For English speakers, learning Spanish or Italian can take less than a year. Reaching the same level of proficiency in Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, or Arabic may require nearly four times as much study.

This wide gap reflects how closely a language resembles English in its vocabulary, grammar, sounds, and writing system.

This visualization, created by Julie R. Peasley via Visual Capitalist, ranks languages by difficulty using categories and study-time estimates from Effective Language Learning and Rosetta Stone, which reference Foreign Service Institute-style benchmarks.

Which Languages Are Easiest to Learn for English Speakers?

Languages are generally easier to learn when they share familiar grammar, vocabulary, sounds, or writing systems. That’s why many Category I languages, including Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, and Swedish, are considered relatively approachable.

The data table below shows the difficulty rankings and estimated learning time for 70 different languages:

One of the most striking findings is the size of the gap between the easiest and hardest languages. While Spanish or French can often be learned in 24–30 weeks, mastering Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, or Arabic may require roughly 88 weeks of study.

Many Category I languages use the Latin alphabet and share vocabulary roots with English through Germanic or Romance-language connections.

This may also help explain why European languages often rank highly in language-learning apps and why Duolingo’s most popular languages globally include several widely taught European options.

What Makes a Language Harder to Learn?

Category III languages tend to have greater linguistic distance from English. This can include unfamiliar grammar structures, new alphabets, or pronunciation patterns that require more time to master.

For example, languages like Russian, Greek, Hindi, Turkish, and Vietnamese all fall into this category. Some use different scripts, while others introduce grammatical systems that are less intuitive for native English speakers.

The “Super-Hard” Languages

Category IV languages are considered exceptionally difficult for English speakers. This group includes Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean.

Many of these languages present multiple learning hurdles simultaneously. Mandarin and Cantonese require mastery of tones, Japanese combines several writing systems, Korean introduces a unique alphabet and grammar structure, and Arabic uses an entirely different script. Together, these differences significantly increase the time needed to reach professional proficiency.

To learn more about language use across the U.S., check out Mapped: America’s Most-Spoken Languages After English and Spanish on the Voronoi app.

Via The Cradle

Israelis are raising doubts about their government and military’s ability to provide security after more than three months of renewed war against Iran and Lebanon. 

According to a Maariv poll released on Friday, 50 percent of Israelis believe their country’s deterrence has declined following the recent escalation with Iran and Lebanon, compared to 28 percent who say it has strengthened, while 22 percent are undecided.

The US and Israel launched a renewed bombing campaign on Iran on February 28. The Islamic Republic retaliated by firing missiles and drones at Israel and US bases in Persian Gulf states until a ceasefire was reached on April 8, largely halting the fighting amid negotiations.

According to the Maariv poll, 49 percent think the Israeli army’s freedom to carry out strikes in Lebanon has decreased after the latest confrontation, versus 30 percent who say it has improved and 21 percent who are unsure.

On 2 March, Hezbollah took advantage of Tel Aviv’s vulnerability from the war with Iran by renewing its own missile and drone attacks on Israel. Hezbollah had refrained from retaliating to thousands of Israeli bombings of Lebanese territory that violated the previous ceasefire reached in November 2024. 

Israel responded by intensifying its airstrikes and sending ground troops to occupy additional Lebanese territory. At least 30 Israeli soldiers have since been killed and 1,302 injured, primarily by Hezbollah’s newly introduced FPV drones.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to launch an attack on Iran despite US President Donald Trump’s supposed request not to do so.

In an interview with the Financial Times (FT), Trump stated, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.”

However, Netanyahu ordered a strike on Iran just hours after Trump’s comments. Iran responded by striking targets in Israel.

According to the poll, Israelis are divided in their opinion on Netanyahu’s decision to ignore Trump and order the bombing. Around 29 percent said he acted correctly, 36 percent said a stronger strike should have been carried out, and 19 percent preferred to follow the US position.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of poll respondents expressed distrust in Trump, while 21 percent said they trust him regarding Israeli interests in any agreement, and 17 percent said they did not know. A poll published by Israel’s Public Broadcaster (KAN) on 28 April found that a majority of Israelis believe the state has failed to secure victory in any war since October 2023.

According to the survey, 57 percent of respondents said no victory had been achieved, while 28 percent believed success had been reached in at least one arena, and a further 15 percent said they were unsure. 

The findings came after more than two years of Israel’s reported genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, during which Tel Aviv waged multiple offensive military campaigns against Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, alongside attacks in Yemen and Syria and a campaign of destruction and displacement in the occupied West Bank. 

On Thursday, Trump warned that in the coming hours the US would hit Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and take “total control” of Tehran’s oil and gas industry before reversing course and claiming that a deal with Iran is expected to be “finalized” soon.

Our focus on the rise of the “war unicorn” theme over the last four months, shaped by technological innovation seen in the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East, has allowed us, in countless notes, to inform readers very early that 2030s warfare has already arrived. In fact, hyperinnovation in Ukraine, now the world’s AI weapons laboratory, is what pulled forward these extremely advanced, low-cost weaponry.

Modern battlefields are now defined by low-cost robotics, whether on the ground, at sea, or in the air, as well as drones, other autonomous systems, and AI-enabled kill chains. Meanwhile, the Department of War’s shift toward funding and procuring from defense startups, rather than solely from big defense primes, thanks to DOGE, has accelerated the U.S.’s ability to spur a boom in the defense universe as President Trump’s broader war economy ramps up, mainly for stockpiling reasons. 

Let’s not forget our view in late January, when nearly all of Wall Street was misguided on alleged water and climate threats from data centers, completely missed that with hundreds of billions of dollars in data center buildouts by hyperscalers, now around $800 billion this fiscal year, these facilities had, and still have, a missing layer of air defense against FPVs and fiber-optic one-way attack drones.

We warned at the time:

• Explosion In AI Data Center Buildouts Will Demand Next-Gen Counter-Drone Security

Then noted:

• “Detect, Track, Neutralize”: Autonomous Turrets With Low-Cost Firepower To Counter Kamikaze Drones

In fact, it only took two Iranian attacks targeting Gulf-area data centers with Shahed drones to become a major wake-up call to Wall Street and private equity about the urgency of understanding this threat and how to capitalize.

More importantly, it triggered the urgent need for private equity to begin raising capital for war unicorns that will eventually become major suppliers of interceptors, counter-UAS products, and much more, because much of America’s critical infrastructure, data centers, and the list goes on and on, remains entirely exposed to FPVs.

We understand that multiple private equity funds, each with billions of dollars in AUM, have sent personnel to Ukraine to assess the investment landscape across FPV drone, counter-drone, passive acoustic threat detection, and battlefield AI companies. That alone underscores how quickly the “war unicorn” theme is being adopted on Wall Street, one set to surge in the coming quarters.

Going mainstream on Wall Street: 

• JPM Call With Axon Reveals Race To Fortify U.S. Data Centers Against Kamikaze Drone Swarms

• Goldman Sits Down With Anduril As ‘War Unicorns’ Reshape Defense Tech

This leaves us with the innovation question: the “evolve or die” moment now confronting America’s military-industrial complex. The focus must shift away from high-cost weapon systems built around titanium, carbon fiber, and decade-long procurement cycles, and back toward what made the U.S. an industrial powerhouse during World War II: the ability to mass-produce low-cost weapons at scale, rapidly, repeatedly, and in volumes that overwhelm foreign adversaries.

Answering the innovation question above, deep inside America’s drone industry is California-based DZYNE Technologies, a company building one-way attack drones from the same material used in beer coolers.

The wings are formed by steam chest molding. That’s the process behind beer coolers, bike helmets, and the packaging your TV arrived in. Hot steam, expanded foam, a mold, done. No autoclaves. No exotic supply chain. No aerospace machinists charging aerospace rates.

“We joke that it’s a flying beer cooler, and honestly, we lean into it,” said CEO Matt McCue. “If your airframe costs almost nothing and pours out of a mold by the thousands, you’ve solved the problem Ukraine has been screaming about for three years.”

That problem is mass: cheap, expendable, attritable mass. Every report from the Black Sea to the Red Sea to the Hormuz chokepoint points to the same conclusion: the side that can afford to lose drones wins. Firing a $2 million missile at a $1,000 drone is a losing trade.

DZYNE’s Blitz drone fits in the standard-issue rucksack. It assembles in under two minutes. A new operator is mission-ready in a couple of hours. Range runs 80 to 150 kilometers, with swappable payloads for surveillance or jamming, or it can be easily converted into a one-way attack drone.

Notice what Blitz is not. It’s not one of those quadcopters filling your X feed from Ukraine. Those are real and they work, and nobody will say otherwise. But they’re one layer of a bigger stack. Multi-rotors burn through batteries just to stay airborne, which makes them deadly in a close fight and spend a lot of energy before the fight gets deep.

A fixed wing gets its lift for free, so Blitz extends the same expendable logic out to 150 kilometers, loiters for hours instead of minutes, hauls heavier payloads, and keeps flying in wind that grounds FPVs. Picture the FPVs owning the last mile while waves of cheap fixed wings seek targets, jam radars, and strike staging areas far behind it. That’s not a rivalry. That’s a kill chain.

Blitzing is a bet that pressure is cheaper than coverage. NFL football fans understand that, and so does every air-defense crew that has watched a million-dollar interceptor chase a cheap Iranian or Russian drone. That brings us to DZYNE’s BlitzBox, a nondescript shipping-container system designed to autonomously launch up to 100 Blitz drones into the air for a coordinated swarming raid.

The American company Dzyne has introduced the BlitzBox system, a container for covertly launching a swarm of attack drones. On the outside, it looks like an ordinary cargo box, but inside, it can hold up to 100 Blitz drones, ready to launch in minutes.#DroneWars #UAS #UAV pic.twitter.com/w9aRaZYrCZ

— Drone Wars (@Drone_Wars_) May 27, 2026

“Adversaries have spent twenty years planning around our big, fixed, easy-to-find bases. A hundred drones in a box that could be anywhere changes that math overnight…

… BlitzBox looks like every other container out there on any truck, ship, port, or railyard. That’s a feature,” said Ryan Holcomb, DZYNE’s VP of Expendables.

That is exactly the logic Ukraine demonstrated last year when it launched a drone swarm deep inside Russia from a modified shipping container positioned near an airbase, targeting strategic bombers.

A drone made from cheap beer-cooler material directly answers the Trump administration and Pentagon’s call for low-cost, scalable defense war tech. The question now is how many of these drones the Pentagon will stockpile and how quickly these drones can be produced.

Submitted by Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

Russia’s authorities and regional governors are racing to assure residents there are no fuel shortages amid an intensified Ukrainian drone campaign at Russian refineries and fuel supply roads.

Ukraine has stepped up attacks this month on key fuel supply routes in its territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea and Mariupol. Several Russian regions have been experiencing fuel shortages as Ukraine hits Russian oil refineries.

Last week, the Moscow Times reported that some gasoline stations in Moscow and regions in northern Russia have started to cap fuel purchases per driver, in a move to prevent panic buying.

Officials are playing down the fuel crisis.

Alexander Drozdenko, governor of the northwestern Leningrad region, said this week that “Supplies are being delivered according to plan, there are no shortages,” as carried by Bloomberg.

Some isolated complaints about fuel shortages “do not reflect the overall situation,” the regional official said.

Governors all across Russia are looking to play down the extent of the crisis.

Meanwhile, earlier this month Russia admitted for the first time that its crude oil production is falling.

Russia’s crude oil production has declined since the beginning of the year as a number of local refineries are under unscheduled repairs and maintenance, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, in the first public acknowledgement from Moscow that its output is flailing.

“We have a number of refineries under unscheduled repairs. However, we are maximizing the use of the export infrastructure,” said Novak, who represents Russia at the OPEC+ meetings and at discussions about the alliance’s output.

Russia is preparing to sharply reduce crude oil exports this month as mounting refinery disruptions, fuel shortages, and Ukraine’s bombing campaign force Moscow to divert more barrels into the domestic market.

Exports from Russia’s western ports of Primorsk, Ust-Luga and Novorossiysk are expected to fall to roughly 1.7 million barrels per day in June from 2.5 million bpd in May, according to Reuters calculations based on preliminary industry and trading data.

America’s hiring recovery has split into sharply different regional stories since 2020.

Some states, including Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas, continue seeing elevated hiring demand years after the pandemic. Others, particularly across parts of the West Coast and Mountain West, have experienced steep declines in job openings.

The map below, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows how job openings changed in every state between February 2020 and January 2026, based on data from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The contrast is especially striking in the Mountain West. Idaho leads the nation with hiring demand up over 20%, while neighboring Wyoming ranks last at -39%.

Where Job Openings Have Increased the Most

The rankings below show the change in job openings since 2020 by state.

Where Hiring Demand Is Growing Fastest

Idaho leads the nation with job openings up 20.5% since 2020, followed by Mississippi and Oklahoma. Georgia (16.0%) and Texas (14.2%) have also posted strong gains, reflecting continued migration toward lower-cost states and expanding regional economies.

Manufacturing investment is helping drive demand. Billions of dollars tied to semiconductors, EVs, and industrial reshoring have fueled hiring across parts of the South and Midwest. Significant population growth has added another tailwind, boosting both labor supply and consumer demand.

The map highlights how America’s labor market is increasingly diverging at the state level, with neighboring states often moving in very different directions.

Why Many Western States Saw Hiring Cool Off

Several Western states have seen some of America’s steepest declines in job openings since 2020.

Wyoming ranks last nationally, with hiring demand down 38.9%, while Washington is close behind at -36.3%. California, Oregon, and Nevada have also posted sizable declines after the rapid hiring surge seen earlier in the decade.

Much of the slowdown reflects a reversal of pandemic-era expansion, especially across technology and white-collar industries. During 2021 and 2022, many companies aggressively expanded payrolls amid booming demand and cheap capital. Since then, layoffs, higher interest rates, and efficiency-focused cost-cutting have pushed many firms into retrenchment mode.

California alone has announced more layoffs than any other state since 2022. The result is a labor market that looks very different from the hiring frenzy that defined the post-pandemic recovery.

What It Means for Workers and the Economy

Hiring demand affects more than just how easy it is to find a job. It can influence migration patterns, wage growth, housing demand, and local economic confidence.

States with stronger hiring markets often attract more workers, investment, and new business formation, reinforcing long-term economic growth. Weaker hiring markets, meanwhile, may experience softer consumer spending and slower labor demand.

The map increasingly reflects broader economic shifts unfolding across America. Lower-cost states continue attracting people, capital, and industrial investment, while many high-cost markets are adjusting to slower growth after the pandemic-era boom.

The result is a labor market that is becoming more fragmented geographically, with economic momentum increasingly concentrated in a smaller group of states.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic showing where wealth is moving across America.

Authored by Larry Sand via Heartland.org,

After decades of steady growth, attendance in U.S. K-12 public schools has shifted drastically. Over the past five years, registration has fallen by 2.3 percent, or 1.18 million students, and schools show no signs of rebounding. Lower birth rates are the primary driver of the downturn. The number of births has decreased steadily in recent years, with 690,000 fewer children born in 2024 than in 2007.

California lost nearly 75,000 K-12 students as of the 2025-26 school year, a slide more than twice as steep as the previous year.

Since 2017-2018, the Golden State has seen a 10 percent decline.

New York City has also been hard hit.

As of the 2025–26 school year, 793,300 students are enrolled in K-12 schools, down nearly 10 percent from 2020.

The loss of enrolled students has prompted some desperate measures. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is offering “free” childcare for 2-year-olds regardless of their parents’ income. In 2024, parents of toddlers spent an average of more than $23,000 on center-based childcare, according to the NYC Comptroller.

For those still attending public schools, chronic absence—the percentage of students missing 10 percent or more of a school year—is a growing problem. As of January 20, the latest data show that chronic absenteeism, which surged from 15 percent pre-COVID to 28 percent in 2022, remains elevated at 24 percent.

Nat Malkus, American Enterprise Institute’s director of education policy, notes that the surge in absenteeism affects districts of all sizes, racial backgrounds, and income levels. However, the data reveal significant racial and ethnic disparities, with 39 percent of black students, 36 percent of Hispanic students, 24 percent of white students, and 15 percent of Asian students chronically absent.

A major factor behind rising absenteeism is that many students lack motivation to attend school. In 2024, Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation surveyed more than 1,000 Gen Z students ages 12 to 18 and found that only 48 percent of those enrolled in middle or high school feel motivated to attend. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice poll found that 64 percent of teens said school is boring, and 30 percent view it as a waste of time.

Additionally, a 2024 survey revealed that nearly 64 percent of school parents say K-12 education is headed in the wrong direction, up 8 points from 2023.

Marc Oestreich, an education policy consultant and strategist, writes that in many cases, students are responding to schools that fail to teach them to read, fail to adapt to their needs, and fail to demonstrate that another day in the building is worth their time.

Oestreich asserts, “The honest version of the absenteeism story is not that American parents have suddenly become uniquely irresponsible, or that students have collectively misplaced their work ethic somewhere between TikTok and the bus stop. The honest story is that a substantial number of families, concentrated among the poor, the male, and the badly served, have concluded from direct experience that what their local public school offers is not worth the time.”

While public schools are struggling, private school attendance has remained steady. However, as more parental choice bills advance, the number of children attending private schools will very likely increase. There are currently 75 private school choice programs in 34 states, serving more than 1.5 million students.

Also, the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, is likely to substantially increase the number of students leaving public schools for private schools.

Through the program, individual taxpayers will be eligible for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions to approved scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). In turn, the SGOs will be required to use these contributions to grant scholarships to students at private and public elementary and secondary schools within their states. Students who are eligible to attend public school and whose family income is below 300 percent of the gross area median income will be eligible for the scholarships. The scholarships can be used for qualified expenses such as tuition, fees, books, supplies, room and board, uniforms, transportation, computer technology, equipment, and internet access.

The program is especially popular among black and Hispanic communities, groups most likely to experience chronic absenteeism. A recent poll found that 63 percent of Hispanics and 68 percent of blacks—groups most in need of choice—support a private option.

Thus far, 31 states have opted into the federal scholarship program, and two governors (in Minnesota and Wisconsin) have said their states won’t participate. The remaining states and the District of Columbia have not yet formally decided or announced their decisions.

In states without a private choice program, the best option for parents is to educate their children at home. In fact, homeschooling continued to grow across the United States during the 2024-2025 school year, with an average increase of 5.4 percent, nearly three times the pre-pandemic growth rate of about 2 percent.

Micro-schools, where classes typically have fewer than 15 students of varying ages and schedules, and curricula are tailored to each class’s needs, are growing in popularity and currently educate about 2 percent of the U.S. student population—roughly 750,000 students. Most micro-schools are independently run by parents, though some are part of a formal network that provides paid, in-person teachers. Lessons take place in various settings, including homes, libraries, community centers, etc.

Micro-schools today are less “micro” than they were, according to the latest analysis of the sector from the National Microschooling Center. In 2024, the median number of students in a typical micro-school was 16. That figure has since risen to 22, reflecting the increased experience of school operators, reports Don Soifer, the center’s CEO. However, some now serve as many as 100 students.

In sum, except in the case of declining birth rates, government-run schools are shedding students because many are not offering a worthy product.

Summary:

• Globe And Mail Changes Headline After X post Ratioed 
• “Reckless Propaganda“: Globe And Mail Op-Ed Tells Readers “How To Properly Hate” Elon Musk Ahead Of SpaceX IPO

Globe And Mail Alters Headline 

The hostile, juvenile, and editorially reckless propaganda, amplified by The Globe and Mail in the form of a Thursday op-ed just before the SpaceX IPO earlier today, had to be walked back after viral blowback.

That headline, which no sane editor would ever publish, and we really thought we were past the period of spreading hate by the lefty community, but apparently not at The Globe and Mail, came after the outlet published an op-ed titled: “Opinion: SpaceX IPO makes Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here’s how to properly hate him.“

“The previous headline on this article did not meet The Globe’s editorial standard. It has been replaced,” the Canadian outlet wrote. Yet the outlet has yet to delete the X post and instead changed the headline to: “SpaceX is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Is that a bad look for capitalism?“

X user Enguerrand VII de Coucy, featured in the Community Notes section on The Globe and Mail’s X post, wrote:

They changed “Here’s how to properly hate him” to “Is that a bad look for capitalism?” which a) doesn’t even make sense and b) isn’t fooling anybody. They said what they meant with the original headline, it just “didn’t meet their standards” because they usually try to hide their actual feelings she motives more carefully.

They changed “Here’s how to properly hate him” to “Is that a bad look for capitalism?” which a) doesn’t even make sense and b) isn’t fooling anybody. They said what they meant with the original headline, it just “didn’t meet their standards” because they usually try to hide their… https://t.co/SUTk1Y4Lhe pic.twitter.com/QzyewRjLWt

— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) June 12, 2026

“The important thing to remember when reading hostile Canadian media attacks on American individuals or causes is that the Globe and Mail, CBC, etc. are all funded by their government,” X user Overton Defenestration said.

The important thing to remember when reading hostile Canadian media attacks on American individuals or causes is that the Globe and Mail, CBC, etc. are all funded by their government. pic.twitter.com/fqclLsEij2

— Overton Defenestration (@Ov__De) June 12, 2026

“Fomenting hate was not accidental. Your publication continues to trash its reputation,” X user Rowan said. 

Fomenting hate was not accidental. Your publication continues to trash its reputation. pic.twitter.com/Y4wUm2i9r0

— Rowan (@canmericanized) June 12, 2026

The Canadian newspaper’s anti-Musk propaganda echoed similar rhetoric from unhinged Democrats, left-wing unions, and dark-money-funded NGOs, all of whom now see Musk’s trillionaire status as a threat to their power because he will likely divert some of that wealth to fund pro-America movements challenging their progressive empire, which is built on a house of socialist cards.

“Reckless Propaganda”: Globe And Mail Op-Ed Tells Readers “How To Properly Hate” Elon Musk Ahead Of SpaceX IPO

Whether it is Elizabeth Warren, left-leaning unions, or Democrat-aligned NGOs funded by dark money, the common pattern here has been an information campaign aimed at Elon Musk to derail the SpaceX IPO. Their motives are very simple: if the game is about power and money, then Musk potentially becoming the world’s first trillionaire on Friday morning represents a direct threat to the progressive empire they have built.

Just as with President Trump, the left has mounted a permanent pressure campaign of ‘useful idiots’ against Elon Musk because he has poured tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns for pro-America candidates – something Democrats, socialists, and Marxists despise. Then, Musk headed up DOGE in early 2025, which resulted in the defunding of USAID – another move by Musk that caused unhinged left-wing NGOs and Democrats to lose their minds.

The anti-Musk crowd was at it again on Thursday, one day before the SpaceX IPO was set to kick off, when a former Wall Street Journal reporter published an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail titled, “SpaceX is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here’s how to properly hate him.”

Chris Gay, who appears to have a lot of pent-up hatred for Musk, began the op-ed: “Now that the SpaceX initial public offering is making Elon Musk all but officially the world’s first trillionaire, is it okay to despise him just for being one? To broaden the question: are the billionaires associated with widening inequality a bad look for capitalism?”

The op-ed is less about wealth itself and more of a political framing exercise that uses the SpaceX IPO as the catalyst to recast Musk’s soaring fortune as a governance risk. Gay attempts to launder what appears to be hatred toward Musk, centering his argument on democracy, inequality, and political capture. In other words, the target is not simply Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire, but the perceived threat that his capital, influence, and political alignment pose to the progressive establishment’s grip on institutional power.

Gay wrote, “By donating at least US$250-million to the Trump campaign in 2024, this private citizen positioned himself to kill a congressional budget deal more or less single-handedly, and then to create a bogus federal agency: the “Department” of Government Efficiency. He staffed it with college-age technobrats who among other things effectively dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, which millions of people depended upon for life-critical assistance.”

Gay’s op-ed, which The Globe and Mail posted on X, was heavily ratioed and had a Community Note … 

Here’s what X users said in response:

This is classless and dangerous.

You’re a disgrace @globeandmail

— @jason (@Jason) June 12, 2026

How dare he create hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions in wealth for others, accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, help paralyzed/disabled people to become more independent and connect poor/low income areas to the internet!

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 12, 2026

Imagine hating a guy whose rap sheet is:

-jobs
-wealth creation
-clean energy
-self driving cars for mobility for the elderly
-helping paralyzed people walk again
-internet for the poor

Sounds like an absolute MONSTER 😂😂😂

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) June 12, 2026

Reckless biased propaganda. You should be grateful instead.

— Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) June 12, 2026

I thought we were supposed to stop spreading hate

— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) June 12, 2026

Elon has created thousands of millionaires through his endeavors. What have you done outside of yapping about better humans? pic.twitter.com/21dRG3AlYB

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole) June 12, 2026

The fact that you are focusing on envy and hate instead of how to innovate and be successful like Elon speaks volumes about your writers and your sad little entity.

Pathetic.

— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) June 12, 2026

It’s not just Globe And Mail, the globalist Financial Times pushes the information operation to paint Musk as ‘evil’ … 

Opinion: You might have thought the world’s richest man had enough on his plate teeing up history’s biggest IPO. Yet he has been devoting many of his waking hours to stoking up racial hatred in Britain on his social media site. https://t.co/1C09ebAgPg pic.twitter.com/sFFtPM3RVx

— Financial Times (@FT) June 12, 2026

The left is losing its mind as the nation progresses forward with pro-American innovation and wokeness dies in darkness. 

“It was they who carried out the coup d’etat in Ukraine, which forced us to take the people of Crimea under protection. When they started the war, they started bombing Donetsk using warplanes” – Putin in a fresh address to Russian service members came out swinging, giving a familiar lesson in recent history.

And quite provocatively, he emphasized that Russia is now practically fighting against the entirety of the collective West in the Ukraine conflict in the Friday remarks.

“Russia is standing against the so-called Collective West single-handedly,” Putin said, state media cited, and he noted that the ‘special military operation’ he ordered to stave off NATO encroachment is revealing itself to be “exceedingly high-tech.“

“The NATO nations are all, without exception, ramping up efforts to do all they can to orchestrate actions against Russia,” he added, sate media continued.

He stressed that Moscow did not initiate the Ukraine conflict, but that the Western allies and their hegemonic expansion and meddling did.

He perhaps for the first time acknowledged some pain inflicted on Russia due to Ukraine’s long-range drone waves, which for months have been inflicting serious damage primarily on oil and energy sites:

Now, Western nations have set out to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” but “this is not something that can be done,” Putin said.

“The enemy is expanding the use of [kamikaze] drones… trying to strike at our morale, trying to break up Russian society… and cause economic damage,” he noted, stressing that “they will not succeed.”

These drones have grown more long-range in their targeting and increasingly effective, as Russia’s anti-air defense – which are set up primarily to intercept higher flying and faster inbound missiles or jets – seem powerless. 

Or rather, if Ukraine sends 100 drones on Russia on any given night, at least dozens are bound to make it through, the recent pattern has shown. But Putin also seems to be strongly suggesting that Western intelligence is assisting Ukraine’s drone mayhem on the Russian populace.

Images have surfaced online showing what the military-industrial plant in Cheboksary looks like after being struck by a “Flamingo” drone. The photos show that anti-drone nets had been installed around the facility, but they ultimately failed to prevent the attack. pic.twitter.com/FSK9tP96V8

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) June 10, 2026

Earlier this month, the Putin-hosted St. Petersburg Economic Forum came under significant drone attack from Ukraine. Videos revealed that international dignitaries entered the venue against the backdrop of thick black smoke from drone hits on oil and other facilities.

Iran is dominating headlines, but Washington’s favorite bipartisan monster abroad is never too far from the sights of the hawks. Just days ago, and while the U.S. is fighting a war, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell scolded Marco Rubio for pausing a weapons shipment to Taiwan.

Last night, ZeroHedge hosted opposing think tankers to answer the question that DC likes to keep ambiguous: Should the U.S. defend Taiwan if China invades?

In the “no” corner was Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who once served as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Arguing “yes”, we should intervene, is the Heritage Foundation’s Steve Yates, a former deputy national security advisor to the Vice President Dick Cheney.

Below were the highlights for those who missed it:

Are We Prepared?

Bandow argued that the Taiwan debate often understates both the depth of Chinese nationalism and the possibility that a U.S.-China conflict could escalate beyond anyone’s control. He said his interactions with Chinese students while teaching summer programs convinced him that the issue is not simply the ambition of Xi Jinping but a broadly shared belief that Taiwan is part of China.

“Chinese students are very nationalistic. They all believe that Taiwan’s part of China. So this is a sentiment that is not just the folks in Zhang Nanhai. I mean, it’s not just President Xi.”

Bandow’s central warning was that threatening war requires being prepared to follow through even if events spiral. He questioned whether the United States has fully grappled with the consequences of escalation, particularly if China began losing and faced attacks on mainland targets.

“If we’re going to threaten to go to war, it’s very hard to back down… If the Chinese find themselves losing, if the Chinese find that we are attacking mainland bases, what are they likely to do? They are likely to escalate… How do we control that?”

Bandow said Taiwan is “a wonderful place” but asked whether Americans are prepared to risk their own society (and life, civilization… really everything). The key question, according to him, is not whether Taiwan deserves sympathy, but whether the United States is prepared for what could become a full-scale war with another major nuclear power.

“Are we prepared to risk our own society?… We cannot assume it would turn out well… Are we prepared for a full-scale war?”

pic.twitter.com/xEQzerBZVg

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 12, 2026

Fentanyl!

Yates said Beijing’s role in the fentanyl crisis is not accidental, arguing that China’s extensive surveillance apparatus makes it implausible that authorities are unaware of the scale of the trade flowing through Chinese manufacturers and financial networks.

“It’s the world’s most advanced surveillance state to the point where they literally will find images of Winnie the Pooh on Hong Kong protesters’ phones… completely implausible that they can have illicit precursors manufactured at a scale sufficient to result in half a million American fatalities counted conservatively over ten years without them knowing.”

The issue, he said, has been raised repeatedly at the highest levels of diplomacy and can no longer be dismissed as something that escaped Beijing’s attention.

“It’s not something that snuck up on them… There really is no ambiguity of where it’s coming from and at what scale.”

While Yates acknowledged he cannot prove that Chinese leaders explicitly intended to kill Americans, he argued that intent becomes harder to dismiss when the trade continues after years of warnings and mounting casualties.

“Did they say, ‘I want to do this in order to have this effect?’ Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think we’ll ever get to know… But once it is in train and moving and three presidents have raised it and the casualty numbers reached what would be considered a weapon of mass destruction level, it’s kind of hard to say that they have clean hands, or there’s no intent to allow it to happen.”

pic.twitter.com/jhZkbl3LYI

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 12, 2026

Full Debate

Watch the full debate below or listen on Spotify. 

https://t.co/SyvVxuu7Gt

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 11, 2026

Authored by David Harsanyi via The Epoch Times,

It turns out that the most generous funder of white supremacist groups in the United States was likely the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At least that’s what the Department of Justice’s superseding indictment against the SPLC alleges. The organization secretly paid informants to engage in the active promotion and funding of racist groups while denouncing and “fighting” the very same groups in public.

The SPLC purportedly created fictitious entities to hide funding from their donors.

The SPLC, for instance, is accused of bankrolling the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally, paying a leader nearly $300,000 to post racist messages, organize and even transport people to the infamous Charlottesville protest, where one person was killed.

In another instance, a pair of white supremacists who approached the SPLC about leaving the Klan were encouraged to stay in the group and recruit new members.

Given salaries, the two men were allegedly reimbursed for the costs of their activities, including those “incurred for cross-burning events, to include the wood and fuel used.”

In the end, I’m not sure what the legal jeopardy there is in engaging in this brand of duplicitous activity, but it is without a doubt corrupt, fraudulent, immoral, and bad for the country.

Many people correctly point out that SPLC is merely interested in keeping white supremacist groups operational to justify its existence. White nationalists and identitarian groups have no genuine political power or support, so it makes sense that SPLC and other groups would prop them up for fundraising. The notion that Americans live in a nation of deep-seated systemic and cultural racism is a foundational belief of the American left. Having a bunch of cartoonishly racist groups running around the country not only perpetuates the myth but helps raise money.

But a far more vital objective of the SPLC is destroying the reputations of effective legitimate organizations that are involved in mainstream political debates that have absolutely nothing to do with racism or extremism.

The purpose of the “hate” maps and enemies’ lists compiled by SPLC isn’t to alert Americans about local skinheads, but to associate those skinheads with the American College of Pediatricians, Family Research Council, Ben Carson, Turning Point USA, American Family Association, and Moms for Liberty.

In 2016, for instance, the SPLC “Hate and Extremism” list added Alliance Defending Freedom, a highly effective legal organization that’s won multiple religious freedom cases in front of the Supreme Court. Oftentimes the ADF represents minority clients. Its most high-profile case involved Jack Phillips, the persecuted cake maker from Colorado whose First Amendment rights were stripped by the government. But the group also takes on cases regarding state funding for abortion or the biological males competing in girls’ sports.

You may disagree with ADF’s positions on those issues, but only an extremist progressive actually considers it a “hate” group worthy of inclusion on a list with “neo-confederates.” It’s not the pinhead “Neo Volkisch” that concerns the SPLC, it’s the impressive lawyer with the ADF.

By making their case to the press, these conservatives are wisely appealing to the SPLC’s most powerful source of influence.

Yet, the SPLC’s “hate list” has been treated as an authoritative source on extremism by virtually every legacy media outlet for years.

During the height of BLM protests and riots, The New York Times cited the SPLC as an unimpeachable authority on hate groups in hundreds of stories over a one-year span. The group was cited by the paper thousands of times over the previous decade. That’s a single media organization. From the mid-2010s through 2025, when the SPLC was sending millions to prop up the worst right-wing extremists in the country, virtually any story about rising extremism on NBC News featured the SPLC.

The question is, how can any reputable media outlet, much less a government agency, ever use the SPLC as a source again?

They’ll try.

Even now, outlets like the Associated Press refer to the SPLC as “civil rights” group.

The SPLC, formed in 1971 by civil rights activists in Montgomery, Alabama, hasn’t been fighting for the rights of African Americans for a long time. By the mid 1980s, the SPLC had already shifted away from the civil rights fight to rooting out “right-wing extremism.” In 1986, the entire legal staff, save founder Morris Dees (who was pushed out of the organization in 2019 after allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination), quit over the change.

The SPLC, probably superfluous when it was formed, has long been a shady left-wing activist group with a near-billion-dollar endowment. The new indictment only further confirms it was worse than we thought.