Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Michael Kern via OilPrice.com,

Norway announced on Monday a tender for three project areas for floating offshore wind in a highly-anticipated first competition for this type of renewable energy in the Nordic country. 

The Norwegian Energy Ministry, which said earlier this year that it would bet on floating wind instead of fixed-bottom offshore wind, is now opening competition for project areas for offshore wind in Utsira Nord outside the coast of Rogaland off Norway’s southwest coast.  

The installed capacity in each project area cannot exceed 500 megawatts (MW), according to the competition tender, in which applications for projects will be received until September 15, 2025. 

Norway will subsidize the projects, for a total of $3.4 billion (35 billion Norwegian crowns) cap for state aid at Utsira Nord. 

Winning bids will have two years to mature their projects and participate in an auction for state aid as a direct grant in 2028 or 2029. 

The model for allocating project areas and government support – developed in dialogue with the offshore industry – is adapted to floating offshore wind and will contribute to both technology development and cost reductions for subsequent projects, Energy Minister Terje Aasland said in a statement.

Earlier this year, Norway scrapped plans to hold a fixed-bottom offshore wind tender at the Sørvest F offshore area in 2025, due to high costs to connect power to the grid. 

Instead of fixed-bottom offshore wind at Sørvest F, the Norwegian government will prioritize floating wind in the tenders with radial links to the grid, the energy ministry said in February. 

Norway’s floating wind tender comes as the global offshore wind industry continues to face significant headwinds relating to supply chain, regulatory, and macroeconomic developments.  

Orsted, the world’s biggest offshore wind project developer, earlier this month warned of a continued challenging environment for the industry. 

Due to higher costs and interest rates, the company announced it had decided to discontinue the development of the Hornsea 4 offshore wind project in the UK in its current form. 

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

As nationalist parties surge across Europe, the Spanish Socialist-led government is doubling down on its ideological agenda — plowing over €140 million of taxpayer money into a nationwide equality plan aimed, in part, at combating what it labels “far-right” narratives among young men.

The move comes just days after significant gains for right-wing forces across the continent, including in neighboring Portugal, where the populist Chega party enjoyed electoral success to compete with the two dominant legacy parties, and in Poland, where the presidential race saw a majority of voters supporting conservative candidates.

Yet while many European electorates turn toward nationalist, traditionalist platforms, Spain’s Ministry of Equality has announced the distribution of €142.5 million to the country’s autonomous communities as part of its 2025 Co-Responsible Plan.

As reported by El Debate, the funding, which is 75 percent covered by the central government and 25 percent by regional administrations, will finance projects aimed at enforcing gender parity, redefining family life, and promoting what the government terms “co-responsible masculinities.”

Speaking after the Council of Ministers approved the latest round of funding, Equality Minister Ana Redondo explained that the Spanish government’s focus is “social transformation.”

The timing of the announcement has raised eyebrows, especially given Redondo’s remarks about the growing popularity of nationalist parties among young men. “It’s a concern of this government, in Europe, and a concern of society as a whole,” she said, describing online platforms as an environment where “hate, denialism, and anti-equality messages” are allegedly radicalizing young people against parties like hers and into the hands of populists.

Redondo warned that pornography and social media were fuelling “a misogynistic, sexist conception that devalues women,” which she claimed undermines both equality and democracy. 

“All the policies of the Ministry are also aimed at facing this new reality,” she added.

Critics accuse the government of responding to rising disillusionment with its social agenda by funneling state money into programs that stigmatize dissenting views as extremism.

Read more here...

Authored by Jennifer Cowan via The Epoch Times,

FBI Director Kash Patel says the flow of fentanyl into the United States is coming from his country’s northern neighbour. He says China, Russia, and Iran are partnering with cartels to smuggle the drug into the United States via Vancouver.

Patel told Fox News that the Chinese Communist Party and the regimes in Russia and Iran are responsible for the influx of fentanyl pouring into his country. He said hostile regimes like Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow are collaborating with criminal organizations to smuggle fentanyl across the Canada-U.S. border following President Donald Trump’s sealing of America’s southern border with Mexico.

“They’re sailing around to Vancouver and coming in by air,” Patel said during an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo that aired on May 18. The FBI is focused on fentanyl coming across the border and calling on state and local law enforcement partners to address the issue, he said, also noting that the Canadian government needs to do more.

“You know who has to step in? It’s Canada, because they’re making it up there and shipping it down here,” he said.

“I don’t care about getting into this debate of making someone the 51st state or not, but they are our partner in the north. And say what you want about Mexico, but they helped us seal the southern border. The facts speak for themselves.”

With Vancouver being identified by the FBI as a problem area, B.C. Conservative MLA and public safety critic Elenore Sturko is calling on Premier David Eby’s NDP government to implement a provincial fentanyl strategy, appoint a bipartisan provincial drug task force on drug trafficking, and launch two public inquiries.

“The FBI has issued a warning to Canada to prepare in the event that we see an increase in the production of fentanyl and other deadly drugs as a result of American enforcement on their southern border with Mexico,” she said in a video posted on social media on May 18. “This shouldn’t come as a surprise to Canada, because we know that between 2023 and 2024, Canada saw an increase in the number of gangs and cartels and terrorist organizations doing business here in Canada, primarily in Ontario and in British Columbia.”

A 2024 report from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) indicated that participation of Canada-based organized crime groups in fentanyl-related activities has increased by 42 percent since 2019.

There are 235 criminal organizations engaged in fentanyl-related activities, with 35 of these groups participating in the export of domestically manufactured drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine, according to the report.

Sturko said immediate action should be taken by the B.C. government to deal with the fentanyl issue.

“It’s never been more important for us to take action on illicit drug production in British Columbia,” she said.

B.C.’s Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Garry Begg has said that his government is expanding police resources and “intelligence-led” enforcement to fight drug trafficking.

“Just this past October [2024,] RCMP federal drug policing dismantled the largest fentanyl and methamphetamine superlab in Canadian history, preventing over 95 million lethal doses of this drug flooding our streets. This is the kind of action that saves lives,” Begg said in the B.C. legislature in February. “We will continue to support enforcement crackdowns on drug traffickers and bad actors wherever they may be in British Columbia.”

Drug Concerns

The comments from Patel and Sturko come just days after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) released its 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment, which links Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs)—including international drug cartels and other violent criminal groups—to the fentanyl supply in the United States.

The law enforcement agency says Mexican cartels are capitalizing on the relative ease of the production of synthetic drugs compared with traditional plant-based drug production to generate immense revenues, primarily sourcing the necessary precursor chemicals from China and India. They maintain a “complex and robust” network—couriers, border tunnels, and stash houses—to smuggle all of the major illicit drugs into the United States via air and maritime cargo as well as overland traffic, the DEA said.

Canada was named in the DEA report as a destination point for shipments of precursor chemicals as well as a source of “growing concern” due to “elevated synthetic drug production” occurring there, particularly from sophisticated fentanyl “super laboratories” such as the type seized by the RCMP in B.C. in October 2024.

The production of fentanyl and its illicit smuggling across borders by Canadian criminal organizations has been a point of contention between the United States and Canada for several months.

Trump levied 25 percent tariffs on Canadian products not covered under the countries’ free-trade agreement USMCA, as well as a 10 percent levy on Canadian energy products, saying that Canada must do more on border security to curb the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs flowing into the United States.

White House senior adviser Peter Navarro has said the tariffs were implemented because “the president is fighting a drug war,” while dismissing accusations that his country was launching a trade war against Canada.

Canada has earmarked $1.5 billion to boost border security since Trump first threatened tariffs and, at his request, has also appointed a “fentanyl czar” to oversee a Canada–U.S. Joint Strike Force and named a list of fentanyl cartels as terrorists.

The Prime Minister’s Office said in January that less than 0.2 percent of fentanyl seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) comes from Canada.

According to the DEA’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment report, as of spring 2025, 22.7 kilograms of Canada-sourced fentanyl were seized at the Canada-U.S.border in 2024, compared to 9,354 kilograms seized at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Precursor Chemicals

But China analysts say the statistics on northern border drug seizures do not account for the Beijing-linked fentanyl precursor operations that are based in Canada.

“It doesn’t have to be that border services at the U.S. [bust] a big load of finished fentanyl,” author and investigative journalist Sam Cooper told The Epoch Times in a previous interview. “What is key here is that the precursors are coming into Canada and being shipped elsewhere, and the money laundering is being directed from Canada.”

Once these precursor chemicals are brought into the country, they predominantly find their way to superlabs located across Canada, especially in the Western provinces. “Superlabs” is the term used by the RCMP to describe the clandestine synthetic drug production facilities, which are “large-scale, highly organized labs generally tied to organized crime where drugs are produced for the purpose of wholesale trafficking.”

Federal investigators in British Columbia said they dismantled the “largest, most sophisticated” drug-production lab in Canadian history last fall, dealing what they described as a “decisive blow” to a major transnational organized crime group operating in the province.

Pacific Region RCMP Assistant Commissioner David Teboul said officers seized a combination of precursor chemicals and finished fentanyl products that could have amounted to 95.5 million potentially lethal doses of fentanyl.

Several million more “potentially lethal doses of fentanyl” were seized by the B.C. RCMP in March after investigators dismantled three synthetic drug labs in the province. All three labs have been tied to transnational organized crime groups based in British Columbia.

The police said it was not known where the drugs would have been shipped, but a June 2024 briefing note by Global Affairs Canada said that past seizures of Canada-sourced fentanyl have occurred in places like the United States and Australia.

The report identified China as the largest source country for illegal fentanyl and chemical precursors exported to Canada and North America since 2015.

Authored by Adam Sharp via DailyReckoning.com,

My dear friends, I think you are in very big trouble. Whether you believe it or not, YOU ARE AT WAR. And you may lose this war very soon together with all your affluence and freedoms unless you start defending yourselves.

–Yuri Bezmenov, 1984

In 1970, a Soviet KGB agent named Yuri Bezmenov defected to the West. His story is fascinating. Yuri shared key details on how USSR propaganda and subversion worked.

But first we need to discover why Yuri came over to the West…

Since the 1960s, Yuri had been stationed in India. His cover assignment was as a journalist for the Novosti Press Agency.

But his real job as a KGB agent was to influence policymakers, academics, and journalists. Yuri’s mission was to infect these targets with Marxist-Leninist ideology.

He planted stories about how benevolent and fair the USSR was. He charmed diplomats and politicians with vodka (and less tasteful means). He planted stories to discredit the United States.

He built relationships with influential Indians with a goal of shaping the narrative around the Soviet Union. He worked with students, recruiting future Indian leaders to study in Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

His job was to corrupt both individuals and institutions.

Eventually Yuri became disillusioned with his work. He realized that his efforts were actively harming the Indian people, whom he had become quite attached to.

So he decided to defect to the West. He disguised himself as an American hippie, and joined one of the wandering groups of backpackers which frequented India at the time.

Yuri slipped his Soviet handlers and made his way to the American embassy. They granted him asylum, and he was debriefed by the CIA and FBI.

Lessons in Ideological Subversion

Once in North America, Yuri Bezmenov changed his name to Tomas Schuman and worked as a producer for the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CGC). Ironically, part of his job was now to target Russian-speaking countries with Western views.

Yuri wrote books and lectured all over North America, warning that if the United States didn’t guard its values closely, they would be overwhelmed by the same type of social warfare he used in India.

Bezmenov described this process as “ideological subversion”. He claimed that 85% of the KGB counterintelligence budget was used to subvert countries. Less than 15% of KGB spending was on the cloak-and-dagger stuff we see in movies.

The USSR ran the same playbook in countless countries, and Yuri warned Americans that we were now the primary target.

He explained that ideological subversion generally has 4 stages.

• Demoralization (15-20 year process) – begin to undermine a society’s values, religion, and institutions.

• Destabilization (2-5 years) – encourage political polarization, unrest, inflation.

• Crisis (sudden but with lasting effects) – enacting change by taking advantage of a major destabilizing event such as war or economic crisis.

• Normalization (indefinite) – The now authoritarian and demoralized society becomes normal to citizens, and they barely notice its negative aspects.

Yuri said that it takes 15-20 years to demoralize a nation because that’s how long it takes to propagandize one generation with socialist ideals.

Bezmenov also said that once someone is subverted, it is extremely difficult to reverse the process. You can show them all the factual information you want, but it won’t change their views. They have become completely demoralized.

I would argue that America’s crisis stage was 9/11. It was a war combined with an economic collapse. Interestingly, this date also coincides with America’s declining religiosity. In 2000, 68% of Americans reported belonging to a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. Today it’s just 45%.

Source: Gallup

Americans of all religions have been losing faith. Yuri predicted this. Disrupting a country’s religious values is a key part of the subversion playbook. However, we’re beginning to see signs of a religious reawakening. Many of my kids’ friends have actually encouraged their parents to join a church, which is a positive sign.

If you can’t guess, we are still in the midst of the normalization stage. However, Americans do finally appear to be waking up.

The only thing that will wake fully demoralized people from their slumber is a “kick in the balls” as Yuri said. In other words, conditions have to get bad before the brainwashed population wakes up. We’re reaching that stage now and I suspect we’ll hit the tipping point over the next decade.

Set in Motion Long Ago

To be clear, modern Russia is not actively subverting America. This plan was set in motion many decades ago during the peak of the cold war with the USSR.

Subversion is a “set it and forget it” type of operation. Once you influence one generation, the effect is self-perpetuating (up to a point).

It’s a disturbingly brilliant form of warfare. Silent, effective, and cheap.

Fortunately, there is a way out of demoralization. Yuri encouraged Americans to vote conservative, and basically said the only way out is through strong right-wing leaders. We have that in Donald Trump, and his return to the Presidency is a good sign for the country.

The left tried everything to prevent the re-election of Donald J. Trump. Fake criminal charges, lawsuits, slander, and more. Yet Americans saw through the lies. This is encouraging.

Additionally, young Americans are increasingly conservative. The old demoralized political left is withering away. Their appeal amongst young voters has plummeted, and the DNC is rudderless.

Our country will get out of this demoralized phase in time. We’ve already made good progress over the past decade and this should continue.

For those who wish to learn more, here are my favorite interviews, books, and lectures featuring Yuri Bezmenov:

• Socialist Subversion Explained (Youtube)

• Full Interview with G. Edward Griffin (Youtube)

• A Love Letter to America (PDF)

• 1983 Lecture on Subversion (Youtube)

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

PHOENIX—While many retailers have struggled, business has thrived since Estefania Gasca and her husband, Cristobal Zepeda, established Thrift It Forward consignment store in Phoenix nearly two years ago.

Deborah Locker, an employee at Christian Family Care Thrift Store in Phoenix, Ariz., stands behind the sales counter on May 1, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Some days, the second-hand goods sell as quickly as they come in.

The couple has learned to appreciate the intrinsic value of old things, as second-hand resale and “do-it-yourself” repairs grow in popularity.

Gasca views it as a gradual paradigm shift—a new way of living based on old-school thinking.

“I feel like people are being more frugal. I feel that people are resorting more to buying second-hand rather than new,” said Gasca, standing behind the check-out counter on May 1.

“I feel like we haven’t experienced a [major] change just yet.”

COVID-19 revealed weaknesses in supply chains, resulting in empty store shelves and foreshadowing potentially worse situations due to global trade conflicts and import tariffs.

If it’s broken, second-hand tools can fix it as fine as new, Gasca said.

Used electronics, such as old gaming systems, computers, and digital devices, are among her best-selling products. They provide good quality at a significantly lower cost than large retail stores.

However, Gasca told The Epoch Times she is worried about the current unstable economy, which could lead to problems with pricing and availability, even for resellers like Thrift It Forward.

Deborah Locker, an employee at Christian Family Care Thrift Store in Phoenix, Ariz., goes over prices on May 1, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

“We buy all of our stuff. We don’t get any donations,” Gasca said. “I’m afraid people will start selling more expensively. It will affect our prices. The [profit] margins won’t be as good.”

That means that thrift, budget, and consignment stores will have to start selling inventory at higher prices, undermining the purpose of buying second-hand items.

“We want to push reasonable prices because we know the economy is not as good,” Gasca said.

However, “we don’t want to raise our prices,” and there are indications that more challenging times may lie ahead.

If there’s a silver lining, Gasca said, Americans are becoming less wasteful and more practical with their personal belongings.

Hand-Me-Down World

Gasca said the country should be more self-sustainable. “We are a big throw-away society.”

“I feel a lot of people are coming in to buy [second-hand] as opposed to buying brand new, trying to keep their costs down,” she said.

“Automotive mechanics come to see us. We focus heavily on tools because there are a lot of fix-it-yourself people. Things go [fast].”

A sign shows assorted clothing marked at $5 at the Christian Family Care Thrift Store in Phoenix, Ariz., on May 1, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

According to research by Capital One Shopping, between 16 percent and 18 percent of Americans shop at thrift stores annually, visiting more than 25,000 resale, consignment, and nonprofit resale shops across the United States.

Of these consumers, 93 percent primarily shop online, with bargain hunters spending an average of $1,760 a year on second-hand items.

In 2023, the U.S. second-hand market generated $53 billion in revenue, projected to grow to $73 billion by 2028, according to Capital One’s research.

During this period, the clothing resale sector has grown 15 times faster than the overall retail apparel industry and should continue expanding at an annual rate of 17 percent through 2028.

The most commonly thrifted items include clothing (67 percent), books (60 percent), furniture (49 percent), shoes (36 percent), and toys (29 percent).

‘Planned Resilience’

At the Christian Family Care Thrift Store in Phoenix, volunteer cashier Deborah Locker has noticed an increasing interest in recycling old items, commonly known as “thrifting.”

She sees it as a logical progression in a throw-away society, and people are often surprised by the quality of second-hand items.

“We got a new Prada purse yesterday,” which usually retails for hundreds of dollars, and now is selling at a fraction of the cost, Locker told The Epoch Times.

Estefania Gasca, co-owner of Thrift It Forward consignment store in Phoenix, Ariz., adjusts items on a shelf on May 1, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

With other items, they will say, “What a bargain! It would have cost me $60, but I got it for $20.”

“I’ve seen more information on thrifting on the internet lately,” Locker said. “They’re in my news feeds.”

As global trade encounters increasing disruptions, Locker envisions a domestic economy focused less on planned obsolescence and more on planned resilience.

Locker said she tries to be a good steward of the world’s resources, not a “throw-away” person.

Thrifting is one way of expressing that conviction.

It often involves do-it-yourself repairs, and Marlina Kessler, co-owner of Bernina Connection in Phoenix, believes that knowing how to sew and mend clothes is an essential skill for the 21st century.

The sewing shop offers classes specializing in Bernina sewing machines, regarded as the Mercedes-Benz of the industry, along with fabrics and quilting supplies.

At the top of the sewing machine sales line is the B735 computerized patchwork edition, which sells for around $8,000.

“It’s amazing. I tell people it’s like a CNC machine that sews instead of cuts [metal],” Kessler said.

Kessler is primarily a garment “sewist” rather than a traditional quilter.

When she purchased the shop, established in 2002, she leaned more toward fabric sales and garment repair.

With rising prices and a renewed interest in extending the lifespan of clothing, Kessler believes that “fast fashion” is declining.

Fast fashion refers to the rapid and inexpensive production of trendy clothing that saturates the market. This phenomenon goes hand in hand with a culture of disposability.

Kessler said that this is where sewing and mending skills truly shine.

“We do a lot of classes. I’ve got a 23-year-old son, and he is much more aware than I ever was at that age about our environment, things that are just disposable,” Kessler said.

“I think the newer generation is placing much more value in sustainable things, creating clothing, and getting good products.”

New Life From Old Clothes

Purchasing second-hand items gives new life to old fabrics and reduces the cost of alterations, Kessler said.

“These bundles here are made from vintage quilts,” she said, pointing to a set of fabrics.

“And people will use that for what they call visible mending. They‘ll make their patches. Sometimes, they’ll stitch and elaborate, making them look cute.”

Currently, students in the Bernina Connections sewing classes are learning how to “upcycle,” which involves creatively reusing fabrics.

At the same time, Kessler knows that many of her suppliers are worried about import tariffs and the potential increase in wholesale prices.

“Our machines are going up in price across the board. We’re going to try to absorb as much of it so that we don’t see that [passed on] to the consumer,” Kessler told The Epoch Times.

When it comes to clothing, Kessler is practical and thinks long-term.

Why spend $100 on a new pair of fashion slacks or denim jeans when you can fix the ones you have for much less?

Why choose a shirt that lasts only a couple of years when you can repair one and make it last a decade or more?

Kessler said there’s pride in mending and creating clothing and value in keeping things longer.

Buying new items means spending a lot of money in some cases, constantly. And in the garment industry, there are certain immutable realities.

One is, “You’re always going to need to take up or let out your slacks,” Kessler said.

“You’re always going to need to shorten tops. It used to be so easy to say, ‘Oh, I’ve got a hole in my jeans, I’ll just go and buy a new pair.’

“Now, that option is more difficult. So we do classes on how to patch them up.”

For thrift store customer Sara Stafford of Phoenix, it’s all about product longevity and finding treasures “wherever you are.”

She is not very concerned about import tariffs at the moment.

“I think it’s going to build back up soon, especially with the small businesses,” Stafford said.

“And if we give back to our small businesses, it will be booming again.”

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Every now and then John Stewart says something that undeniably hits the nail on the head, and he’s done it again while commenting on the renewed Biden cognitive decline and cancer saga.

In a Daily Show segment Stewart said of the cancer diagnosis “Maybe it is another cover-up. I don’t f***ing know. If they came out and said, yeah, Biden knew about it five years ago, I wouldn’t be shocked.”

He continued, “If they came out and said Biden found out on Friday, I wouldn’t be shocked. And I understand the excitement over an insidious Democratic cover-up about Joe Biden’s mental decline. The thing is, though, it was a terrible cover-up.”

“Because we all f***ing knew. All of us knew. There was no cover-up.”

He’s right.

Everyone with eyes and half a brain knew Biden was out of it and that his entire presidency was fake and scripted.

Stewart continued, “Poll after poll showed vast majorities of the public thought Biden was too old and too out of it to run again.”

“And that’s what’s so hilarious about politicians,” he further urged, emphasising “The cover-up doesn’t work when everyone knows you’re lying… the tell is when you’re so over the top about what you don’t want to tell the truth about.”

Stewart also absolutely seared CNN grifter Jake Tapper for suddenly developing a conscience and desire to report the truth now he has written it down in a book he wants the public to buy.

“How fucking weird it is that the news is selling you a book about news they should’ve told you was news a year ago … for free,” Stewart brayed.

* * *

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

Authored by Gary Anderson via RealClearDefense,

I recently received a call from an old Marine Corps acquaintance who now works for the Corps as a contractor. He has been heavily involved in the controversial Force Design (FD) project begun by former commandant, General David Berger, and continued by his successor General Eric Smith. FD has caused an intellectual civil war within the Corps that has pitted the current senior leadership against many retired marines as well as a growing underground resistance in the active ranks.

I have been a particularly virulent critic of FD for six years and have gone so far as to recommend replacing General Smith with a commandant more open to an approach which would head the Corps back to becoming a balanced world-wide force in readiness rather than being a China-centric force as directed under FD.

I was asked what actions on the part of the current leadership would cause people like me to be less antagonistic toward General Smith and FD.

I started off by telling him that I don't presume to speak for the other people who think that FD is a terrible idea, including every living former commandant, with the exception of Gen Berger. Every living USMC Medal of Honor winner, most of the former Marine Corps combatant commanders, and the editor of the alternative Marine Corps publication "Compass Points".

However, I did outline three steps that would shut me up. All of them are designed to give future commandants some latitude to determine the future of the Corps. Right now, whoever the next commandant is, he will have one option, and that is FD.

First, conduct a real operational and tactical field test of FD. Most critics argue that it is a flawed concept at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war. Its operational assumption is that small groups of Marines known as Stand-in-Forces (SIF) can operate from the hundreds of isolated islets and shoals in China’s first island chain, firing sub-sonic NEMSIS anti-ship missiles at Chinese naval combatants. The theory is that they will "shoot and scoot" from islet to islet before the Chinese can develop a firing solution. They would theoretically be transported by light, yet to be built, Navy Medium Landing Ships (LSM).

Most of the critics of FD, myself among them, believe that the SIF will not be able to scoot fast enough to avoid Chinese detection and destruction. Although the personnel numbers are relatively small, the missiles, launchers, and radars are bulky and not easily transported. However, I for one, am willing to be proved wrong.

After six long years, the Marine Corps has exactly one SIF deployed to the Philippines. It could be declared an experimental unit and tested in deployment/employment exercises with the U.S. Navy playing the Chinese Red Team.

However, since the transport LSMs do not yet exist, the marines would have to borrow Army ships with similar capabilities for the experimental exercises. These exercises should be conducted and umpired by the Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command. Being the supported Combatant Commander, If he determines that the concept is as useless as many retired and current marines think it is, the concept can be scrapped before it does any more damage to the Corps in particular and national defense in general.

The second step is a logical follow-on to the first. The commandant should form two more experimental units, one of tanks and one of heavy engineers to include an assault bridging capability. If FD shows itself to be the fraud that I think it is, the next commandant will at least have something to build from.

The Army is looking at some lighter and more transportable tank and engineer capabilities that the Marine Corps discarded to afford the missiles and radars to support the SIFs for FD implementation. At least the new commandant would have something in the way of expertise with which to rebuild a semi-castrated Marine Corps.

A final step would be to insist that the Navy commit to a thirty-eight big deck amphibious ship fleet. When General Berger released the Navy from that requirement the then CNO promised him that the Navy could maintain the capability to maintain three Marine Expeditionary Units afloat world-wide 24/7.

The combination of incompetence and negligence the Navy has fallen far short of that promise. Incredibly, the other living commandants recently allowed Berger to sign on to a letter urging the Navy to expand its amphibious fleet. That is akin to letting the fox complain about hen house security.

I warned my former colleague that my recommendations would probably not be well received at Headquarters Marine Corps or at Quantico and that the current Marine Corps leadership has an unfortunate reputation for shooting the messenger. However, if General Smith wants to quiet the insurgents in the family, those recommendations would be a good place to start. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd – give me three steps General – and you won't hear from me no more. 

Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who also acted as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He is the author of Beyond Mahan; a Naval Strategy for the 21st Century.

China's largest remaining drum tower partially collapsed on Monday, and the entire incident was captured on camera. 

NEW: The roof of a 650-year-old drum tower in Anhui, China, collapses.

The incident happened at the Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China. Officials have since launched an investigation.

The structure was first built in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty.

Part of the building was… pic.twitter.com/5Py0YJOGak

The video above shows hundreds of roof tiles sliding off the historic Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China at the start of the week. Local media reports no injuries.  

"The tile falling lasted for a minute or two," one eyewitness told the state newspaper Yangcheng Evening News. 

Tiles fell from the ancient Drum Tower in Fengyang, #Anhui Province, on May 19. The tower, originally built in 1375 and rebuilt in 1995, had been under renovation since late 2023. Local authorities are investigating the incident. #architecture #China pic.twitter.com/h5U2ABXZLn

Another witness told state media outlet The Beijing News that "no one was in the square and no one was injured" at the time of the incident. 

Located in Anhui province, the drum tower was constructed in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty, with a reconstruction phase in 1995 after it was destroyed in 1853.

China's local culture and tourism bureau reported no casualties and said the "situation is under investigation."

Authored by Kenneth Tashjy via The Epoch Times,

Enough already. It is time for colleges and universities to get tough on student protesters who hide behind masks while engaging in violent or unlawful campus demonstrations.

Let’s be clear: The First Amendment protects the right of students at public colleges to engage in peaceful protest. 

If a student wants to wear a mask or face covering during a peaceful demonstration—for health reasons, fear of retaliation, or as a form of political expression—they generally have the right to do so.

But that right is not absolute.

When protests cross the line into violence, vandalism, or intimidation—as we have seen recently at institutions such as the University of Washington, Columbia University, and Brooklyn College—masks become tools of concealment, not expression.

In those moments, the anonymity they provide fosters a sense of impunity, which encourages students to act more recklessly and violently, creating a dangerous campus environment.

Masked protest in this context is not about health or symbolic speech. It is about avoiding accountability while breaking institutional rules or laws. When student actions disrupt the learning environment or threaten campus safety, their conduct falls well outside First Amendment protections.

Efforts to ban masks during protests have produced mixed legal results. Some courts have upheld mask bans, emphasizing public safety and law enforcement interests. Others have sided with protesters who argue that these bans infringe upon free speech rights or unfairly impact individuals with disabilities.

To navigate this legal minefield, institutions should move away from blanket mask bans and instead adopt targeted disciplinary measures. Specifically, schools should impose stricter penalties on students who wear masks while participating in protests that violate campus policies or involve unlawful activity.

In these circumstances, claims of disability rights or free speech are less likely to prevail when the masked activity is linked to disruptive, threatening, or illegal conduct.

Traditionally, student discipline in higher education follows a progressive model—starting with warnings or educational interventions and escalating for repeat or serious violations. This structure reflects the belief that student discipline is an opportunity for ethical development and personal growth.

But there are exceptions. And this should be one of them.

When a student chooses to wear a mask during a protest that violates institutional rules or the law, they should be placed in the disciplinary “express lane” and immediately face the most serious disciplinary consequences available to an institution—suspension or expulsion.

As a legal consultant and former general counsel with over two decades of experience advising colleges and universities, I have recommended that my clients adopt the following enhanced disciplinary sanction:

“Any student who participates in a campus protest in violation of university policies or applicable law while wearing a mask or other face covering shall not receive progressive discipline but shall instead be subject to immediate suspension for no less than one (1) academic year, or permanent expulsion, in accordance with the institution’s disciplinary procedures.”

This policy makes a clear and necessary distinction. Students who wear a mask or other face covering while engaging in a peaceful protest are protected; those who mask up to shield their identity while exploiting their student status to spread chaos and wreak havoc on their campus will be subject to immediate and severe disciplinary action.

Anonymity in these circumstances is not about protection—it is about avoiding consequences.

Adopting this approach is not about limiting speech or disability protections. Rather, it is intended to preserve the integrity, safety, and educational mission of higher education.

Students must be free to express their views, but when that expression crosses the line into lawlessness and masked misconduct, institutions must respond decisively.

By instituting enhanced disciplinary measures for masked rule-breakers, colleges will send a clear message: Peaceful protest is protected; chaos in disguise is not.

The time to draw that line is now.

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

Authored by Gary Abernathy via RealClearEnergy,

When our nation’s founders collaborated on a constitution to outline the country’s guiding principles and establish the structure of a new government, there were concerns that the original document allowed for federal government overreach and did not go far enough to guarantee individual liberties.

To address those concerns, James Madison wrote amendments that were strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason. Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.

Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.

Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.

Thankfully, the Trump administration is reversing as many of the previous regime’s energy mandates as can be accomplished by executive fiat. But what’s to prevent a future tyrant who wins the presidency from returning to the oppressive and coercive energy dictates that the Biden administration adopted?

It is not hyperbole to suggest that access to affordable and reliable energy is nothing less than a matter of life and death for most Americans.

Imagine the United States without reliable and affordable energy. An idle furnace that can’t heat a home in the dead of winter. A powerless refrigerator that can’t keep food safely cooled or frozen. Life-sustaining medical devices that won’t function. Stores that can’t open because the power has gone out. Goods that can’t be transported because fuel is too costly or cannot be accessed. Crops that cannot be harvested because farmers cannot afford or obtain the gasoline and diesel necessary to operate their trucks, tractors and combines. The list goes on.

Americans should never have to fear that dependable and affordable energy is subject to the whims of a fickle government swaying back and forth like a thin reed on a windy day. What resources are approved this year? What appliances can I confidently purchase? Will my electric bills skyrocket to satisfy the mandates and penalties imposed by a government enslaved to the demands of the climate cult?

One blueprint designed to codify energy certainty for all Americans is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), a model for legislation quickly gaining traction that balances affordability and accessibility with responsible environmental objectives.

The ARC-ES would protect affordable and reliable energy by ensuring that:

• Fuel sources must be produced within the United States, and infrastructure should be developed domestically to minimize reliance on foreign countries.
• “Affordable energy” is defined as having a stable and predictable cost with substantial savings compared to other resources, being reliably available 24/7, and including energy generated by hydrocarbon as a resource.
• “Reliable energy” is defined as energy that is dependable even during peak demand, can ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour (stabilizing the electric grid), and can bolster and back up renewable energy sources during periods when those sources are experiencing low availability.
• “Green energy” is defined as any energy in which emissions are equivalent to the standard set by pipeline-quality natural gas, releases reduced air pollutants, and includes energy generated by nuclear reactors and natural gas

Further, the ARC-ES would require that any state and federal funding for “green” or “clean” energy will be based on the updated and more inclusive definitions of those terms.

Nearly 250 years ago, before we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we boldly declared our independence as a nation, proclaiming our insistence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, Americans today can sign America’s Declaration of Energy Independence, asserting that neither life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can be truly realized without affordable, clean and abundant energy.

In 1789, when Madison introduced the original amendments, many argued that they weren’t necessary, and that the Constitution, as written, sufficiently restrained the government from employing powers not specifically enumerated within its framework. But others argued – correctly as it turned out – that it was necessary to spell out certain aspects of our freedoms protected from federal interference in order to eliminate any ambiguity.

Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

Via American Greatness,

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sparked a mass walkout of NIH employees after suggesting that COVID-19 may have originated from a Wuhan lab and that NIH helped fund it.

During a staff town hall meeting on Monday, Bhattacharya told NIH employees, “It’s possible that the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings, and it’s also possible that the NIH partly sponsored that research.”

That comment prompted dozens of NIH employees to walk out of the meeting.

NEW: NIH Director @DrJBhattacharya sparks mass walkout from NIH employees after suggesting COVID-19 may have originated from the Wuhan lab — and that NIH helped fund it.

"It's possible that the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings, and it's also possible… pic.twitter.com/r74gv0iqcw

As the NIH employees, some wearing masks, stormed out of the meeting, Bhattacharya called after them, “Nice to have free speech. You’re welcome, you guys.”

Bhattacharya told the remaining employees, “If it’s true that we sponsored research that caused the pandemic — and if you look at polls of the American people, that’s what most people believe, and I’ve looked at the scientific evidence and I believe it — [then] what we have to do is make sure that we don’t engage in research that is any risk…to human populations.”

The U.S. has faced growing scrutiny for the NIH’s participation in controversial virus manipulation experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where the FBI and CIA both believe the COVID-19 virus originated.

As the new director of NIH, Bhattacharya has also faced a $2.7 billion cut in funding from the federal government as well as the layoffs of more than 1,200 staff members.

Bhattacharya has argued that the cuts are necessary since, “There’s been a line of research supported by the NIH that I don’t actually fundamentally believe is scientific and that is ideological in nature.”

The new NIH director became well known during the pandemic for his support of the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for ending lockdowns for all but the most vulnerable.

Via SchiffGold.com,

Last week, Peter joined Glenn Diesen for an interview on the post-trade deal economy. Peter takes on the myths surrounding Trump’s trade war with China, the real impact of tariffs on Americans, and where he sees the dollar heading as the world’s reserve currency. He explains why the perceived victories of protectionist trade policy are little more than marketing stunts, and warns about the risks of continued US borrowing and a potential dollar crisis.

Peter opens with his signature candor, cutting through the narratives around Trump’s approach to China and the broader trade war. He stresses that Americans have been misled about the true causes of trade deficits and the effectiveness of tariffs:

Well, first of all, Trump declared war and then surrendered and called it a victory. You know, the victory is that he saved us from ourselves, although it’s not a complete save. I don’t think we’re out of the woods. But, you know, Trump never had the cards to win the war in the first place. In the first place, I think he assessed the situation backwards. The whole trade war was misguided anyway, because the trade deficits are not the result of foreigners cheating us or ripping us off or bad trade deals.

He explains how the president’s business acumen translated into a branding exercise in the White House, rather than substantive reform:

I know he’s a great promoter. He’s a great marketer. That I’ll give him. I mean, he won the White House twice, right, so he sold the country on himself as the product. So he did a great job. And, you know, he’s a showman. He had The Apprentice, he had his hotels, his golf courses, you know, some of his other businesses. It’s all about branding, right? He brands the Trump brand. He puts the big Trump on everything, right?… I was curious – what are the lessons for China? Was anything achieved?

Dispelling a common misconception, Peter clearly lays out the economic reality of tariffs—contrary to claims made by several politicians, these taxes are paid by Americans, not by foreign exporters:

But again, the tariffs weren’t even on China. They were an inconvenience for Chinese companies. But the tariffs were on Americans. You know, the Chinese tariffs were on the Chinese. I mean, Trump can only tax Americans, and tariffs are an indirect tax that consumers pay when they buy products that are subject to the tariff. The actual tariff is paid by the importer, which is an American company. Now, if you import directly, right, if you decide to go on some Chinese site and order a product and they mail it directly to you, then, you know, when the package comes through customs, they add the tariff and you’ve got to pay it. The Chinese don’t pay it. The tariffs are paid by Americans. So it’s always been a lie. I pointed that out during the campaign.

When it comes to reducing trade deficits, Peter argues that policy makers want to have their cake and eat it too— pushing for a strong dollar and lower trade deficits at the same time, despite the fact that these aims are fundamentally at odds:

They want both. But of course, you can’t have both. The reason our trade deficits are so big is because the dollar is so overvalued. And so the only real way to make a big dent in the trade deficit is to have a much weaker dollar. I mean, that’ll do it. That’ll just make imports so expensive that Americans won’t be able to afford them, and so the imports will come down. And it will make our stuff a lot cheaper, whatever we got, and so we’ll export more of it. So a weaker dollar would do the trick, but of course the weaker dollar means much higher inflation in the US, which is why they don’t want a weak dollar. 

Wrapping up, Peter warns that the current trajectory is unsustainable. With continued deficits, reliance on foreign creditors, and a dollar whose status as the world’s reserve currency is under threat, a reckoning is likely around the corner:

No, I think we’re going to have a dollar crisis and a sovereign debt crisis. I mean, that’s just how it’s going to end. We’re going to keep on living beyond our means until we can’t do it anymore. We’re going to keep on borrowing until the lenders stop lending to us. And I think we’re already on that path. The question is, how long does it take to really completely de-dollarize, to kind of sever this lifeline that we have? I don’t know. But, I mean, the process has started. And at some point, the pace is going to accelerate.  

For more of Peter’s analysis on the US-China tariff deal, check out Peter’s latest podcast!