of fear of continued encounters with Summerville, according to the Los Angeles Police Department Commanding Officer Capt. Richard Gabaldon.

One of the employees was allegedly violently assaulted when he asked Summerville to pay for items.

“We commend the victim for ultimately coming forward,” Gabaldon said at the news conference.

Los Angeles Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky, who represents the district where the 7-Eleven is located, said her family often frequented the store.

“When a store is repeatedly targeted or a theft turns violent, it does more than hurt the business,” Yaroslavsky said at the event. “It makes you wonder if it’s safe to send your kids in. It makes you worry that someone could get caught in the middle. And it makes you feel like no one is in charge.”

The district attorney is also partnering with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute organized retail crime. Investigators are targeting serial shoplifters, smash-and-grab mobs, and large-scale criminal enterprises.

“This is a warning to all the criminals out there, if you come to these stores and think you’re going to come here and commit a crime, we’re going to arrest you and present a good case to the D.A., and you will go to jail for that,” said LAPD Capt. Francis Boateng, commanding officer of the department’s commercial crimes division.

Convenience store owner Ursani, who has operated the 7-Eleven featured at the news conference for more than 25 years, said he was grateful for the support from Hochman and the law enforcement communities.

“My store was targeted not once, but twice, by a smash-and-grab of about over 50 teenagers and a repeat [alleged] shoplifter who is now detained and will be held accountable by this D.A.’s office as we speak,” Ursani said. “Each incident costs us in stolen goods, broken equipment, staff morale, and personal safety.”

Ursani said he has had to spend thousands of dollars on protection for the store, instead of spending the money on inventory and community investments.

“It’s not just about theft, it’s about fear and instability it brings to everyone who depends on this store and our entire community,” Ursani added.

Prop. 36 has given law enforcement more tools to target operations that harm communities, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Detective Division Chief Joe Mendoza.

“While Proposition 36 promotes necessary criminal justice reform, it also allows us to focus resources on serious, organized theft operations that harm our communities,” Mendoza said.

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The New York Times this week reports that the Trump administration has canceled many grants that were to fund “research” on “misinformation.” This is being presented by the media as a dastardly deed that will supposedly allow the spread of misleading or false information through various media channels.

Of course, if there were any genuine interest in studying the most egregious efforts to spread misinformation, media outlets like the Times would study themselves and their friends in the regime. After all, few organizations have been more complicit than the national American media and the US foreign policy establishment when it comes to spreading much of the worst propaganda in American history. I say “worst” because this propaganda has often been used in service to the worst ends: to gin up support for a variety of wars resulting in the deaths of thousands—sometimes even hundreds of thousands—of innocents.

Relatively recent media-regime partnerships in propagandistic misinformation include the “Russiagate” hoax, various efforts to obscure US meddling in Ukraine, and the nearly nonstop drumbeat of “news” stories over the past twenty years designed to push for regime change in various countries from Venezuela to Russia to Libya and to Syria—where the Assad regime, according to US design, was recently replaced by Islamist terrorists. And then, of course, there is the nonstop stream of misinformation designed to prop up the State of Israel and obscure its many war crimes. And let’s not forget the fictional “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq which the US presented to the United Nations as established fact.

Throughout all this, the interventionist “foreign policy blob” in Washington received near universal support from its friends at publications like the Times and the Washington Post.

The United States did not invent these tactics. Over the past 100-plus years, however, perhaps no regime was more innovative than the British when it came to inventing “facts” designed to manufacture popular consent for wars and more foreign intervention. The United States has done its best to adopt similar methods, however, and creating invented narratives in service to the regime’s foreign policy goals is now standard operating procedure for the American state as well.

The Great War: The Turning Point

Throughout history, most great powers world have long lied to buttress their war efforts, but these efforts greatly increased in magnitude and sophistication during the twentieth century, mostly with the assistance of increasingly centralized organs of mass media.

For an insightful narrative on how this new “propaganda state” developed, we can consult the works of historian Ralph Raico, who suggests that the true turning point came with the First World War when the British regime, with the help of the media, engaged in a propaganda campaign of impressive effectiveness. Specifically, Raico posits that modern wartime propaganda began with “the Belgian atrocity stories of 1914, which was maybe the first great propaganda success in modern times.”

The stories of which Raico speaks were part of a concerted British campaign to wildly exaggerate German aggression in Belgium and to send the message that the Germans were a barbaric race unlike the civilized French and British people of Europe. It was mostly based on an official British government report known as the Bryce Report. The report made countless unsubstantiated claims about mass rapes, children with their hands cut off, violated nuns, and Canadian soldiers crucified on barn doors. This produced horror and anti-German zealotry around much of the world.

But there was one problem: it was nearly all based on lies. Raico writes:

What is the story of the Belgian atrocities? The story of the Belgian atrocities is that they were faked. They were fabricated. They were phony. The pictures were photographed in particular buildings which are known in Paris. Th stage sets were designed by designers for the Parisian opera. The stories were made up out of … whole cloth and spread by British propaganda as another weapon in the war—especially in the war for the minds of the neutral countries. …[T]his turns a good deal of public opinion against the Germans.

Raico adds one especially ironical note, and quotes historian Thomas Fleming, who according to Raico,

to his credit, mentions that the real cases of people, including children, with their hands cut off occurred in the Congo beginning in the 1880s, at the behest of the Belgian king Leopold II. Because of their great extent and nearly incredible cruelty, it’s those that deserve to be called “the Belgian atrocities.”

Chief among those neutral countries that were targets of British propaganda, of course, was the United States.

The British regime was desperate to have the Americans enter the war on the American side, and the British almost spared no trouble or expense convincing the Americans that the British were fighting against an enemy of untrammeled malice. The program was very successful. Raico notes that an

ingrained bias of the American political class and social elite was galvanized by British propaganda. On August 5, 1914, the Royal Navy cut the cables linking the United States and Germany. Now news for America had to be funneled through London, where the censors shaped and trimmed reports for the benefit of their government. Eventually, the British propaganda apparatus in the First World War became the greatest the world had seen to that time; later it was a model for the Nazi Propaganda Minster Josef Goebbels. Philip Knightley noted:

British efforts to bring the United States into the war on the Allied side penetrated every phase of American life. . . . It was one of the major propaganda efforts of history, and it was conducted so well and so secretly that little about it emerged until the eve of the Second World War, and the full story is yet to be told.

The Americans Adopt British Methods

Ultimately, the British propaganda effort worked and the United States government enthusiastically entered the war on the side of Britain. This went against what was still a very large portion of the American public’s antiwar preferences, but the British had won the American elites over to their side.

After all, as the British effort mounted, even the Republican party’s leadership began pressuring Woodrow Wilson to take a more hardline anti-German stance. As Raico puts it “Americans, who devoutly wished to avoid war, had no spokesmen within the leadership of either of the major parties.”

Once the US entered the war, the US’s implemented its own propaganda barrage, and now it took on an additional dimension of outright censorship. For this, the media and the nation’s intellectuals were enlisted to push the war message, and, as Raico writes,

public schools and the universities were turned into conduits for the government line. Postmaster General Albert Burleson censored and prohibited the circulation of newspapers critical of Wilson, the conduct of the war, or the Allies. The nation-wide campaign of repression was spurred on by the Committee on Public Information, headed by George Creel, the U.S. government’s first propaganda agency.

Just one example of the regime’s capture of educational institutions could be found in how The New York Times praised the President of Columbia University for dismissing faculty members who opposed the regime on conscription.

American Propaganda After the Great War

The Second World War brought another resurgence in war propaganda, and this time, American cooperation with British forces was virtually guaranteed ahead of time. By 1939, Roosevelt was comfortable promising King George VI “full support for Britain in case of war,” as Raico puts it.

By 1940, even before the US entered the war, The US government was working hand in glove with the British government to convince Americans of the necessity of US involvement in the war. As Raico notes, the full extent of this collaboration was covered up for decades, although,

In 1976, the public finally learned the story of William Stephenson, the British agent code named “Intrepid,” sent by Churchill to the United States in 1940. Stephenson set up headquarters in Rockefeller Center, with orders to use any means necessary to bring the United States into the war. With the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and the collaboration of federal agencies, Stephenson and his 300 or so agents “intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes, kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered” and incessantly smeared their favorite targets, the “isolationists.” Through Stephenson, Churchill was virtually in control of William Donovan’s organization, the embryonic U.S. intelligence service. Churchill even had a hand in the barrage of pro-British, anti-German propaganda that issued from Hollywood in the years before the United States entered the war. Gore Vidal, in Screening History, perceptively notes that starting around 1937, Americans were subjected to one film after another glorifying England and the warrior heroes who built the Empire. As spectators of these productions, Vidal says: “We served neither Lincoln nor Jefferson Davis; we served the Crown.”

Vidal was so impressed—in a bad way—by the continued success of British propagandists in this effort that he remarked:

For those who find disagreeable today’s Zionist propaganda, I can only say that gallant little Israel of today must have learned a great deal from the gallant little Englanders of the 1930s. The English kept up a propaganda barrage that was to permeate our entire culture…. Hollywood was subtly and not so subtly infiltrated by British propagandists.

Raico describes how closely the US and the UK collaborated in these efforts, and how successfully. By 1941, there was no doubt where the US regime would come down on the war issue. The primary question by then was how much Roosevelt would be able to drum up American hostility against Japan. In this respect, of course, he succeeded quite well.

A general worldview favoring endless international intervention was supplemented and cemented in the American mind for decades afterward by the ultimate purveyors of propaganda: the government schools. First and foremost was an effort to ensure that executive power was unlimited in international affairs claimed by Roosevelt and his successors. Raico writes:

Back in 1948, Charles Beard already noted the dismal ignorance among our people of the principles of our republican government: American education from the universities down to the grade schools is permeated with, if not dominated by, the theory of presidential supremacy in foreign affairs. Coupled with the flagrant neglect of instruction in constitutional government, this propaganda . . . has deeply implanted in the minds of rising generations the doctrine that the power of the president over international relations is, for all practical purposes, illimitable.

The US propaganda apparatus became less focused on British concerns after the war, but was deftly turned toward promoting US regime interests during the Cold War. In his work on the Truman years, Raico notes that by the late 1940s, Truman was also pressing for fresh hostilities, including open warfare, against the new enemy, the Soviet Union. Those who resisted, especially Republicans form the Taft wing of the party, were accused of being Stalin apologists.

In this, Truman, in what had become a well established pattern of American life, was assisted by elite journalists at media outlets. Raico notes:

Truman’s campaign could not have succeeded without the enthusiastic cooperation of the American media. Led by the Times, the Herald Tribune, and Henry Luce’s magazines, the press acted as volunteer propagandists for the interventionist agenda, with all its calculated deceptions. (Thee principal exceptions were the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times–Herald, in the days of Colonel McCormick and Cissy Paterson.) In time, such subservience in foreign affairs became routine for the “fourth estate,” …. Overwhelmed by the propaganda blitz from the administration and the press, a Republican majority in Congress heeded the Secretary of State’s high-minded call to keep foreign policy “above politics” and voted full funding for the Marshall Plan.

Voices in favor of peace were shouted down and banished from public discourse. Historian Steven Ambrose sums up the Truman-media victory:

When Truman became president he led a nation anxious to return to traditional civil-military relations and the historic American foreign policy of noninvolvement. When he left the White House his legacy was an American presence on every continent of the world and an enormously expanded armament industry. Yet so successfully had he scared hell out of the American people, the only critics to receive any attention in the mass media were those who thought Truman had not gone far enough in standing up to the communists. For all his troubles, Truman had triumphed.

By the end of the Truman years, the pattern was well established, based largely on the earlier efforts of British propaganda that was developed years earlier. Here were all the elements of manufacturing consent that would be employed during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the arms wars of the 1960s and 1980s, and the new “regime change” wars of the post-Cold War world.

In this, we perhaps find the answer to a question posed by Raico during one of his lectures:

Isn’t it funny how, with the possible exception of Vietnam, all of America’s wars have been justified and have been right and good? I mean, what are the odds of something like that? A major power’s every war has been good, and the enemy has always been unbelievably horrible?

He already knew the answer. It was the state’s propaganda that made it possible for Americans to believe that virtually every new war is some kind of crusade against evil. Thanks to propaganda, the American thinking on foreign policy—which, in an earlier age had been more pragmatic and less moralistic—had taken on its modern tone of quasi-religious righteousness.

Indeed, in this contrast with America prior to the twentieth century, and the concomitant degeneration into an era of total war, we get some hint of just how much a century of relentless propaganda has fashioned the American mind.  Only in examining its history can we hope to fully understand the insidiousness and effectiveness of these methods.

It is necessary to also have knowledge of their origins and this allows us to better understand the transformation that took place in the first third of the twentieth century as the American mind became accustomed to a nonstop and creeping propaganda that is still so present in American foreign policy today.

At least one person is dead and five injured after a car exploded in front of a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California.

“This was a powerful explosion,” a law enforcement source told NBC News, describing a very large debris field and damage to multiple nearby businesses.

Following President Trump’s endorsement of support for couples undergoing IVF, a blast devastated a fertility clinic. Was this explosion intentional?

The center, located close to Desert Regional Hospital in Palm Springs, California, suffered significant destruction. pic.twitter.com/xmZrXZh8AV

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 17, 2025

Source @_Mnimasworld

The explosion happened less than a mile from downtown Palm Springs, with a device that was either in or near a vehicle parked by American Reproductive Centers, mayor Ron deHarte said. Fortunately the clinic appeared not to be open on Saturday.

A car was on fire, I was driving by and took this. I can’t confirm the cause of the explosion (whether the explosion set the car on fire or vice versa) pic.twitter.com/0N8WyRLWeD

— malana (@meowbug) May 17, 2025

Reports of a loud boom and billowing smoke made their way around social media at about 11am local time, with some saying they heard or felt it miles away. A chunk of flesh could be seen on the street. 

A website for the clinic lists fertility treatments, such as IVF and egg freezing.

Dr. Maher Abdellah, who operates the clinic, told AP that the office was damaged, but the IVF lab and stored embryos were not.

“I really have no clue what happened,” he said, adding “Thank God today happened to be a day that we have no patients.”

Damn crazy explosion in Palm Springs. Literally right where it happend pic.twitter.com/c0Hlj9tLYz

— NimasWorld (@_nimasworld) May 17, 2025

Police, firefighters, and the FBI were on scene, according to deHarte.

Claudio Chavez, who works at a nearby upholstery shop, told the NY Times “I was just in my shop waiting for clients, and all of a sudden it felt like a big explosion,” adding “It took out our window. I just saw a bunch of smoke.”

Chavez said he saw people coming out of homes and businesses to see what happened.

“That was a very intense explosion,” said another local, Scott Pastorius, who was sitting in his vacation home four blocks from the site when he heard a large boom.

Authored by Larry Behrens via RealClearPolitics,

Give the devil his due: Senator Bernie Sanders never misses an opportunity to remind Americans about our planet’s supposed peril. In a 2023 MSNBC op-ed, he whined: “The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of justice, of health, of economics, and of national security.” According to Sanders, climate change is a moral and existential threat demanding sweeping government intervention and dramatic changes in personal behavior.

Except, of course, when it comes to how he lives his own life.

Sanders’ recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour paints a very different picture. While crisscrossing the country decrying the evils of capitalism, Sanders traveled by—you guessed it—private jet. According to a new analysis from Power The Future, the senator’s 16-stop tour spewed an estimated 62.15 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

To put in context, that’s more than the average American produces in five years.

In fact, Sanders’ emissions from just one tour equal the annual emissions from 15 gasoline-powered cars. It’s the carbon equivalent to driving a gas-powered SUV 150,000 miles, or more than 6 times around the Earth at the equator. And this from a man who wants to regulate what kind of stove you use in your kitchen.

When questioned about the blatant hypocrisy, Sanders didn’t offer contrition. He doubled down. “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United… while 30,000 people are waiting?” he snapped at Bret Baier.

This isn’t the first time Sanders’ climate preaching has clashed with his jet-setting lifestyle. During the 2020 Democratic primary, his campaign shelled out over $1.2 million on private jet travel. Then, as now, the justification was the same: it’s okay when Bernie does it because his cause is righteous.

Let’s call this what it is: Mile High Marxism. Sanders flies high above the rest of us, belching carbon into the atmosphere while demanding working families pay more for energy and drive electric vehicles. He insists there’s a climate emergency but behaves like there’s no emergency at all.

The green movement is filled with elites just like Sanders—people who use the language of crisis to amass power while living above the consequences of their policies. They want to ban gas cars, restrict domestic energy production, and ration electricity, but they’ll never give up their jets, SUVs, or lakefront mansions. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about control.

Consider this: if the planet were truly teetering on the edge of climate catastrophe, would the loudest alarmists be the least willing to change their own behavior? If climate change were the existential threat they claim, wouldn’t they at least attempt to lead by example? Instead, we get moral lectures from the tarmac.

In Bernie Sanders’ perfect world, Americans brace for rising utility bills, submit to EV mandates, and prepare for lifestyle sacrifices in the name of “climate justice.” But the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. Jet fuel for Bernie. Unreliable solar panels for you. We get limits, they get luxury.

Perhaps the clearest signal of the climate emergency’s last gasps is how those who scream the loudest behave when the cameras are off. Sanders and his ilk want us to panic, comply, and pay up. But their actions—lavish travel, carbon excess, and indulgent living—reveal that even they don’t believe their own doomsday rhetoric.

When Bernie Sanders burns more fuel in one tour than a family does in half a decade, he’s not just undermining his credibility—he’s exposing the entire charade. It’s almost as amusing as a multimillionaire “socialist.”

So, the next time you hear Sanders railing about climate justice, remember this: the Mile High Marxist says the world is ending, but he’s still flying first class into the apocalypse. And that tells you everything you need to know.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens