80.8 F
Chicago
Tuesday, June 30, 2026
Home Blog Page 78

The Modern “Red Calendar” And The Death Of Pride Month

The Modern “Red Calendar” And The Death Of Pride Month

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.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 23:25

Beijing Bans Four New Zealand MPs For “Crossing Red Line” With Taiwan Visit

Beijing Bans Four New Zealand MPs For “Crossing Red Line” With Taiwan Visit

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.

Photos from the visit by the New Zealand MPs were posted on social media by Taiwan’s foreign minister Lin Chia-lung

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”.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 23:00

Satellite Images Expose China’s Massive New 120-Meter Sail-Free Mystery Submarine

Satellite Images Expose China’s Massive New 120-Meter Sail-Free Mystery Submarine

Authored by Aamir Khollam via Interesting Engineering,

China has quietly launched another advanced submarine, signaling the rapid expansion of a naval force that already outpaces Western production rates.

ROKS Dosan Ahn Changho class submarine and satellite imagery of China’s sailless submarine. Wikimedia Commons and @Mack8miltech on X

Fresh satellite imagery shows a large new submarine at Shanghai’s Jiangnan Shipyard. The vessel features an unusual “sailless” profile and a highly streamlined hull. Analysts say the design could reflect China’s push toward faster, quieter, and harder-to-detect underwater platforms.

The launch comes as the U.S. and its allies struggle to increase submarine output. China, meanwhile, has launched roughly 15 to 20 submarines during the past five years. Several belong to entirely new classes.

Streamlined Underwater Design

The newly spotted submarine measures around 120 meters long. Its beam appears narrower than other recent Chinese attack submarines, while satellite imagery also shows X-shaped stern control surfaces and what may be a shrouded propulsion system.

Defense analysts believe the submarine could use a pumpjet propulsor. That setup reduces underwater noise at higher speeds compared to traditional propellers. The vessel’s most striking feature, however, remains the absence of a traditional sail.

Conventional submarines rely on sails to house periscopes, communication masts, and snorkel systems. Removing that structure cuts drag and improves hydrodynamic efficiency. A cleaner hull shape can improve submerged speed and maneuverability while also reducing acoustic signatures, making the submarine harder to track.

China previously tested similar concepts. About eight years ago, the same shipyard launched a smaller experimental submarine with a reduced sail design. More recently, Chinese shipbuilders revealed unmanned underwater vehicle concepts with similar hull forms.

Questions Over Propulsion

The submarine’s propulsion system remains unclear, though analysts believe a standard nuclear reactor remains the most likely option due to the vessel’s size.

Another possibility involves China’s emerging “nuclear-AIP” technology. That concept combines a low-power nuclear reactor with air-independent propulsion principles. Such systems promise longer endurance without the complexity of full-sized nuclear attack submarines.

China already launched one submarine using that concept. The Type-041 Zhou-class submarine appeared at Wuhan’s Wuchang Shipyard in 2024. Experts, however, consider a traditional nuclear-powered attack submarine more likely for this latest design.

At nearly 400 feet long, the submarine appears too narrow to serve as a ballistic missile submarine. China’s newest JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles require significantly larger launch compartments.

Expanding Production Capacity

The emergence of the new submarine also raises questions about China’s industrial strategy. Around the same time, another submarine reportedly launched from Huludao Shipyard, China’s primary nuclear submarine construction facility. Analysts suspect both submarines could belong to the same new class.

If confirmed, that would mark a major shift in Chinese naval manufacturing. Western shipyards often struggle to build more than one nuclear submarine at a time. China may now operate parallel production lines for advanced submarine programs.

Beijing has released no official information about the submarine. Chinese authorities rarely announce first-in-class submarine launches, especially for sensitive naval projects. That secrecy leaves outside analysts relying on satellite imagery and defense assessments to piece together the submarine’s mission and capabilities.

Even with limited information, the message appears clear. China continues to accelerate submarine development while experimenting with increasingly unconventional underwater designs.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 22:35

Trump Decries Communism, Says Its ‘Breathtaking Popularity’ Turns To ‘Death, Destruction, Squalor’

Trump Decries Communism, Says Its ‘Breathtaking Popularity’ Turns To ‘Death, Destruction, Squalor’

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.”

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.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 21:45

Mole People? What Are These Individuals Doing In New York Sewers?

Mole People? What Are These Individuals Doing In New York Sewers?

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

New York City’s vast underground network has become the unlikely focus of fresh alarm. Surveillance footage shared widely online shows teams of men lifting manhole covers in the middle of the night, descending into the sewers with flashlights, tools, and protective gear, then resurfacing hours later.

Police have investigated multiple such episodes, particularly in Brooklyn, yet their public message remains the same: no known threat to safety.

That reassurance has failed to settle nerves in a city still scarred by past attacks and struggling under years of unchecked migration and progressive governance.

When groups operate with apparent coordination in critical infrastructure after dark, the quick dismissal only fuels suspicion.

The pattern emerged in recent weeks. In Gravesend, Brooklyn, footage captured one group removing a manhole cover on McDonald Avenue. Several men in waders and boots emerged around 2 a.m. after hours below ground.

A separate incident in Williamsburg saw another group enter a manhole near Bedford and Hayward around 1 a.m. and exit roughly two and a half hours later. An earlier sighting in Astoria, Queens, showed similar behavior.

Witnesses describe purposeful movement, gear suited for extended time in filthy, hazardous conditions, and vehicles staged nearby. The New York Police Department responded by sending its Emergency Service Unit and Canine Unit underground to inspect the tunnels.

The Department of Environmental Protection also inspected and reported no damage to equipment. Officials stated they found nothing nefarious and floated the possibility that the individuals were simply urban explorers or treasure hunters.

Videos of the incidents spread rapidly, prompting widespread questions about motives and security.

Public reaction has been blunt. Many see organized teams operating in a sanctuary city that has taken in large numbers of unvetted arrivals. The same online conversation that once focused on “mole people” quickly shifted toward fears of reconnaissance, sabotage, or terrorism.

Past terror attacks on New York infrastructure and the reality of foreign actors probing soft targets make the casual “no threat” line ring hollow to those paying attention.

Authorities correctly note that unauthorized entry into the sewer system is illegal and extremely dangerous. Toxic gases, flooding, collapses, and confined spaces turn it into a death trap for the unprepared.

Yet the absence of swift arrests or visible escalation to federal agencies has left residents wondering whether political optics or stretched resources are slowing a fuller response.

New York’s sewer network stretches for thousands of miles beneath streets, businesses, and sensitive sites. It is not some abstract curiosity. Coordinated nighttime access by unidentified groups equipped for prolonged underground movement is exactly the kind of activity that should trigger a serious security posture.

The city’s leadership, shaped by years of Democratic Socialist priorities and open-border policies, has repeatedly shown greater interest in managing narratives than confronting hard security realities.

Coverage from major outlets has documented at least three recent nighttime incidents across Brooklyn and Queens, with police maintaining their assessment even as footage continues to circulate.

Infrastructure protection should come first. Cities should not be left guessing about teams disappearing into vital systems while officials rush to label concerns as overblown. Here, the default seems to be reassurance before transparency.

Residents in the affected neighborhoods have voiced what many feel: this does not look like casual scavenging. It looks like preparation. Whether the goal is valuables, mapping, or something darker remains unknown. That is precisely the problem.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 20:55

Trump Says Accountability Is Coming Over The ‘Rigged’ 2020 Election

Trump Says Accountability Is Coming Over The ‘Rigged’ 2020 Election

In a new, wide-ranging interview on “Pod Force One” with Miranda Devine, President Donald Trump is saying out loud what he says a growing body of evidence increasingly supports: the 2020 election was rigged, the people responsible are known, and something is coming for them.

Trump was unambiguous. “We had a rigged election,” he told Devine. “I used to say that a year and a half ago, the election was rigged. And the cameras would literally turn off. Yeah. And the anchor would say, ‘Sir, you’re not allowed to say that.’ Now nobody ever turns off the camera because it’s been proven to be rigged.”

Trump added, “Look at what happened in Georgia. Look at all the stuff that we found out. It was a rigged election. Biden lost in a landslide.”

Trump went further, connecting the consequences of that election and the disasters that followed, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which, Trump says, “would have never happened” had he still been in office. And, of course, there was Biden’s border crisis, which resulted in, by Trump’s count, 25 million illegal immigrants into the United States in four years, many of whom, he said, were criminals.

“And fentanyl deaths,” Devine pointed out.

“Yeah. He was the worst president,” Trump argued. “And we were laughed at all over the world as a country. We’re not laughed at anymore. We have the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

Devine pressed him directly on the accountability for what happened in the 2020 election. “So someone has to be punished, though, for that,” she said. “So how do you do that?”

“Well, you don’t have to punish them all,” he said. “I’d rather not get into it. Let’s see what happens. The election was rigged. We know who rigged the election. We know it. We know everything now. You know, we have information that nobody thought was possible. But when you get to office, all of a sudden, people start giving you things.”

Trump’s comments may keep the issue alive, but this is hardly the first time voters have been told that major accountability is just around the corner.

FBI Director Kash Patel appeared on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures in April and delivered a statement that left little room for interpretation. “We are going to be making arrests, and it’s coming, and I promise you, it’s coming soon,” Patel told host Maria Bartiromo.

Bartiromo had been skeptical of all the claims that accountability was actually coming. “President Trump – he says this repeatedly – that the election was rigged in 2020. I mean, he says it all the time. We all know that. And it’s almost getting lost because he says it so much. You’ve been at the FBI for 14 months now. Have you done anything about that? And do you have anything to tell us about that?

Patel said the FBI has spent the past year uncovering records and restricted case files that he claims were deliberately hidden within the bureau. According to Patel, investigators now have all the evidence they need and are working with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and DOJ prosecutors to pursue accountability.

While offering few specifics, Patel signaled that the investigation is entering a new phase. “We’ve got all the information we need,” Patel said, promising that more prosecutions are on the way.

Monica Crowley, the U.S. government’s chief of protocol, added another layer a month later. “He did win in a landslide, and we will soon be able to give evidence about that,” Crowley said.

The allegations are serious, but public fatigue has built up around them, too. Americans have been promised developments before and are still waiting for something to be done. If this story is going anywhere, it will need to move from repeated promises to something concrete.

ZeroPointNow
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 20:30

Texas AG Launches Investigation Into Glyphosate In Food

Texas AG Launches Investigation Into Glyphosate In Food

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into glyphosate contamination in food, with major manufacturers such as PepsiCo and Bayer being subjected to the probe.

Workers spray for insects and weeds at a fruit farm in Mesa, Calif., on March 27, 2020. Brent Stirton/Getty Images

Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide applied to genetically engineered crops and is the main ingredient in Roundup weed killer, Paxton’s office said in a June 2 statement. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The organization also concluded that the herbicide showed “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, which refers to the ability to damage a cell’s genetic information.

“Since then, extensive human and animal research has shown that glyphosate contributes to endocrine disruption, infertility, kidney disease, and autoimmune diseases, in addition to its cancer-causing properties,” the attorney general’s statement read.

More than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed in the United States each year. Research has found that over 70 percent of American adults have detectable traces of glyphosate in their bodies compared to a mere 12 percent in 1993. Scientists attribute much of this dramatic increase to the widespread use of glyphosate as a desiccant.”

Desiccation is the process of applying herbicides to crops prior to harvest to ensure they uniformly dry down, a practice responsible for more than 90 percent of glyphosate found in food.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deems glyphosate as an effective way to manage noxious and invasive weeds, the agency said in a May 5 update.

In agriculture, glyphosate is used in a wide range of crops, including corn, soybean, leafy vegetables, legumes, cereal grains, citrus, herbs and spices, nuts, oilseed crops, and sugarcane. The herbicide is also used for the conservation of pastures, forests, turf grass, rangeland, aquatic areas, parks, wildlife management areas, and paved areas.

The EPA said there are “no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate” and that there is “no indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate.”

However, Paxton’s office said in its recent statement that children are “particularly vulnerable to glyphosate’s harms” due to the widespread use of oats in cereals, cookies, and breakfast bars. While the EPA bans the use of glyphosate as a desiccant on oats in the United States, major companies import oats from nations where desiccation is allowed.

Children are exposed to food products that are “some of the most glyphosate-contaminated” food items sold in the United States, including those that are marketed as “healthy.”

Paxton’s office has sent Civil Investigative Demands to major pesticide and food manufacturers, such as Bayer and PepsiCo. A Civil Investigative Demand is an administrative subpoena allowing government agencies to request private entities to submit significant information without having to first go through court procedures.

“If any corporation is using regulatory loopholes to poison our kids with glyphosate, we will find out and we will secure justice,” Paxton said.

“My office is also investigating whether major food companies are complying with Texas law and whether consumers, especially parents, have been misled about the health claims of common food products marketed to their families. No corporation is above the law, and no illegal action will go unpunished.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Bayer and PepsiCo for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Glyphosate Necessity In Farms

A major controversy erupted in February when President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring America’s supply of glyphosate a critical component of national and food security.

“Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity,” the executive order said.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.

The herbicide has faced criticism from the Make America Healthy Again movement, and thousands of lawsuits have been filed across the United States claiming that exposure to glyphosate is linked to several types of cancer.

Last month, a group of lawmakers introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which seeks to ensure that glyphosate manufacturers can be held liable under state and federal law if it is proven that the herbicide causes cancer, according to an April 29 statement from the office of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

The bill also seeks to ban the use of federal funds to enforce Trump’s glyphosate order.

Exposure to glyphosate can cause cancer. The Supreme Court cannot and should not allow these verdicts to be overturned,” Heinrich said.

“My constituents’ health and safety comes first. And I will not stand by while President Trump gives immunity to those who put my constituents’ health and safety at risk.”

In February, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a social media post that pesticides and herbicides were toxic.

However, if the use of these chemicals were prohibited, “crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms,” Kennedy said, while describing Trump’s glyphosate order as aiming to protect the country’s food supply.

Moreover, the Trump administration is looking at shifting from the current agricultural system without harming food supply, such as by transitioning to regenerative agriculture, Kennedy said.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 20:05

The Media Wants To Know Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society?

The Media Wants To Know Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society?

Recent surveys paint what might seem like an apocalyptic picture:  In the US, around 45% of men ages 18-25 do not approach women anymore to engage in dating or relationships.  Over 42% of all men have no interest in seeking out women for relationships or casual dates.  Around 30% of men over 40 years old have never been married and are not necessarily seeking marriage.  

In light of ongoing concerns about population decline around the world, the first thing most people might say is that men need to “step up” and fulfill their role in order to save the human species from a “Children Of Men” movie scenario.  However, this suggests that it’s men’s fault and that checking out of the current system is a bad thing.  It’s a narrow minded view.  

To be clear, the narrative of the “male loneliness epidemic” is a propaganda fantasy designed to shame men into returning to the liberal fold.  The truth is, men are not lonely, they are deliberately refusing to participate in order to make a point.  What we are witnessing is perhaps the most substantial mass boycott of liberal ideology in history as men go more conservative.  It’s a boycott the establishment media does not want to acknowledge. 

In a recent expose by The Guardian, the outlet dares to ask the forbidden question – Is the “Me Too” movement the reason men are opting out of relationships and liberal society?  Sadly, they barely delve into the truth of the matter and instead regurgitate the old standby excuses:  Men are afraid of women because of lack of emotional intelligence.  Men are having trouble navigating the new world of fluid gender roles and women’s independence.  Men are being lured into “toxic masculinity” by conservative movements, etc. 

Not surprisingly, the media rarely engages with straight men who study these changes from the male perspective.   If they did, they might get a better insight into what men today want want from life, from their careers or from relationships.  They talk often in dismay about the rush of young men into conservative ideals, but they never ask those men what it is about conservatism that attracts them. 

Why?  Because they don’t want to hear the answer.  They don’t care what men have to say.  So instead, they gather up a gaggle of female psychologists, jilted women and woke beta male activists and ask them “What is going on with men these days?” 

The idea of self improvement and striving for success has become the rallying cry for many men lost in the sea of the post “Me Too” world.  It makes perfect sense.  After a decade of feminist militancy and narratives painting men as walking time bombs on the verge of exploding into a deadly rage, men are no longer asking for validation from society or from women. 

Instead, they have set their own goals and measure their achievements according to their own peace of mind.  The power of the woke movement and feminists is in their ability to insert themselves into the role of judge and jury.  They do this by claiming constant victimhood, which they say earns them access to the halls of power and influence.  When the media talks about masculinity from an anthropological standpoint, they talk to the self-appointed woke experts (mostly women).    

When they do ask men, it’s usually from a liberal standpoint.  When they ask conservative men, they ignore the answers and attack the honest responses.   Last week a New York Times podcast set out to explore what they call the American Masculinity Crisis; not to understand why men and masculinity have been so demonized, but to complain about men returning to masculinity despite the political left’s best efforts to destroy it.  

“I think that we are in an abysmal state.  I think the reality is that we’ve always had patriarchy at the intersection of capitalism and white supremacy, and how those things feast on one another and lift one another. But I think right now, more times than not, the role models that these young boys and young men have are not only divisive and toxic but insidious and heinous, disgusting. Truly, I mean, the president of the United States is an alleged rapist. What does that mean? You know, the popular thing that boys are watching is largely M.M.A., right? So I think we’re in a horrible place…”

The idea of “toxic masculinity” is a woke feminist fallacy; a creation meant to shame men for their natural behaviors, their normal biological roles and the inherent ways they deal with the world.  The important thing to remember is that feminism has not been about equality for decades.  Women have had social equality and legal superiority over men in the west for some time now. 

Rather, feminism is about keeping men in line and under control to prevent any rebellion against the liberal epoch.  After all, women have no inherent power.  They gain power by convincing men to give their power away through government.  By convincing men to behave in the name of modern civility.  From the New York Times:

“I think, when we talk about masculinity, we have to talk about the patriarchy. And I think we see this as this system which harms everyone, including men…”

“I think if we can see ourselves as part of a system of patriarchy that harms all of us, and we are allies in this fight rather than men versus women, men oppressing women, then I think we can have a more productive conversation…”

In other words, masculinity and patriarchy is the left-wing version of “original sin”; a great crime against humanity that can only be defeated when men and women to come together…and submit to feminism.  Which means, men have to hand over all their power as the source of this great evil.  Men have to accept proper “management” to avoid falling into their darker ways.  If only these men would prostrate themselves before the benevolent woke gods and beg for forgiveness, then the world would be a much better place.

But why would they?  The idea that they get something in return is a proven lie.  They get no redemption, no peace.  Why not simply step on the neck of feminism, destroy it and take control?  It would be easy.  The only thing stopping this from happening is the hope most men have for a logical and reasonable discourse – The hope of honest reconciliation.  As long as feminism exists, however, this is never going to happen.

When the left-wing media opines on the lost generation of men, what they’re really doing is pretending to have empathy while scrambling to circumvent a full blown male rebellion against the liberal order. 

The “Me Too” movement was presented as a reckoning over abuse against women in professional spaces, but it ultimately became a power grab in which liberal women leveraged fake outrage to elevate the idea of “guilty until proven innocent.”  It weaponized mob justice against men as a way to steal jobs women didn’t earn or deserve, and steal political power they had no moral capacity to handle. 

It’s no mistake that the Me Too motto was “Believe all women.”  That’s a radioactive level of power.  

The real reckoning is going to be in the aftermath of Me Too.  There is a quiet but simmering movement of young men who are about to reassert their dominance in the society that cast them as monsters.  What progressives and feminists still don’t realize is that their actions have set an unstoppable freight train in motion.  By alienating men in the pursuit of political gain, they have created a juggernaut with little empathy for self proclaimed “victims”.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 19:40

DOJ Opens Investigation Into Suspected Race-Based Practices At Arizona State University

DOJ Opens Investigation Into Suspected Race-Based Practices At Arizona State University

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has launched a Title VI investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices at Arizona State University (ASU), one of the country’s largest public universities.

View of the campus of Arizona State University, a public research university located in Phoenix, Arizona. Shutterstock

Wednesday’s announcement comes after recent viral videos that appear to show university personnel participating in or concealing the handling of distinguishing students by race, color, or national origin. Federal officials noted the videos raised the prospect that ASU may have violated civil rights protections while benefiting from considerable taxpayer support.

“No student should be denied access to opportunities or resources because of race, color, or national origin,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) Civil Rights Division said. “The United States is committed to keeping universities free of unlawful discrimination – especially when they try to hide illegal conduct to avoid oversight and compliance.”

Federal law does not allow discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin at institutions that receive federal funding. ASU has 194,000 students enrolled across its campuses as of the 2024-2025 school year and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and aid annually, public records from the U.S. Department of Education show.

The Civil Rights Division’s investigation will determine whether ASU’s DEI-related policies result in illegal discrimination in areas including admissions, recruitment, scholarships, tutoring, and educational support services. Officials underscored that the investigation is underway.

This action comes amid a broader national effort to examine university practices following changes to federal policy and public outcry over race-conscious programs. Many colleges and universities changed or repackaged DEI initiatives in the wake of executive actions and legal challenges.

The Department of Education indicates that Arizona’s major universities, including ASU, have contended with state-level restrictions on certain diversity initiatives while ensuring federal compliance. Universities nationwide have quietly adjusted DEI programs as a result of potential funding cuts and investigations.

The viral videos leading to the DOJ announcement recorded interactions in which university staff deliberated continuing parts of DEI programming under alternative names such as “inclusive excellence.”

Accuracy in Media and other watchdogs have noted similar efforts at public universities.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates equal opportunity without regard to protected characteristics. Past DOJ inquiries into higher education have looked at legacy admissions, athletic recruiting, and targeted scholarships. This investigation joins a growing list of reviews examining programs thought to circumvent race-neutral standards.

Places of higher learning, from Ivy League schools to state flagships, have faced pressure to get rid of race-based preferences after Supreme Court rulings and administrative changes.

ASU officials have not formally responded to the allegations. Public university records detail numerous outreach programs targeting underrepresented groups.

Federal databases show that ASU receives considerable taxpayer funds, including research grants, Pell Grants, and other aid that require nondiscriminatory practices.

The federal government has also investigated medical school admissions and PhD recruitment initiatives at other public universities that allegedly applied different standards based on race.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 19:15

Weingarten Blames Screens, Not Herself, For Falling Test Scores

Weingarten Blames Screens, Not Herself, For Falling Test Scores

Authored by Aaron Withe and Tina Snider via RealClearPolitics,

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is sounding the alarm about the decade-long decline in student test scores, pointing to screens and devices as a culprit. She’s calling it a “call to action.”

She left out the part about how she helped cause the problem in the first place.

For two years during the COVID pandemic, Weingarten and the AFT fought aggressively to keep schools closed. In July 2020, as the Trump administration urged schools to reopen, Weingarten called the push “reckless,” “callous,” and “cruel,” and threatened the possibility of safety strikes.

Internal emails later released by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee showed the AFT had access to draft guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control before it was made public, as well as proposed specific language that could trigger renewed closures.

Research published afterward confirmed what was already evident: Districts with stronger teachers unions were significantly less likely to reopen for in-person instruction, even after controlling for local COVID conditions.

So kids stayed home. They got on computer screens and stayed there for two years, cut off from teachers, friends, and anything resembling a normal childhood.

The consequences were not abstract. The National Assessment of Educational Progress recorded the largest declines in math and reading scores in its history. Reading results dropped to levels not seen since the early 1990s.

Researchers documented surging rates of anxiety, depression, and social developmental delays among children who spent critical years in isolation. The damage, experts say, will take a generation to undo.

In her book published last fall, Weingarten wrote that she “…led the AFT in developing a concrete plan to reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible.” That’s a remarkable claim given the documented record of what her union actually did.

Weingarten told Congress in 2023 there were “… things we really didn’t get right,” including the impact of prolonged closures. That acknowledgment was notable, but what followed it wasn’t accountability. It was a pivot.

The same union that lobbied to keep students off school grounds is now positioning itself as a champion of children’s well-being, pointing an accusing finger at Silicon Valley while the learning-loss data keeps compounding.

The financial record makes that positioning even harder to stomach. A recent analysis of National Education Association and AFT federal disclosures by the Network Contagion Research Institute and the Gevura Fund – of which Tina Snider is president – found America’s two largest teachers unions spend roughly $4 on political activities for every dollar spent on direct member representation.

The NEA alone reported more than $51.7 million in political spending in its most recent filing, plus another $123 million in contributions and grants, compared to less than $46 million on the collective bargaining its members thought they were paying for.

Meanwhile, teacher pay in real terms has barely moved in 50 years. The gap between what teachers earn and what comparably educated professionals earn hit a record 26.9% in 2024.

Small wonder NEA membership has fallen by nearly 400,000 since its peak, even as dues have increased every single year.

The union is shrinking, teachers are falling further behind their peers economically, and the students those teachers serve are still recovering from two years of lost learning.

That’s the actual record, and it’s a shameful one.

The test scores didn’t fall because of TikTok. They fell because millions of kids spent two years at home on screens, isolated from the teachers and classrooms Weingarten claims to champion.

She knows who fought to keep them there. So do the parents still watching their kids catch up.

Aaron Withe is the Chief Executive Officer of the Freedom Foundation.

Tina Snider is president of Gevura Fund.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/04/2026 – 18:25