Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

The system that failed Henry Nowak will come under refreshed scrutiny as some medical experts have suggested police actions could have contributed to his tragic death.

An inquest will probe whether Hampshire police officers caused or contributed to the 18-year-old student’s death when they yanked his arms behind his back, handcuffed him, and treated him as a suspect while he lay bleeding out and pleading that he had been stabbed and could not breathe.

This comes even though the Independent Office for Police Conduct has already investigated and cleared the officers of misconduct.

‘There will be a full inquest with a jury next September.’

GB News National Reporter Jack Carson speaks live from Winchester Coroners Court and brings an update on the inquest that will look into whether police delay contributed to the death of Henry Nowak. pic.twitter.com/GmVmgE75pO

– GB News (@GBNEWS) June 4, 2026

Henry Nowak murder inquest will investigate whether officers caused or contributed to death of student who was handcuffed as he lay dying https://t.co/1jTVPzoS2b

– Daily Mail (@DailyMail) June 4, 2026

The coroner was not satisfied that prior probes fully met the state’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to life.

A jury inquest at Winchester Coroner’s Court will examine the broader circumstances, including any police acts or omissions and delays in treatment. However, the inquest is now adjourned until at least September 2027.

On December 3, 2025, in Southampton, 18-year-old first-year University of Southampton student Henry Nowak was stabbed five times with a ceremonial knife by Vickrum Digwa, 23. Digwa then lied to police, falsely claiming Henry had racially abused and attacked him while faking an eye injury.

Details continue to emerge revealing that Digwa also essentially taunted and tortured Henry while he was dying.

More details coming out and it’s getting even worse pic.twitter.com/1K6IjP3r0Z

– Anglo-Saxon (@AngloSaxon85) June 3, 2026

Henry remained conscious for roughly an hour after the attack. He repeatedly told anyone who would listen that he had been stabbed and could not breathe. When officers arrived, they believed the attacker’s story over the bleeding victim’s direct pleas. Bodycam footage shows Henry being dragged, turned, and having his arms forcefully pulled behind his back for handcuffing. Within about three minutes of those actions he lost consciousness and died.

A nearby major trauma center at Southampton University Hospital was only a two-to-three-minute drive away.

Dr. Krzysztof Magier, a paediatric critical care lead, has experience in battlefield medicine and specialist training in treating severe trauma including gunshot and stab wounds. He reviewed the police bodycam footage and the post-mortem report. He directly contradicts the pathologist and initial coroner findings that Henry had no chance of survival and that handcuffing changed nothing. On the contrary – he believes there is a high probability that the police intervention contributed to his death.

? Czy Henry Nowak móg? prze?y??
Dr Krzysztof Magier @DrMagier, lekarz pediatra i by?y konsul honorowy RP w Cowes, przeanalizowa? nagrania z policyjnej kamery nasobnej pokazuj?ce ?mier? Henry’ego Nowaka.
Dr Magier jest lekarzem prowadz?cym oddzia? intensywnej terapii dzieci?cej,… pic.twitter.com/zCZaaQQQyn

– Adam Gwiazda (@delestoile) June 3, 2026

Here is the core of his analysis:

He analyzed the post-mortem report, which points to damage to the subclavian vein as the main source of bleeding, and explains where the problem lies.

In a healthy person, venous bleeding occurs under low pressure and often stops on its own thanks to a naturally forming clot. Simply bringing the wound edges together and pressure from surrounding tissues closes the vein enough to slow or even stop the bleeding.

From the police bodycam footage, when police arrived at the scene (probably 5-10 minutes after the injury), Henry was conscious enough to speak quite loudly. He was therefore not yet in a terminal state. After his arms were twisted behind his back and he was cuffed, it most likely caused the vein to stretch, the clot to tear, and a sudden intensification of bleeding. Within just about three minutes he lost consciousness and died.

People with suspected internal injuries should never be violently moved or jerked – such action can destroy the natural clot and lead to massive internal hemorrhage.

Instead of immediately calling an ambulance team and handing the patient over to paramedics, the police cuffed him. If paramedics had been the first to arrive on scene, Henry’s chances of survival would have been significantly higher. ‘50%’ – writes Dr Magier.

Paramedics could have quickly set up a drip, administered fluids to increase circulating blood volume and tranexamic acid to stabilize the clot, and if necessary performed needle decompression (inserting a thick and long needle into the lung), because the problem was not so much lack of lung function but compression of the blood-filled lung on the heart and mediastinum, which blocks circulation.

What is worse, the incident took place just a few minutes’ drive by car (2-3 minutes by ambulance on blue lights) from Southampton University Hospital – a regional Major Trauma Centre with full specialist backup, procedures and equipment. ‘I am convinced that if Henry had arrived there alive, the doctors would not have let him die’ – writes Dr Magier.

In summary: aggressive police intervention, instead of saving a life, led to death through inappropriate handling of a severely injured person, even though top-class care was within reach of a few minutes. ‘I fear that the Judge and pathologist were too lenient towards the police’ – writes Dr Magier.”

Summary – the police pulling Henry’s arms back, massively increased the blood flow and opened the wounds – so he went from consciousness and survival to dead in 3 minutes. https://t.co/B3uQiltwbS

– Catherine Blaiklock (@blaiklockBP) June 4, 2026

Multiple trauma experts and serving officers reviewing the same footage have reached the same conclusion: the forceful restraint and positioning almost certainly disrupted a forming clot and restricted breathing in a chest injury victim who was still talking and conscious moments earlier.

Henry Nowak lived for a full hour after he was stabbed.

He died immediately after he was laid on the ground and handcuffed.

Was handcuffing him what killed Henry Nowak? https://t.co/iLDeQHIfQG

– Kevin Bass (@kevinnbass) June 4, 2026

The IOPC looked into the officers’ contact with Henry, including the decision to handcuff a dying man who posed no threat and the first aid provided – or not provided. They cleared the officers.

“We have investigated ourselves and decided we did nothing wrong” pic.twitter.com/Aq1sFo4cL7

– Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) June 3, 2026

Officers who followed training that prioritizes accusations of racism over immediate medical care for a white victim were given a pass by the system that trained them.

This was not an isolated failure of judgment on a chaotic night. It occurred in a force where officers have openly admitted that mandatory “Inclusion Matters” DEI training left them feeling controlled and pressured to adopt specific ideological views about race.

Serving and former Hampshire officers told former Home Secretary Suella Braverman that sessions drummed in white privilege and unconscious bias.

One trainer was described as “deeply hateful of white people and our culture.” Officers feared career damage for pushing back.

The same training environment that frames native Britons as inherently privileged appears to have influenced how officers processed a white student’s desperate claims against a minority attacker’s false racism narrative.

Chief Constable Alexis Boon later apologized to Henry’s family for the handcuffing and arrest. One officer has since resigned. But the institutional response remains the same: investigate ourselves, find no misconduct, move on.

Coroner Jason Pegg made clear that previous investigations, including the IOPC process, did not fully satisfy the state’s duty to investigate a death in custody properly. The inquest will now look at whether police actions or delays in getting Henry proper medical care contributed to his death. It will be held with a jury.

Members of Henry’s family has asked that the case not be used to sow division. That is understandable. But the facts on the bodycam footage and the medical analysis speak for themselves. A conscious young man who could have reached a major trauma center alive was instead restrained in a way experts say likely accelerated his death, while officers prioritized the attacker’s story.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has accused Elon Musk of “whipping up division” after the X owner criticised the police’s “heinous” treatment of Henry.

BREAKING: Starmer accuses Elon Musk of ‘trying to whip up division in the UK’ following the murder of Henry Nowak

? Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/MAcWbx1IQd

– Sky News (@SkyNews) June 4, 2026

Rather than confront the bodycam evidence, Starmer’s instinct is of course to target the platform and the individual drawing attention to it.

This is the classic establishment reflex when two-tier policing and ideological capture are exposed. The same voices that stayed quiet or defended the system now blame free speech and outside scrutiny for the resulting anger.

Meanwhile, the underlying issues – DEI training that pressures officers to view white victims through a lens of suspicion, the willingness to believe an attacker’s false racism claim over direct pleas for medical help, and the refusal to suspend officers in a case this egregious – remain unaddressed.

Vickrum Digwa has been jailed for life with a minimum of 21 years. That is justice for the murder. But the question the inquest must answer is whether the state’s own agents – trained under DEI frameworks that treat white victims with suspicion – finished what the knife started.

Police exist to protect the public without regard to race. When ideology overrides that duty and the system then clears itself while the Prime Minister attacks critics instead of demanding answers, trust collapses.

In a deep irony, Israelis are increasingly complaining the United States military has effectively taken over Israel’s international travel hub.

Media reports this week are going so far as to call Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport a “US military base” – as the prominent local newspaper Haaretz does:

The US refueling aircraft and other military assets, which have been stationed at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport for months, are causing congestion and may result in flight cancellations, Israeli officials and media reports have said, calling the facility a “US military base.”

The report complains that “U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft have been stationed at Ben Gurion International Airport for three months, occupying parking spots, taking up takeoff and landing slots and worsening congestion at Israel’s main international gateway since the war with Iran erupted in late February, officials say.”

Haaretz tallies that “Some 75 U.S. refueling planes occupy more than half of Ben-Gurion Airport’s parking spots and fill up takeoff and landing slots” and cites airport officials who warn: “For lack of a solution, 1.5 million passengers may have their flights canceled this summer.”

Again, a central irony here is that it has largely been US military assets protecting Israel the whole time, going all the way back from last year’s June war, from Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.

The Netanyahu government is perceived by many to be a prime reason the US and Iran are at war in the first place, and so the Pentagon might argue that it’s only fair that Israel host its large fleet of military planes and refueling aircraft.

One traveler told The National: “They are turning it into a military base. At some point this is going to be as hard as any checkpoint between the West Bank and Israel.”

And Israeli commentator Noga Tarnopolsky wrote on X: “The only international airport in Israel, now a US airbase. Switzerland, with a similar population, has three international airports. At least two additional airports were budgeted over the years, and it would be interesting to know where that money went.”

💥The only international airport in Israel– now a US airbase. Switzerland, with a similar population, has 3 international airports. At least 2 additional airports were budgeted over the years, and it would be interesting to know where that money went. pic.twitter.com/2PkSog4E2Y

— Noga Tarnopolsky נגה טרנופולסקי نوغا ترنوبولسكي (@NTarnopolsky) June 1, 2026

A senior airport official was cited in the same report as saying, “What’s happening at the airport is insane. I haven’t seen anything like this in 35 years.”

“They’ll be cancelling thousands of flights for people here in the coming weeks,” the official added. “All the routes, all the destinations. The only place left to get out a bit and clear your head is a huge base and one where you can stay for a long time. Get ready.”

Via Remix News,

French leaders know how to manipulate their voters, but the voters are also apparently easily manipulated. Every leader from French President Emmanuel Macron to François Mitterrand in the 1980s has decried immigration numbers and promised a crackdown, all while allowing immigration numbers to continuously climb year after year.

Here are just some relevant quotes:

Emmanuel Macron said in 2023: “There is an immigration problem in France.”

In 2016, then French President François Hollande said, “There are too many arrivals, immigration that shouldn’t be there.”

In 2023, then leader Nicolas Sarkozy said: “There are too many immigrants in France.”

In 1991, former leader Jacques Chirac said, “We must stop family reunification. We must completely revise the right of asylum. We must open the debate on the right of all foreigners to social benefits.”

In 1989, the famous leader François Mitterrand said, “On immigration matters, we have crossed the tolerance threshold.”

The age-old adage is that “nobody voted for this.”

It is true that the specific question of mass immigration never came to a referendum, but it is also fair to say that some very pro-migrant candidates, such as Macron, have continuously made it into office.

Still, one would assume that in a democratic system, with leader after leader calling for a halt to immigration, that immigration levels would tend to trend lower. However, this is not how Western democracy has worked over the last decades. The same developments have been seen in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. Leaders know the masses are unhappy about immigration, so they make proclamations against immigration to placate the masses, all while actual policy serves an entirely different purpose.

Macron is arguably the worst offender the French have ever seen when it comes to migration. In 2023, he said France must reduce immigration, beginning with legal entrants in a wide-ranging interview with weekly political magazine Le Point. Macron’s remark comes after he said in 2022 that migration “is part of France’s DNA” and oversaw a record increase in immigrants in 2022.

What has his record been since then?

Well, Macron was lying, as this chart clearly shows:

The foreign population has soared year after year, reaching record after record. In 2025, a record number of first-time legal residence permits were issued, totaling 384,000. In short, France is being buried in a wave of mass immigration that only a minority of French actually wanted. The estimates of how many foreigners are now living in France varies wildly, with some figures going as high as 9 million. However, there are also millions of legal French citizens who also have a migration background, which has led to a massive demographic shift.

Poll after poll has shown the French are remarkably opposed to mass immigration.

In a CSA poll for CNews in 2023, 64 percent of French said “we should stop non-European immigration to France.”

In a CSA poll for Europe 1 in 2024, 48 percent of French people said they wanted zero immigrants coming to the country, including 53 percent of women respondents.

In an Ifop poll in 2026, 60 percent of French people said they believe France is witnessing “a replacement of the French population by non-European populations, mainly from the African continent.”

In a poll from Odoxa-Backbone Consulting for Le Figaro in 2023, 74 percent of French said they believe there are too many migrants in France and 72 percent said they want a referendum on immigration.

In a CSA poll for CNews in 2023, 80 percent of French said they support a total ban on more immigration.

Meanwhile, in communist China, where there is not even an illusion of a democratic vote, foreigners only make up 0.06 percent of the population of 1.4 billion people. It may be hard to believe for many, but there are now fewer foreigners in all of China, at 845,000, than there are in just one European city, Berlin.

The political leaders that have governed the West have lied every step of the way on immigration, and in the process, they have gravely imperiled democracy. Many looking to authoritarian China see a country on the rise, where high-speed trains and critical infrastructure are quickly and efficiently erected, where crime is low, and social cohesion generally high.

Meanwhile, Europe is throwing up protectionist barriers against China at a time when China is pulling ahead in green energy, automobile manufacturing, machine tools, and AI.

Mass immigration has been an unmitigated economic, educational, security, and budget disaster for the West.

Democracy itself should not necessarily be condemned, however. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, all thriving democracies, have managed to keep their borders almost entirely closed to mass immigration while growing their economies, all based on the will of the people.

In the end, it may have something to do with Europeans themselves and their culture of guilt, self-righteousness, and virtue signaling, which are attitudes that tend to dominate amongst European populations. The trend has been remarkably uniform across the Western world. It is not only France, but also the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, all marching in lockstep. While we can point our fingers at the mass media and academia, we also have to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask how we collectively allowed this to happen.

Read more here….

Earlier today, in our forensic analysis of the SpaceX IPO, we said that according to BNP estimates, the company’s inclusion into the S&P500 some 6 months after the offering would unlock $13.4 billion worth of inflows.

It turns out that that is not going to happen 6 months after the IPO. In fact, the earliest it may happen is 12 months after Friday’s break for trading… and realistically well after that. 

That’s because after the close today, S&P Dow Jones Indices said it would keep its existing eligibility requirements for main benchmarks like the S&P 500 Index, rejecting proposals that would have made it faster for mega-cap companies such as SpaceX to gain rapid entry into the benchmark after going public.

The index provider in a press release Thursday said it will not shorten the 12-month seasoning period for newly public companies it currently has or waive existing profitability and public-float requirements based on a company’s size, diverging from a broader industry shift embraced by rivals Nasdaq Inc. and FTSE Russell.

This is what S&P Dow Jones said in the press release:

“S&P DJI determined that exceptions to the financial viability, seasoning, and IWF requirements should not be granted solely based on market capitalization. The decision not to adopt the proposed exceptions preserves core index principles by maintaining consistent application of these key requirements. Although there may be trade-offs between strict adherence to these eligibility requirements and broad representativeness, the current methodology provides substantial market coverage and sector balance. As a result, the indices can continue to meet their stated objectives while preserving their role as representative and investable benchmarks for the U.S. equity market.

No changes will be made to the eligibility criteria including financial viability screens, seasoning period, or minimum IWF, for the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400, or S&P SmallCap 600 as a result of the S&P Dow Jones Indices consultation on the treatment of MegaCap companies. Accordingly, there will be no changes to existing methodology for this index family.”

A more detailed breakdown of today’s announcement: 

The requirements that will now remain in place are:

• No changes to S&P 500 eligibility rules for mega-cap companies.
• Mega-cap companies will still need to wait 12 months after their IPO before being considered for S&P 500 inclusion.
• S&P will not waive profitability requirements for mega-cap companies. The company must have positive GAAP net income in the most recent quarter, and the sum of the most recent four consecutive quarters.
• S&P will not waive minimum public float requirements for mega-cap companies. At least 10% of a company’s shares must be publicly tradable (“free float”).

The S&P rejected proposals that would have:

• Reduced the IPO seasoning period from 12 months to 6 months
• Waived profitability requirements
• Waived minimum public float requirements

This means that the earliest SpaceX (as well as Anthropic and OpenAI after it) could be eligible to be added to the S&P 500 would now be June 2027.

The decision arrived as Wall Street has been grappling with a new reality: some companies are reaching unprecedented sizes before they ever enter public markets. The consultation, launched earlier this year, effectively asked whether index rules written for a different era should bend to accommodate companies that now arrive at a scale once reserved for mature blue chips in what has become known as the “fast entry” in industry parlance.

However, the push for quicker inclusion raised concerns among some investors who said rules around profitability, float and trading history exist precisely to prevent benchmarks from chasing hype. Furthermore, adding IPOs too quickly, they say, could expose passive funds to greater volatility and force them to buy shares before reliable market pricing is fully established.

Meanwhile, supporters say indexes should include massive companies as quickly as possible to reflect the market investors actually own, adding that these trillion-dollar firms can be economically significant long before they satisfy traditional index requirements.

“I am genuinely surprised,” said James Seyffart, ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. “But S&P is the market leader and they can buck the trend.”

Shocker for me to be honest. I genuinely assumed they would make the changes because everyone else was. But S&P Dow Jones is not changing their rules to allow for Fast Adds of Megacap IPOs

(We all know what happens when you assume) pic.twitter.com/tzrURWksPJ

— James Seyffart (@JSeyff) June 4, 2026

Unlike the S&P, Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days. Indicatively, the Nasdaq addition would generate roughly half the passive inflows into SpaceX as an S&P includion would. 

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

In the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and the takeover of Russia in 1917 (largely funded by international elites), the new communist regime sought to implement what I would call “propaganda saturation” – An avalanche of policies designed to secure the red army’s political power by manufacturing false consensus.

It should be noted that, even at the peak of the Bolshevik movement’s influence, the reds only represented around 23% of the total Russian population and were never a majority. However, they had substantial monetary backing from overseas (read Antony Sutton’s extensive study titled “Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution). Think of this as an “NGO funded rebellion”, the kind of thing we are witnessing in America today with militant woke activists.

It was this international backing that gave the communists the boost they needed to take physical control of the government. But what they really needed was control over the general populace. One tactic they relied on in the early stages of the takeover was the use of a “Red Calendar”. If this phrase is unfamiliar to you, you’re not alone. Most people have never heard of it.

The Red Calendar was a propaganda program designed to eliminate and replace existing Russian holidays and religious observances with new, secular holidays. Foremost on the agenda for the Bolsheviks was the erasure of Christianity, which they viewed as a dangerous competing ideological influence that could one day undermine the government’s authority.

If the population’s first loyalty is to God, then the government and the party will always be in second place. This was unacceptable.

The Red Calendar established a series of special Marxist holidays revolving around labor movements and the revolution. The soviets would later declare special month-long celebrations of certain ideals, such as the “month of solidarity” or the “month of friendship.”

In short, the Red Calendar was a deliberate ideological tool: Old holidays weren’t always formally “banned” everywhere at once, but they were systematically deprioritized, persecuted, or culturally overwritten in favor of new communist ones.

Not to be outdone, the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany and Italy also engaged in projects similar to the Red Calendar. This is just one of the MANY parallels between the Soviet Marxists and the Third Reich (Hitler consistently admitted that the concept of National Socialism was rooted in Marxism).

The Nazis targeted Christian holidays, but instead of relying on atheist or secular propaganda models, they used pagan alternatives. Christmas, for example, was changed to “Yule” or the “Winter Solstice” and the role of Jesus was systematically repressed or removed.

For the leftists who claim that the Nazi’s were pro-Christianity, sorry, but you are wrong yet again. Hitler despised Christianity in his private life and viewed it as a religion “for weaklings”. He spoke often about how he wished that the German people had a more militant religious tradition, similar to Islam.

In his postwar memoir, Nazi architect Albert Speer recalled Hitler complaining about Germany’s “wrong religion”. In secret, the Third Reich sought to establish a pagan religion which they felt was more aggressive:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” – Adolph Hitler

The point is, socialists, whether nationalist or globalist, always seek to co-opt the existing culture of the countries they want to dominate. It’s one of the first things they do when they take over and the invasion is tailor made to subvert the specific culture being targeted. For the US, this looks less like a “workers revolution” and more like a coordinated insurgency of asylum patients against the traditional moral order.

The “gay rights” movement has long been at the forefront of this sabotage project, supported from behind the curtain by NGO’s like the Ford Foundation and communist groups like the Mattachine Society in the 1950s under Harry Hay.  Once again, Joseph McCarthy was right.

Their propaganda tactics are relatively unknown to the average American because they simply are not mentioned in public schooling or college academia. But, in researching the history of Red Calendar methods you might find yourself recognizing a familiar pattern.

Well, it’s the first week of June once again and in recent years, for the vast majority of Americans, the month of June has brought with it a sense of overwhelming exhaustion. A WHOLE MONTH officially recognized by the government as a celebration of “LGBT Pride”.  And yes, Pride Month is in every way an attempt by the far-left to bring back the communist Red Calendar.

Pride Month was first recognized by the federal government in 1999 under Bill Clinton (Mr. Lolita Express). It was expanded on by Barack Obama in 2009 to include transsexuals and Joe Biden flooded Pride programs with federal cash through USAID in 2021. He even went so far as to hold a pride celebration on the White House lawn which included guys with tits running around topless.

I can recall the national attitude towards gay people in 1999 was extremely accommodating. We were all indifferent and no one cared if someone was gay as long as they kept it away from children. Whatever people did privately was their business.

Zoomers like to pretend as if their mediocre activist movements are “changing the world” and bringing equality to minority groups, but Gen X already finished that job decades ago. In fact, one of the most popular shows on TV in 2003 was called “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”, which featured a team of flaming gay dudes prancing around and taking straight guys on shopping sprees so that they would look less unkempt (and less masculine).

This was not an era of discrimination. Zoomer activism doesn’t solve problems, it creates problems.

The opposition started when the gay community, or whatever you want to call it, became the “LGBT” community. The opposition started when they became a political cult. Being gay suddenly meant joining a militant wing of the wider woke invasion into our social and governmental institutions. This is when “Pride” mutated into a monstrous blob; spreading beyond localized gatherings in liberal cities and turning into a national astroturf movement which everyone was forced to endure every summer.

ESG funding rained down on LGBT organizations through corporations and NGOs from 2015 onward. Not long after, Pride was everywhere. In our movies, in our TV shows, in our video games, in our comic books, in our sports, in our commercials, it was even on our food as companies slapped gay flags and activist mantras like “Love Is Love” on everything from candies to iced tea.

This was clearly a strategic effort hijack the cultural driver’s seat in the US. But the end, the inevitable end, was set in motion when Pride was injected into the public school system by far-left teachers unions. The agenda to indoctrinate children with transgender ideology and gay sexuality sealed the fate of “Pride Month.”

When the activists went after people’s kids, that’s when the greater majority of Americans started to realize that maybe, just maybe, the conservative “conspiracy theorists” of the early 2000s might have been right about a few things. Maybe, LGBT is not about equal rights? Maybe it’s about predatory politics, social control and the normalization of degeneracy?

Today, pride has imploded. Corporate sponsors have dried up along with ESG funding. The shutdown of USAID by the Trump Administration was integral to the death of LGBT Red Calendar celebrations because these groups relied heavily on government money to make organized events possible. As the money disappears, the real LGBT movement is barely noticeable. And, that’s the way it should be.

Anyone who makes their sexual orientation the very center of their identity is mentally ill, and no functional society should promote or celebrate mental illness. An even greater concern, though, is the exploitation of gay “victimhood” as a means to push socialism/communism/globalism.

It’s no coincidence that LGBT activism comes as a package deal with every globalist scam imaginable. To be “gay” these days means you are expected to applaud the deconstruction of the west, the death of free markets, the rise of climate change laws, the normalization of veganism, the end of freedom of speech (for everyone except communists), the systematic destruction of religion, etc.

There are gay people out their who don’t subscribe to any of these things, but the majority of them do, in many cases because they feel they are required to in order to fit in with the movement. It’s not enough to be gay, they have to be revolutionaries.

And this is why public support for gay issues is in decline in the US. This is why Pride Month was barely a blip on the gaydar in 2025 and it’s even less visible in 2026. By whoring out their community to the machinations of communists and globalists, gays really screwed themselves. Now, far less people are trusting.

Pride Month is, by itself, a kind of egomaniacal display of performative narcissism. That is to say, pride is not something to be proud of. Accomplishment is something to be proud of…but being gay is not an accomplishment. Many Americans now see Pride Month as nothing more than an act of self worship.

The pendulum is swinging back hard and I think the “persecution” the LGBT movement pretended to suffer from ten years ago might very will hit them hard in real life in the next few years. It was probably not the best idea to reanimate the communist Red Calendar or declare gays as idols to be worshiped for their “virtue”. The backlash is deserved.

In a first, China has banned four New Zealand Members of Parliament for a year over their visit to Taiwan, New Zealand’s foreign ministry says. The MPs learned of the ban – which the Chinese Embassy said could be reduced or waived with an apology – when they returned from the trip in May, local media reported on Thursday.

On Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said: “Recently, certain New Zealand members of parliament, disregarding China’s serious concerns and firm opposition, wilfully paid a visit to China’s Taiwan region, violating the one-China principle and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

“In accordance with relevant laws of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese side has decided to adopt measures against the individuals concerned, including denial of entry into China.”

This was the first time China has imposed travel bans on New Zealand MPs for visiting Taiwan – a move that “surprised” foreign minister Winston Peters, a ministry spokesperson said in a statement to the BBC. China claims the self-governed island of Taiwan as its territory, and has tried to restrict the island’s foreign engagements.

“New Zealand MPs have visited Taiwan for decades and such visits are not inconsistent with New Zealand’s One China policy,” the spokesperson said, quoted by the BBC.

In a statement on Thursday, the Chinese Embassy in New Zealand said the ban was a result of the MPs “disregarding China’s serious concerns” and insisting on visiting Taiwan as parliamentarians. The visit had sent “wrong signals” to Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party and “Taiwan independence’ forces”, the statement said, adding that it constituted “interference in China’s internal affairs”.

The visit in May comprised lawmakers from the ruling coalition – Maureen Pugh, David Wilson and Laura McClure – as well as Duncan Webb from the opposition Labour Party.

McClure, from the ACT party, said the travel ban was “a type of foreign interference” and that she was “not going to apologize for visiting Taiwan”, the New Zealand Herald reported. She told Radio New Zealand that she was “quite surprised and shocked” by the ban as similar visits had happened for years previously. She added that New Zealand MPs “have the right to travel freely around the globe”.

“That is part of living in a free democracy,” she said.

New Zealand foreign minister Peters has instructed foreign ministry officials in Beijing and Wellington to discuss the matter with Chinese authorities to “better understand” the “departure from past practice”, the spokesperson said.

New Zealand established formal diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1972 and has since maintained a One China policy – the diplomatic acknowledgement of China’s position that there is only one Chinese government. New Zealand has formal ties only with Beijing, and not with Taipei. 

But like many countries, New Zealand has also maintained regular exchanges with Taiwan.

Last year, a group of New Zealand MPs met Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te during a trip to Taiwan. The Chinese embassy in New Zealand criticised the trip, describing the MPs as “colluding with ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces”.

Beijing also previously condemned a group of New Zealand lawmakers for attending a reception hosted by Taiwan’s de facto embassy in Wellington last October. 

Taiwan has previously accused China of trying to intervene in its diplomatic ties with other countries. Last month, Lai visited Eswatini – Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in Africa – days after his government said a trip had been cancelled due to China pressuring African countries to bar him from flying over their territories.

That Eswatini visit was later brought up by Taiwan’s foreign minister Lin Chia-lung in a post about the New Zealand delegation’s visit.

“President Lai’s recent visit to Eswatini has once again made the world feel the challenges facing Taiwan’s diplomacy,” he wrote on Facebook.

Lin further noted that the visit by the New Zealand MPs “not only showed the support of the New Zealand Parliament for Taiwan, but also made the friendship between Taiwan and New Zealand stronger”.

China has sanctioned US lawmakers in the past for visiting Taiwan, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2022. The following year, China sanctioned US Representative Michael McCaul, claiming that his visit to Taiwan sent a “serious wrong signal to Taiwan independence separatist forces”.

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on June 3, President Donald Trump decried communism, saying that the ideology leads to “death, destruction, and squalor.”

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on June 3, President Donald Trump decried communism, saying that the ideology leads to “death, destruction, and squalor.”

Trump said that the “free houses,” “free food,” and “free everything” offered by communist ideas “eventually …… pic.twitter.com/2h7uB6B5Zg

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) June 4, 2026

Trump said that the “free houses,” “free food,” and “free everything” offered by communist ideas “eventually … ends, and it leads to death, destruction, and squalor—100 percent of the time.”

Trump was responding to a question from NTD, a sister outlet of The Epoch Times, related to a post he made on Truth Social the same day discussing communist ideology.

“Communists always do well with the voters, or as they would say, the people in the early years, but in the end, the country, state, or city goes to hell. Great violence proceeds at levels never seen before, and the entity dissolves into poverty, squalor, and crime,” Trump wrote in that post.

“Remember, breathtaking ‘popularity’ first, and then guaranteed death and destruction.”

The comments came as the eastern hemisphere entered June 4—the anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s brutal massacre of thousands of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.

Communism is an ideology and system that has directly caused the deaths of an estimated 100 million people worldwide, although some estimates indicate as many as 200 million. Today, the five communist regimes that still exist—in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Laos—are among the world’s worst violators of human rights.

The president told reporters that his Truth Social post was inspired by his concerns about policies and candidates in places like New York and California.

The president specifically referenced New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who openly ran his 2025 campaign as a self-described democratic socialist. Mamdani has drawn national reactions since his surprise victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

Democratic socialism describes an economic system under which the government provides certain key services, such as education and healthcare, through the use of a progressive taxation system. Critics have warned that such ideas work while the populace is wealthy but eventually fail, and lead to communist systems.

Before his election, Trump had been openly critical of Mamdani. The two said they had a strong working relationship since they first met in person in November 2025.

Trump has expressed personal admiration for Mamdani while maintaining his opposition to the New York Democrat’s politics—a tone he took again in his remarks on Wednesday.

“I watched [Mamdani in] New York, and you know, I liked him very much,” Trump said, adding a reference to Mamdani’s November visit and a second visit in February this year.

“He stood right here, and he’s been in the office a couple of times.”

Trump then said his ideological disagreements with Mamdani remain intact.

“He’s a smart guy, I don’t understand why he thinks it’s okay for all these companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes a year to leave,” Trump said.

“You’re not going to have any tax base, and you’re going to end up in hunger and squalor and death and destruction.”

Trump was referencing warnings from chambers of business and other groups that the major companies and ultra-wealthy could begin to leave New York City as Mamdani moves to institute higher taxes on top earners in the city.

Trump said that while it’s harder to make the case for free enterprise, that system is the foundation of the United States’ success and global leadership.

“Free enterprise is tougher to sell, but that’s what’s made our country great, and that’s why it’s great again now,” the president said from the Oval Office.