Cuba is facing a severe and worsening energy crisis driven by a tightening U.S. blockade, part of President Trump’s gunboat diplomacy across the Caribbean region, as reported Sunday, with conditions now deteriorating further as the island’s power grid appears to be imploding under strain, resulting in blackouts lasting up to 20 hours per day.

“Cuba’s electrical system has completely collapsed in Havana after more than 20 hours of blackouts,” Venezuelan-born political commentator Eduardo Menoni wrote on X.

Menoni said this widespread blackout for most of the day could last for weeks, as there is no known timeframe for when the grid will be fixed.

He added, “Cuba’s electrical system has completely collapsed in Havana after. Communism is A SHITTY DEAL.”

🇨🇺🚨| URGENTE: El Sistema eléctrico de Cuba, colapsó por completo en La Habana tras más de 20 horas de apagones, dejando a la capital sin luz y con previsiones de hasta 2 semanas sin energía en toda la isla. El comunismo es UNA MIERDA. Dale ME GUSTA Y RT para que todos lo vean. pic.twitter.com/VQl0StH67p

— Eduardo Menoni (@eduardomenoni) January 25, 2026

Following the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, crude oil shipments from Cuba’s main supplier have been halted, leaving the island with a massive energy deficit.

Mexico has emerged as a major supplier of about 17,200 barrels per day to Cuba in late 2025, with President Claudia Sheinbaum defending these shipments as “solidarity” despite U.S. pressure. However, Sheinbaum’s administration is now reviewing those shipments amid the risk of reprisals from Trump.

“Cuba is facing more powerful US threats than it has in the 67 years since the revolution,” Carlos de Céspedes, Cuba’s ambassador to Colombia, told Al Jazeera on Saturday.

Earlier this month, Trump unveiled the pressure campaign: “Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil. They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall.”

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Donald Trump’s appearance at the World Economic Forum was portrayed by the German media as the very embodiment of evil against the pristine white backdrop of Davos’ snow. To cast politicians like von der Leyen, Merz, and Macron as the “good” counterparts only exposes this media spectacle for what it is: farce.

A love-hate relationship has developed between U.S. President Donald Trump and the German press. Almost every time he appears in public—which, in fact, happens daily—the bureaucrats in newsrooms react with a Pavlovian reflex. Even his Davos speech on Wednesday at the World Economic Forum, delivered without rancor despite Europe’s noticeably skeptical stance toward the U.S., provoked a maximal defensive reaction. 

Establishing the Contrast

Der Stern portrays Trump as the West’s isolator, a power politician who “ate humble pie” in Davos, and labels his speech simultaneously as a declaration of NATO’s bankruptcy. As if to keep the German fight against Trump alive at all costs, the Frankfurter Rundschau warned not to be lulled by the U.S. President’s moderate tone. The headline reads martial—Trump reliably sells well.

It also irritates the German media that Trump regularly exposes European leaders like Emmanuel Macron to public ridicule. Naturally, even Tagesschau dispatches its fact-checkers against him. His speech was reportedly riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods.

If only they were as precise and attentive when Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen stack lie upon lie—whether regarding their domestic policies, the state of the economy, the Ukraine conflict, or the failed energy transition now driving Europe into a spiral of poverty.

Even the fact that an Orwellian surveillance state is rising before our eyes, heavily supported by Germany, does not trouble German journalists. In short: we are the good, the evil sits in the White House. And we, the good, are merely protecting Europe’s docile lambs from the toxic poison of patriotic spirit that Americans are eager to inject with their virile obsession with “can-do” governance.

They despise healthy patriotism, a lean state, the ostentatious fight for free speech, and the dismantling of the NGO behemoth—all these achievements of a mature civilization that Brussels-style centralism seeks to dissolve in the European hyper- and control-state for the “common good.”

Together with politics, the German media has established a Manichaean worldview. Every over-the-top appearance by the U.S. President, perhaps difficult for European tastes to digest, only eases the camouflage. The Americans’ power-political interests—shaped by domestic pressure, externally funded protest waves, the fentanyl crisis, and the costly Pax Americana quietly accepted by Europe—play no role in the German media’s strategic considerations. 

They side with the presumed good—those exploiting climate apocalypse, Euro-protectionism, and the systematic dismantling of civil liberties. Simply emphasize it long enough, project the public’s anger at the country’s growing crises onto a figure of hate, and the media can distract from its own failures. That figure is Donald Trump.

Growing Distance

Must one not, in view of Europe’s migration crisis and disastrous energy transition, concede Trump is right on the issues? The German commentary’s arrogant condescension only reflects the detachment of its political caste. From the perspective of a German-driven Euro-socialism, the American spirit, the supposed cowboy mentality, and spontaneity are ridiculed. Listening to each other is no longer desired; the American stance is deemed antagonistic, and within the woke zeitgeist, morally reprehensible.

A reflex so foolish it is almost physically painful to follow such journalism. Shouldn’t the media’s task be to explain Europe’s true geopolitical situation and the challenges arising from energy scarcity and resource constraints?

European nations would do well to align with the Americans, make peace with Russia, and return to political reason. For the Westdeutsche Zeitung, however, Trump’s Davos speech was merely self-praise. He reportedly spread lies and slanders about the old continent.

Hovering above all is the hope that in three years a pro-European, globalist president will succeed Trump—a figure in the style of Barack Obama, picking up the red thread of climate socialism and protecting Europeans from their peculiar isolationism and its consequences.

If the EU’s climate-socialist project collapses in the foreseeable future, a strong, autonomous U.S. would be the destination for a panicked flight of capital—a potential end to the Brussels central apparatus. Returning to the climate-socialist fold would only succeed via digital currency controls and capital movement restrictions, which explains Europe’s attacks on Trump’s presidency. The fact that former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, now a Canadian Prime Minister, has devoted himself to European politics adds particular gravity to the U.S. attempt to politically control its hemisphere.

Trump’s patriotic project’s failure is precisely in the Euro-socialists’ interest. German media have, for a decade, cultivated the image of an erratic, irrational, intellectually limited chauvinist with great success. The constant repetition of identical interpretations of his actions, their moral appraisal, and the dramatic escalation under the mantra of a rules-based world order have created a narrative leaving no room for ambiguity—purely Manichaean.

On one side: Trump, the personification of evil, pushing European humanists into a corner with his tariffs, now even flirting with an aggressive land grab in Greenland. He is Lucifer in the White House. On the other: light, good—the EU, the great peace project, originally just a bulwark against the Soviet Union, now reimagined over decades as the climate savior and moral last instance of the West.

False Game

It is precisely this power that has for four years kept the disastrous war of attrition in Donbass alive. And it is not Trump, but European politicians who instill the specter of an imminent Russian invasion into the minds and souls of citizens via increasingly shrill tones across all media. Day by day, week by week, a scenario of maximum threat is conjured, morally discrediting any deviation and painting negotiation readiness as weakness—or even betrayal.

The mass deaths in Ukraine reveal Europe’s ethical decay without mercy. Beyond that, escalation against a nuclear power is militarily hopeless, economically a suicide mission, and ethically reprehensible. Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen have long known this war is unwinnable—regardless of funds sent to Ukraine. 

It is now only about delaying Ukraine’s bankruptcy in hopes of a military miracle—one only the Americans could force. And that requires, as mentioned, a new pro-European U.S. president.

States and European banks are heavily invested in Ukraine. An uncontrolled collapse could shake Europe’s financial system so violently that even the great debt crisis 15 years ago would appear as mere prelude.

Trump still seeks a negotiated solution in this conflict, which would end Europe’s dream of regime change in Moscow and a controlled exploitation of Russian resources, crucial to recapitalizing European states and banks.

The manichean media effect against American policy becomes even more dangerous amid Europe’s growing censorship apparatus. Many fail to realize that Trump’s failure would politically eliminate the last influential advocate for free speech, free markets, and rational deregulation.

It was Americans—Vice President J. D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who repeatedly intervened in Brussels in recent months when digital freedom on platforms like X, Telegram, and Meta was acutely threatened.

The list of European defenders of freedom has, by contrast, become alarmingly short.

The globalist frenzy of the Davos Summit is subsiding and the geopolitical world is left to ponder (and question) some of the more “optimistic” comments made by world leaders.  One such claim was made by Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who argued that Europe ‘unequivocally’ has the ability to defend itself without US support.   

The claim coincided with the Finnish leader’s assertion that a ” new world order” is rising with the UN at the helm. 

NOW – Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, says Europe can “unequivocally” defend itself, without the Americans. pic.twitter.com/AeHFshxBr5

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 21, 2026

The suggestion has, of course, drawn scrutiny as being overly optimistic.  Stubb tried to qualify his argument with the assertion that Finland has the best cold weather troops in the world and the future of warfare is focused on the Arctic Circle. 

An army accustomed to cold weather warfare is certainly useful, but that does not mean they are accustomed to attrition warfare – A strategic method which is serving the Russians well in Ukraine and a method western armies have not trained for since the conflict in Korea in 1950.  

Finland claims to be able to field an army of 1 million through mandated conscription, but unwilling conscripts and trained soldiers are two very different things.  Currently, the country’s army consists of only 24,000 active duty personnel.  Russia has 1.32 million, many of them battle tested after years in Ukraine.  Furthermore, the Russians have now adapted to the demands of drone warfare.  This is something European armies are still integrating, and with no real world experience. 

Stubb’s assertions are absurd, but it is this kind of fantasy mentality that is driving Europe to rattle their sabers against Russia at a time when they can’t even fill basic recruitment quotas and the average citizen with the ability to fight has no interest in dying for the existing progressive governments.  

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte dumped some cold water on the Davos delusion this week during a Brussels press conference covering heightened tensions over Greenland.  He stated clearly that Europe has no chance of defending itself without US support.

Rutte also suggested that the US needs NATO, which is debatable.  Russia does not have the naval capacity to engage with the US or the western hemisphere in a non-nuclear confrontation, even if the Kremlin wanted to.  It’s also unlikely that Europe would ever enter into a direct conflict with China when EU nations continually pander to the CCP as a “replacement” for US trade.  In other words, Europe is useless and NATO is useless without US involvement.

However, Rutte’s comments do emphasize the reality that Europeans have lived comfortably for generations in their socialist havens because they don’t have to shell out the cash needed to maintain their own security.  As the Secretary General warns, they still don’t understand what this entails, but they’re about to learn.    

Authored by ‘Sallust’ via DailySceptic.org,

Let it alone, thou fool; it is but trash.

The Tempest IV.1

One of the positive sides to radical feminist historical scholarship is the opportunity to learn about revelations that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. The latest is that William Shakespeare was a “black Jewish woman” according to a new book covered in the Telegraph.

Who knew? The book, The Real Shakespeare, is by Irene Coslet. She expounds her theory on a blog page of the London School of Economics:

A new piece of research evidence that I outline in my upcoming book shows that Shakespeare was not a man, but a woman: a black woman, Anglo-Venetian, of Moroccan descent, and covertly Jewish, named Emilia Bassano (London, 1569-1645). She was the daughter of a Venetian Court musician. Following the passing of her father when she was seven, Bassano was fostered into a noble household in England, where she received a high level of education. She spent her youth at the English Court as a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I before she was banished and forced into an unwanted marriage in 1592. She published a feminist theology poem, Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum, in 1611. She has been associated with Shakespeare since the 1970s, when the historian Alfred Leslie Rowse of Oxford found evidence that Bassano was the mistress of the patron of Shakespeare’s acting company.

The reason for why Emilia Bassano’s contribution has been overlooked, says Coslet, is that “substantial scientific or literary contributions made by women are constantly overlooked. … The pattern is so common that it could be regarded more as the rule than an exception.”

Of course!

Back to the Telegraph which summarises some of the book’s key content:

Bassano, it is claimed, used the pen-name “Shakespeare” and wrote the Shakespearean canon of plays, only for her work to be stolen by an uneducated interloper from Stratford-upon-Avon.

This interloper, whom we now know as William Shakespeare, was then revered by posterity because the idea of a “white” genius was preferred to a black female playwright, the book argues.

Of course, Occam’s Razor would argue that the simplest explanation is always likely to be the correct one, in this case that William Shakespeare was the William Shakespeare who wrote the plays.

One slight problem is that a portrait of Emilia Bassano, on the book’s cover, shows a white woman. But that is easily explained – her skin was deliberately lightened by painters.

Coslet told the Telegraph:

“If Shakespeare was a female of colour, this would draw attention to issues of peace and justice in society.”

She added: “What if women had a pivotal role and a civilising impact in history, but they have been silenced, belittled and erased from the dominant narrative?

“What would a paradigm shift reveal about ourselves? Such a reflection challenges us to reconsider our understanding of society.”

Coslet’s publisher Pen & Sword, well-known for publishing literally anything submitted to it, has no doubts about the credibility of the hypothesis, says the Telegraph:

It claims that scholars have been “unable to explain why” Shakespeare was able to incorporate influences of various cultures in his work, as a humble man from Warwickshire.

On the other hand, the book argues, the Jewish and multi-racial Bassano embodied a “diverse identity” that would give her the necessary expertise.

The book claims that she was a Jew and a Moor – a person of north African origin – with family ties to the cosmopolitan Venice of the 16th century.

This argument concludes that “English-speaking world has a mother with a multi-cultural identity”, and that Bassano was the “mother of a civilisation”.

The Telegraph reminds us of the conventional thinking about the Bard.

Shakespeare, in the consensus view of scholars, was born in Stratford in 1564 to a glove-maker. He attended the local grammar school, and at the age of 18 married the 26 year-old Anne Hathaway.

By 1592 he was being mentioned as part of the London theatre scene. Shakespeare died in 1616, well before Bassano, who died in 1645.

Interesting then that Bassano managed to write no more plays in the 29 years after the thief who stole her pen name died.

The Telegraph has another piece, by Philip Womack, refuting Coslet’s theory, called ‘No, Shakespeare wasn’t a black woman‘, linking to a longstanding tradition of coming up with different candidates for Shakespeare:

We know, with certainty, that William Shakespeare wasn’t even slightly a woman, or black. He was a white bloke from [Warwickshire], of yeoman stock. You might as well try to argue that the sun was, in fact, cold. Why does this madness continue?

In short:

What rubbish and what offal, when it serves for the base matter to illuminate.

Julius Caesar I.3

The Telegraph’s coverage of Coslet’s book is worth reading in full.

Israel is calling it “painful moment of closure” – as the Israeli military (IDF) has confirmed the return of the final captive’s remains from Gaza.

“There are officially no more hostages in captivity in Gaza,” the IDF announced on X Monday. Finally, all of the 251 people taken during the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel have been returned, whether living or dead.

The Israeli army launched an operation beginning Sunday to search a cemetery in the Gaza Strip for the remains of the last captive, Ran Gvili. It involved the cooperation of Hamas and local Palestinians.

Gvili’s body has now been brought back to Israel 843 days after being kidnapped in the October 7 Hamas/Islamic Jihad attacks, which overwhelmed southern IDF posts as well as several Jewish settlements during the large assault.

The office of Defense Minister Israel Katz said of the recovery of the remains of police Master Sgt. Gvili: “It is a moment that underscores the State of Israel’s commitment to its soldiers and citizens: to bring every single one home, as we promised the families and the Israeli public.”

According to details of how his remains were positively identified:

The IDF began exhuming hundreds of bodies at a Muslim cemetery in eastern Gaza City over the weekend, and until today, had tested around 250 of them for a potential match to Gvili.

A few hours ago, dentists deployed to the cemetery were able to confirm that the dental structure of one body matched Gvili’s. In addition, fingerprints and other tests were carried out to confirm his identity, according to the military.

The Gaza war that ensued after Oct.7 lasted over two years, and killed over 71,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza sources, which doesn’t categorize combatants vs. civilian deaths.

Israel has long maintained that tens of thousands of these included armed Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters, disputing the death figures put out by the Gaza health office. But even the Trump administration has acknowledged Israeli forces and aerial bombardments have slain an appalling amount of Palestinian civilians.

According to Israeli media, “Gvili served as a combat fighter in the Negev Border Police in the Southern District. On October 7, despite being injured with a broken shoulder from a motorcycle accident and scheduled for surgery, he went into combat.”

The report notes that “He succeeded in saving the lives of dozens of revelers at the Re’im music festival before being killed and abducted.”

Hamas says that in allowing the IDF recovery mission, this demonstrates the group’s commitment to observing the ceasefire. “We will continue to adhere to all aspects of the agreement, including facilitating the work of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza and ensuring its success,” the Hamas statement indicated.

“We call on the mediators and the United States to compel the [Israeli] occupation to cease its violations of the agreement and implement its required obligations,” the group added. Israel has agreed to reopen the vital Rafah crossing upon conclusion of this hostage recovery mission, another milestone in the truce process.

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

The European Commission has presented the final draft of the Digital Networks Act. The legislation is intended to establish an EU-wide framework for investments in broadband expansion and telecommunications infrastructure. Whether this approach will succeed in mobilizing private capital on a larger scale, however, remains questionable.

With the Digital Networks Act (DNA), an important European Union infrastructure framework is entering its final legislative phase. Following preparatory consultations last year, the European Commission has now published its official proposal, aimed at harmonizing national telecommunications networks across member states under uniform rules. The objective is to close the substantial technological gap with leading digital economies such as the United States and China, and to provide businesses with a reliable legal framework to accelerate the rollout of 5G technology and fiber-optic networks. Responsibility for the project lies with EU Technology Commissioner Henna Virkkunen.

DNA to Refocus Subsidy Policy

The DNA will replace the existing European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) and establish the structural framework for competition, cybersecurity, and the development of digital networks. If the European Commission succeeds in reaching an agreement with the European Parliament and the Council—widely considered likely—the regulation could enter into force as early as January 2027. The final text would then still need to be transposed into national law by the member states.

At the EU level, the Digital Europe Programme provides the financial framework for digital infrastructure expansion between 2021 and 2027, with a total budget of approximately €7.6 billion. The program supports projects in cybersecurity, cloud solutions, and digital infrastructure. In addition, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Digital), launched a year ago with a volume of €865 million, specifically promotes gigabit broadband and 5G projects across the EU.

At the level of individual member states, funding is still predominantly driven by public investment. In 2025, for example, Germany invested approximately €4 billion of public funds into digitalization, of which around €2.9 billion was allocated specifically to broadband expansion. The private sector complemented this with more than €10 billion invested in fiber and mobile network deployment.

Across the EU, member states have outlined measures in their digital roadmaps amounting to a cumulative volume of €288.6 billion. Approximately €205.1 billion of this total comes from public budgets, with the remainder attributed to private investments and co-financing by companies and regional actors. EU-level programs such as Digital Europe, CEF Digital, Horizon Europe, InvestEU, and the IPCEIs further supplement these national funds, targeting network and technology projects.

In comparison with the United States, a markedly different investment profile emerges. There, private capital dominates, with transaction volumes exceeding $200 billion in digital infrastructure. Public spending, particularly in research and development, amounted to around $145 billion, including significant allocations in defense and technology.

In the U.S., private enterprise is the primary driver of investment, whereas Europe traditionally relies on centralized planning and state involvement. What the Digital Networks Act can realistically achieve in terms of mobilizing additional private capital—given the extensive national efforts already underway—remains uncertain. From an economic perspective, little may change: Europe continues to be a difficult and heavily regulated environment in which investments are more complex and less flexible than in the United States.

EU-Wide Applicability and Affected Companies

The DNA will apply across the EU and directly affect telecommunications and infrastructure companies. In Germany, this primarily includes Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone Germany, and Telefónica Germany (O2), which operate extensive mobile and fixed-line networks and hold key spectrum licenses. Fiber-optic providers, regional network operators, and municipal utilities investing in high-speed network expansion will also fall under the new regulatory framework.

One positive aspect is that the DNA grants companies longer and more stable spectrum rights, improving planning security for investment decisions. However, it remains to be seen how transparency requirements, EU-mandated non-discrimination rules, and security provisions will be shaped in the subsequent regulatory process—and how the new EU compliance structure will function in practice.

From a consumer perspective, the expansion of 5G and fiber technology would ideally result in stable and reliable networks, particularly in Germany, where coverage gaps persist. Legal certainty for major network operators and investment incentives for infrastructure development benefit consumers, while smaller providers may also gain from more uniform market rules.

Opportunities and Risks for Competition and Innovation

The legislation fundamentally reshapes the framework for the EU’s digital infrastructure without immediately generating new costs—welcome news given strained public budgets. A unified European regulatory framework could reduce national uncertainties and eliminate cross-border discrepancies, potentially lowering transaction costs for companies.

However, the European Commission’s initiative under the DNA must be viewed with caution. Negotiations to date indicate that Brussels intends to retain the option of intervening in pricing structures, access obligations, and security requirements. This could lead to the emergence of a new bureaucracy that deeply interferes with investment processes, favoring large incumbents while effectively excluding new competitors from market entry.

Moreover, centralized coordination of spectrum at the EU level could restrict competition if existing market players benefit disproportionately from political proximity. It remains to be seen whether the regulatory framework will become a barrier to market access—or whether it will succeed in genuinely stimulating innovation within the EU economy.

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

South Africa allowed this false perception to spread as a symbolic act of defiance against Trump given his hatred of BRICS, whose members and partners were invited to this drill, and to signal to the domestic audience that their country has friends across the world amidst its tensions with the US.

Most folks have probably heard about the “BRICS naval drill” that recently took place in South African waters, which prompted a complaint from the US due to Iran’s participation. The South African Defense Minister had earlier defended the drill, to which all BRICS Plus countries were invited, as planned before the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker and aimed at ensuring safety on the high seas. All the while, the world was left with the impression that this was indeed a “BRICS naval drill”, which wasn’t true.

India chose not to participate and released a statement reading that “We clarify that the exercise in question was entirely a South African initiative in which some BRICS members took part. It was not a regular or institutionalised BRICS activity, nor did all BRICS members take part in it. India has not participated in previous such activities. The regular exercise that India is a part of in this context is the IBSAMAR maritime exercise that brings together the navies of India, Brazil and South Africa.”

Amidst the fake news about BRICS that’s been spread by Alt-Media, all of which centers on the false notion that it’s an allied bloc that assembled against the West, it’s understandable why many believed that this was a “BRICS naval drill”. India’s clarification that it wasn’t dispelled the perception that it’s distancing itself from the group, which is another falsehood peddled by Alt-Media, and reaffirmed that BRICS isn’t a security organization unlike what some of its enthusiasts hope that it one day becomes.

As for why India didn’t join the drill in which many of its BRICS Plus partners participated, it likely felt uncomfortable taking part in a non-obligatory exercise with China (unlike yearly SCO ones) amidst their unresolved border disputes and probably also didn’t want to risk angering the US given Trump’s hatred of BRICS. He’s been misled into thinking that its members are plotting to dethrone the dollar and consequently threatened tariffs against its members a year ago solely on that pretext.

He’s since imposed a 25% tariff on India for its purchase of Russian oil on top of the 25% “reciprocal” one that he earlier decreed for a total of 50% tariffs, however, and then threatened secondary ones for noncompliance with last fall’s energy-related sanctions against Russia. Any further tariffs upon India, regardless of the pretext, might have a noticeable effect on its economy and therefore the popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. It’s therefore understandable why he’d want to avoid that.

South Africa is under US pressure just like India is, but officially over the Boer issue, though it was explained here how the US seeks to advance other interests on this pretext. The US also dislikes South Africa’s championing of the Palestinian cause and that it took Israel to the International Court of Justice over accusations of committing genocide during the recent war. Instead of playing it safe like India has and avoiding anything that could further provoke the US, South Africa organized the latest naval drill.

Only inviting its BRICS Plus partners might therefore have been meant as a symbolic act of defiance against Trump and to signal to the domestic audience that their country has friends across the world amidst its tensions with the US. That would explain why South Africa didn’t clarify that this wasn’t a “BRICS naval drill” and instead let that false perception spread to India’s chagrin. The reality is that no such “BRICS naval drill” was held and none might ever be organized due to the group’s economic focus.

The charm of Star Trek as a concept is that the franchise offers a relatively positive vision of humanity’s future rather than the predictable doomsday scenarios that have saturated television for decades.  Setting aside the show’s strange ties to the RAND Corporation and Gene Rodenberry’s pandering to the United Nations, Star Trek essentially imagines a civilization in which the politics of today have become irrelevant and humans have moved on to the stars.

It would be fair to say that the show has always been “liberal”, but certainly never “woke.”  Wokeness requires that today’s far left ideologies remain central to every discussion.  Nothing is ever subtle.  Nothing is ever represented in allegory or symbolism – The audience must be bashed over the head with blatant propaganda 24/7.

One would think any Hollywood writer with an IQ above 80 would realize that they can’t use the politics and vernacular of 2026 activism in a show set over 1000 years in the future.  The problem is, most of Hollywood is operating on an IQ closer to tap water and their egos are so inflated they actually believe that their beliefs will be the same beliefs celebrated centuries from now.

Paramount’s latest foray into Star Trek, called “Starfleet Academy”, definitely does not boldly go where no man has gone before.  Rather, it goes where every other far-left vehicle has gone before, into the proverbial dumpster.  Audiences are not watching or buying, but Hollywood refuses to learn. 

The show is now being referred to as “Dawson’s Creek in space”, with audience reviews largely negative.  IMDB has the series at a 4.3 and the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is sitting at stinking 43%. 

The first episode of the series was released by Paramount for free on YouTube which led to an embarrassingly low live viewer count of only 1300 people.  The video has limped to 230,000 views in 11 days; a dismal showing for a major studio production costing up to $10 million per episode, and these numbers don’t even account for the people viewing the show simply to make fun of it.

Paramount+ does not release detailed streaming data (out of a sense of self preservation), but the information that’s available indicates the series is a bomb. 

Starfleet features many predictable woke themes, including an insufferable white liberal girl-boss (played by Holly Hunter) taking in a poor lost minority orphan and preaching to a perfect pie chart classroom full of DEI students about feelings and progressive values.  There are, of course, multiple LGBT themes (very rarely touched on in previous Star Trek series) including lots of fat lesbians and a gay Klingon.  Starfleet proudly showcases its obese cast as if Ozempic doesn’t exist in the 32nd Century. 

Another fixture of the series common in modern TV is the overt inclusion of annoying autistic people, as if autism is an identity to be celebrated rather than a growing health crisis that needs to be solved.  

Finally, the dialogue is cited by many fans as painfully adolescent; as if it was written by children for Reddit fan fiction, or generated by a bargain-bin AI program.  

Keep in mind, it’s now 2026 and woke entertainment has been dead for a few years – Long enough for Paramount to know better than to release this kind of series into the wild.  Perhaps they are gluttons for punishment, or perhaps the woke mafia in Hollywood simply refuses to accept defeat. 

If the goal is to force the public to consume woke propaganda then they have failed because no one is watching this show.  If the goal was to make money then they have failed because, again, no one is watching this show.  It is unfortunate, however, that yet another popular franchise once beloved by millions of fans has been relegated to the media dustbin.  It has been murdered by the woke hubris of low talent hacks motivated by ideology and activism rather than merit and imagination.      

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The postwar trading order is taking on an entirely new shape.

We can put brackets around the old one, like a tombstone: 1944–2025.

Having known some of the economists and statesmen who put together the old order, I’m in a position to explain what they had in mind and also what went wrong with it. What will replace it is still very much in flux but the outlines are being drawn daily.

Let’s go back in time to Oct. 29, 1929 when the stock market crashed. There was panic in the air and great confusion about what to do and what not to do. However, absent any serious action by government, the financial markets began to recover over six months, even as downward price pressure on commodities began to show.

Congress responded with a very large increase in tariffs. The reason was partially a holdover from what had happened two decades earlier. The income tax had replaced reliance on tariff revenue, and many members of Congress had their doubts about this change. Indeed, resentment against the income tax was growing. Reverting to tariffs and away from a drive to free trade seemed like a possibility.

Many economists at the time warned about this tariff act. The concern was that this would shatter relationships with foreign markets when they were most fragile. The entire financial and industrial world at the time, including many small farmers, were concerned that this action was ill-advised. There was no love for the income tax but bringing back the tariff was deeply unpopular within professional circles.

The day that President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was June 17, 1930. That very day, the stock market stopped its trajectory toward recovery and reversed. Over the course of the several weeks surrounding this act, financial markets fell fully 20 percent. Lacking another explanation, all eyes turned toward the tariff bill as the cause. A few years later, those tariffs started to fall.

This prompted two huge commitments on the part of the upper echelon of opinion makers, economists, and statesmen. They blamed the decline on the tariff, deploying the crude analytical tool “After this, therefore, because of this.” Therefore, first, they committed themselves to a long-term plan to restore the downward trajectory of tariffs. Second, they decided to remove discretion over tariffs from Congress and put it entirely in the hands of the executive.

That’s where matters stood as the Depression went on and on and economic conditions continued to decay. The New Deal did not work to end the economic crisis, despite what they say. Even as the nation marched forward to yet another war, the economic problems persisted.

After the war, the forces for freer trade and against tariffs got their chance. The Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 was all-encompassing: finance, monetary rules, and trade. The trade piece of this was to be the International Trade Organization but it was never ratified. Instead, we got the much milder General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As a separate agreement, a new version of the gold standard was revived. In the new iterations, nations would stop promising domestic convertibility of money. Rather, accounts between nations would be settled by physical shipments of gold.

This was called the gold-exchange standard. It established dollar supremacy for the main parts of the world economy. There was always a problem with the plan, one known from the start. Nations using the same monetary standard also need to coordinate fiscal and monetary policies, a scheme that was impossible to deploy among all sovereign nations. A second problem is that without such settlements, wages and business costs across nations could remain permanently divergent, giving exporting nations an advantage over importing ones. With the dollar as the world standard, the United States stood to lose all manufacturing advantages should the agreement ever break down.

By the late 1960s, with huge pressures from war and welfare piling up in all nations, the Bretton Woods agreement did indeed break down. The United States became a net importer of goods, meaning that its outward gold shipments would only increase, depleting stockpiles that secured the soundness of the currency. Financial managers, bankers, and economic planners were powerless to stop this simply because the international agreement required that international accounts be settled in gold.

President Richard Nixon (2nd-L) poses at the White House in Washington, with four government officials he named as his economic “Quadriad” on Jan. 23, 1969. (L-R) Chairman William M. Chesney Martin Jr., of the Federal Reserve Board; Nixon; Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy; Budget Director Robert Mayor and Chairman Paul McCracken of the Council of Economic Advisers. AP Photo/ Harvey Georges

Richard Nixon was the president who had to deal with the crisis once the gold outflows became near terminal. On Aug. 15, 1971, Nixon broke the whole international monetary order by suspending gold convertibility. The United States would no longer ship its gold in exchange for goods. This move shocked the world. Improvising, a new agreement was reached 18 months later. With the Smithsonian Agreement, a new global system of fiat money was born. There would be a market for currencies to trade against each other but with absolutely no tether to gold.

The dollar retained its global supremacy. Any economist schooled in both trade theory and monetary theory (fewer and fewer are) could have predicted what would happen. The U.S. industrial base would be gradually dismantled as nations discovered how their lesser-valued currencies gave them an advantage as exporters. The United States would retain its exporter status on natural resources but manufacturing was surely doomed.

It was also easily predictable that the United States would begin running trade deficits with essentially everyone because the market for dollars was international and settlement was no longer a necessary feature of the system. Japan and then China figured out the new metrics of international trade, and policymakers sat by and watched with astonishment how one American industry after another evaporated: pianos, watches, household electronics, apparel, textiles, steel, cars, tools, ships, and on it goes.

The math of the situation made this inevitable. International trade in the days of the gold standard tended to yield what David Ricardo called the Law of One Price. Gold settlement equilibrated prices and wages internationally in the same way they did domestically. With the Smithsonian Agreement, the disequilibration would be permanent and further worsening to the disadvantage of the country hosting the world’s most valuable and most-used currency.

It should have been obvious that such a situation was not sustainable. It was Donald Trump who called it out alongside his suggested remedy of old-world tariffs. The theory was that by adding an import tax, the manufacturing disadvantage of the dominant nation would be remedied—a prescription that had never been deployed before simply because these conditions have never before prevailed.

The architects of the Bretton Woods system are today likely rolling in their graves to see the global system of trading revert to walled gardens of tariffs, zones, and regional supply lines, alongside the inevitable tensions that such a system produces. But keep in mind: the system they set up could result in no other. By attempting to gamify a gold standard without the discipline that comes from domestic convertibility, they made the present world inevitable. That it took 70 years to get here makes it no less part of the logical and political trajectory any intelligent observer could have foreseen.

The fiat money system was the shepherd of the breakdown of world trade, in addition to fueling astonishing levels of leverage, debt, inflation, and financial irresponsibility all around. This sad story points to an eternal truth. You cannot ever trust governments with the production and management of money. When they are not abusing the system to serve themselves, they are mismanaging it to make it untrustworthy for everyone else to use.

A large mobile drilling rig known as “The Beast” tipped over Friday afternoon while being transported along a gravel road on Alaska’s North Slope, prompting an emergency response from local and company officials, according to Yahoo. 

The incident happened around 4:45 p.m. and involved the Doyon 26 rig, which was operating for ConocoPhillips. In a joint statement, ConocoPhillips Alaska and the North Slope Borough said all workers were accounted for and that no one suffered serious injuries.

ConocoPhillips later reported that eight people — including two who were on the rig and six early responders — were treated at nearby medical clinics and released.

After the rig overturned, a fire broke out, but officials said it was “contained and controlled” by Friday evening with emergency crews on site. Authorities also emphasized that “there was no damage to local community infrastructure and no impact to pipelines or fuel transportation.”

By Saturday afternoon, officials said the response had moved into “an environmental impact assessment and mitigation effort,” and traffic in the area had returned to normal.

🚨🇺🇸 NORTH AMERICA’S BIGGEST LAND RIG TIPS OVER IN ALASKA

Doyon 26 toppled while being moved on a gravel road near ConocoPhillips’ Alpine field yesterday. Small fire broke out, got put out fast.

At 9.5 million pounds and nicknamed “The Beast,” it’s the largest mobile land rig… pic.twitter.com/1SsRYBRQOk

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 24, 2026

Gov. Mike Dunleavy posted on social media that he had “been in contact with ConocoPhillips leadership” and that there “appears to be minimal damage to the environment” so far. He added that the company was “working on plans to recover the rig.”

The Doyon 26 rig, ordered by ConocoPhillips in 2016, is one of the largest mobile land rigs in North America. Weighing about 9.5 million pounds, it set a long-distance drilling record in Alaska in 2022 and played a key role in developing oil reserves in western North Slope fields. Its size allows it to cover roughly three times the area of traditional rigs.

The rig was constructed, owned, and operated by Doyon Drilling, a subsidiary of Doyon, an Alaska Native regional corporation.

ConocoPhillips said Saturday that Doyon Drilling “is leading response and recovery efforts under a Unified Command structure including representatives from the State of Alaska, the Federal Government and the North Slope Borough.”