Large emerging markets are forecast to play a greater role in powering global economic growth in the future, driven by demographic shifts and a growing consumer class.

At the same time, many smaller nations are projected to see their economies grow at double the global average over the next five years due to rich natural resource deposits among other factors. That said, elevated debt levels do present risks to future economic activity.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows the emerging markets with the fastest projected growth through to 2029, based on data from the International Monetary Fund’s 2024 World Economic Outlook.

Top 10 Emerging Markets

Here are the fastest-growing emerging economies, based on real GDP compound annual growth rate (CAGR) forecasts over the period of 2024-2029:

As South America’s third-smallest nation by land area, Guyana is projected to be the world’s fastest growing economy from now to 2029.

This is thanks to a significant discovery of oil deposits in 2015 by ExxonMobil, which has propelled the country’s economy to grow by fourfold over the last five years alone. By 2028, the nation of just 800,000 people is projected to have the highest crude oil production per capita, outpacing Kuwait for the first time.

Bangladesh, where 85% of exports are driven by the textiles industry, is forecast to see the strongest growth in Asia. In fact, over the last 30 years, the country of 170 million people has not had a single year of negative growth.

In eighth place overall is India, projected to achieve a 6.5% CAGR in real GDP through to 2029. This growth is forecast to be fueled by population trends, public investment, and strong consumer demand.

Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,

At $1.5 million per job, this new incentive package from the state is at least 15 times the norm. For this much money, the state could have just handed out a million bucks to 827 people, instead of creating 550 jobs.

Gov. JB Pritzker announced Thursday that the State of Illinois will provide an $827 million incentive package for Rivian to invest $1.5 billion to expand its electric vehicle factory in Normal, Illinois. The expansion is expected to create at least 550 full-time jobs within the next five years, and will build Rivian’s next model EV, the R2. Rivian initially got $49.5 million under Gov. Bruce Rauner in 2017 to create 1,000 jobs at the same location.

The new deal gives $1.5 million per job created, which is astronomical in the world of location incentives. Estimated average location incentives paid by state and local governments around the nation range from $13,000 to $84,000 per job, though sometimes go as high as $100,000 per job for capital intensive projects. Even using that high end, Rivian’s package will be 15 times what’s typical.

Moreover, Rivian is on shaky wheels, along with the rest of the U.S. EV industry. Rivian loses over $43,000 for every vehicle it sells and has had two rounds of layoffs this year. The decision to move its R2 production to Illinois is a further reflection of the company’s need to preserve cash. R2 production was initially planned for a new $5 billion plant in Georgia, heavily subsidized by the state. But Rivian concluded that moving production to the existing Illinois facility would save cash.

Its stock price has consequently been hammered. It reached a high of $172 per share in 2021 but now trades at less than $10 per share.

Rivian is not alone. As a CNBC headline recently declared, “EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans.” Since then, the news is no better. Ford announced last week that it is losing a stunning $132,000 per vehicle. Hertz announced last week a second round of sales of its EV fleet due to heavy maintenance and depreciation costs. For the first quarter of this year, EV sales continued to slow and the share of EV sales for all autos actually decreased. While total EV sales are still up a bit from last year, the growth rate is not nearly enough to put EV makers on a path to profitability.

EV makers pin their hopes on less expensive models that they promise soon, and on more public charging stations, into which Illinois last month announced it would invest an additional $50 million. Rivian hopes its new R2 will be among the new, lower priced models. However, its starting price is expected to be about $45,000 and it won’t come out until the first half of 2026.

Regarding the astronomical incentive package to be paid by Illinois, in fairness, it should be noted that most of it is in the form of tax credits to be granted over the next 30 years. They are available on condition that the company retain 6,000 already existing jobs. However, the fact remains that just 550 new jobs are to be created, and incentive packages like this are not supposed to be payoffs for merely standing still. And a less charitable way to look at it would be that future taxpayers will be on the hook for the high cost of the incentive package — if it works.

Aside from thinking that the incentive package is too low, my first instinct was to ask, “Where’s the warrant coverage.” That is, I know from working as a lawyer and then as an investor, often with troubled companies, that it’s not unusual to make risky bets. However, it’s routine for the investor to get part of the upside if the venture succeeds, usually in the form of stock or warrants (basically, options) on stock that pay off nicely if things turn around. The federal government, for example, got stock and warrants as part of the deal for its 2010 bailout of the auto industry.

This new Rivian deal has nothing like that. Since the job creation per dollar is minimal, it’s just not worth the price.

When it comes to identifiable differences in female vs male psychology as well as differences in brain biology, as a general rule and as most studies show women focus far more on feelings than men do.  Specifically, women tend to be more sensitive to negative emotions and negative imagery.  Obviously, men and women are not the same, never have been the same and never will be the same, and this includes how they process information and come to conclusions.

This is the reason why many of women’s perceptions on life tend to bewilder men; most women operate from a place of emotion and assumption (which they call “intuition”) and come to conclusions based on feelings rather than facts.  Intuition can be a powerful tool for identifying threats before they occur, and when women get it right they might appear to be clairvoyant. However, when they get it wrong they get it really wrong and the result is foolishness and disaster.

How one feels is not necessarily what is true. 

Enter feminism, a movement which claims to be fighting for women’s “equality” but is actually fighting for women’s privilege.  Legal equality for the sexes was achieved long ago and one would think that feminism would have faded away with its mission accomplished.  This has not been the case.  Instead, feminists move the goalposts and the notion of equality has given way to desires for power.  But unlike most political movements feminism does not chase power by applying direct force (in most cases).  Rather, feminists chase power by magnifying and exaggerating their own weaknesses and victimhood. 

In other words, they gain power by demanding reparations for perceived injustices.  The more they feel oppressed or afraid or abused the more power society supposedly owes them.  Feminism exploits the natural tendency of women to hyperfocus on negative emotions and promotes feelings over logic.  If women feel like victims, that means they are victims.

This is where the “Man vs. Bear” narrative comes from.  A bizarre thought experiment in which random women are asked if they were lost in the woods, would they rather run into a man or a bear?  The question has created considerable controversy across social media, with a majority of women apparently choosing a bear over a man.

On the surface we can dismiss the thought experiment with the simple reality that women encounter men daily while most have never dealt with or seen a real bear in the wild in their entire lives.  If they did run into a bear all of them would be screaming for help from the nearest man available to protect them.

It’s perhaps the dumbest feminist mind-game so far in this respect.  Life is not a Disney movie with friendly talking animals and there’s a reason why men make up the vast majority of solo hunters – Female hunters don’t want to go into the woods by themselves because they know predators like bears represent great potential injury or death.  

To be fair, plenty of women have laughed off the question as ridiculous and pointed out the reality that with a man there’s a good chance they will be helped out of the woods.  With a bear there’s no chance.  But this hasn’t stopped feminists from pretending as if the pro-bear response represents some kind of revelation about men and masculinity. 

The issue has also revealed once again that math is the kryptonite of woke activists and critical thinking is their enemy.  

Citing the predominance of men in crime stats, feminists argue that it’s far more likely for a man to harm a woman than a bear to harm a woman.  In fact, bear encounters are far more rare than encounters with men, and the percentage of men that commit violent crimes is tiny compared to the total male population in western countries.

By feminist logic, men are also actually safer with bears than with women.  In 2021, 1,078 men were killed by women in the U.S. There have only been 180 fatal human/bear conflicts in North America since 1784.  Again, this is about proximity.

In 2019, there were 283,467 violent crimes committed by men in the US, out of 161 million men.  That’s around 0.1% of the male population.  The chances of a woman running into a violent man in the woods in this fantasy scenario is negligible.  Feelings are being elevated over facts. 

Most feminist narratives lean heavily on the fear dynamic.  If women feel afraid of men then men and society must take them seriously and assuage those fears; the fears fabricated in women’s minds are suddenly everyone’s problem.  In the past society used to laugh off female melodrama as an unfortunate bi-product of their nature; how can society fix a problem that doesn’t exist in the tangible world?  But as the male commentator in the first video argues, it doesn’t matter if women are actually in danger from men, it only matters that they believe they are in danger.

But who created that fear in women?  Was it men?  Or, was it feminist propaganda?  The numbers suggest feminism has rotted women’s minds with fear.   

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,

You may have heard of the “Overton window.”

The concept of the Overton window caught on in professional culture, particularly those seeking to nudge public opinion, because it taps into a certain sense that we all know is there.

There are things you can say and things you cannot say, not because there are speech controls (though there are) but because holding certain views makes you anathema and dismissable. This leads to less influence and effectiveness.

The Overton window is a way of mapping sayable opinions.

The goal of advocacy is to stay within the window while moving it just ever so much. For example, if you’re writing about monetary policy, you should say that the Fed should not immediately reduce rates for fear of igniting inflation.

You can really think that the Fed should be abolished but saying that is inconsistent with the demands of polite society. That’s only one example of a million.

To notice and comply with the Overton window is not the same as merely favoring incremental change over dramatic reform. There is not and should never be an issue with marginal change.

That’s not what’s at stake.

To be aware of the Overton window, and fit within it, means to curate your own advocacy. You should do so in a way that’s designed to comply with a structure of opinion that’s pre-existing as a kind of template we’re all given.

It means to craft a strategy specifically designed to game the system, which is said to operate according to acceptable and unacceptable opinionizing.

In every area of social, economic and political life, we find a form of compliance with strategic considerations seemingly dictated by this window. There’s no sense in spouting off opinions that offend or trigger people because they’ll just dismiss you as not credible.

But if you keep your eye on the window — as if you can know it, see it, manage it — you might succeed in expanding it a bit here and there and thereby achieve your goals eventually.

The mission here is always to let considerations of strategy run alongside — perhaps even ultimately prevail in the short run — over issues of principle and truth, all in the interest of being not merely right but also effective.

Everyone in the business of affecting public opinion does this, all in compliance with the perception of the existence of this window.

It’s how ideas move from unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible to popular to become policy.

The concept was named for Joseph Overton, who worked at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan. He found that it was useless in his work to advocate for positions that he could not recruit politicians to say from the legislative floor or on the campaign trail.

By crafting policy ideas that fit within the prevailing media and political culture, however, he saw some successes about which he and his team could brag to the donor base. A wise intellectual shepherd will manage this transition carefully from one stage to the next until victory and then take on a new issue.

The core intuition here is rather obvious. It probably achieves little in life to go around screaming some radical slogan about what all politicians should do if there is no practical means to achieve it and zero chance of it happening.

But writing well-thought-out position papers with citations backed by large books by Ivy League authors and pushing for changes on the margin that keep politicians out of trouble with the media might move the window slightly and eventually enough to make a difference.

Beyond that example, which surely does tap into some evidence in this or that case, how true is this analysis?

Read on for the answer.

Is the Overton Window Real?

First, the theory of the Overton window presumes a smooth connection between public opinion and political outcomes. During most of my life, that seemed to be the case or, at least, we imagined it to be the case. Today this is gravely in question.

Politicians do things daily and hourly that are opposed by their constituents — fund foreign aid and wars for example — but they do it anyway due to well-organized pressure groups that operate outside public awareness. That’s true many times over with the administrative and deep layers of the state.

In most countries, states and elites that run them operate without the consent of the governed. No one likes the surveillance and censorial state but they are growing regardless, and nothing about shifts in public opinion seem to make any difference.

It’s surely true that there comes a point when state managers pull back on their schemes for fear of public backlash but when that happens or where, or when and how, wholly depends on the circumstances of time and place.

Second, the Overton window presumes there’s something organic about the way the window is shaped and moves. That is probably not entirely true either. Revelations of our own time show just how involved are major state actors in media and tech, even to the point of dictating the structure and parameters of opinions held in the public, all in the interest of controlling the culture of belief in the population.

I had read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman when it came out in 1988 and found it compelling. It was entirely believable that deep ruling-class interests were more involved than we know about what we are supposed to think about foreign-policy matters and national emergencies, and, further, entirely plausible that major media outlets would reflect these views as a matter of seeking to fit in and ride the wave of change.

What I had not understood was just how far-reaching this effort to manufacture consent is in real life.

What illustrates this perfectly has been media and censorship over the pandemic years in which nearly all official channels of opinion have very strictly reflected and enforced the cranky views of a tiny elite. Honestly, how many actual people in the U.S. were behind the lockdowns policy in terms of theory and action? Probably fewer than 1,000. Probably closer to 100.

But thanks to the work of the Censorship Industrial Complex, an industry built of dozens of agencies and thousands of third-party cutouts including universities, we were led to believe that lockdowns and closures were just the way things are done. Vast amounts of the propaganda we endured was top down and wholly manufactured.

Third, the lockdown experience demonstrates that there is nothing necessarily slow and evolutionary about the movement of the window. In February 2020, mainstream public health was warning against travel restrictions, quarantines, business closures and the stigmatization of the sick. A mere 30 days later, all these policies became acceptable and even mandatory belief.

Not even Orwell imagined such a dramatic and sudden shift was possible!

The window didn’t just move. It dramatically shifted from one side of the room to the other, with all the top players against saying the right thing at the right time, and then finding themselves in the awkward position of having to publicly contradict what they had said only weeks earlier.

The excuse was that “the science changed” but that is completely untrue and an obvious cover for what was really just a craven attempt to chase what the powerful were saying and doing.

It was the same with the vaccine, which major media voices opposed so long as Trump was president and then favored once the election was declared for Biden. Are we really supposed to believe that this massive switch came about because of some mystical window shift or does the change have a more direct explanation?

Fourth, the entire model is wildly presumptuous. It is built by intuition, not data, of course. And it presumes that we can know the parameters of its existence and manage how it is gradually manipulated over time.

None of this is true. In the end, an agenda based on acting on this supposed window involves deferring to the intuitions of some manager who decides that this or that statement or agenda is “good optics” or “bad optics,” to deploy the fashionable language of our time.

The right response to all such claims is: You don’t know that. You are only pretending to know but you don’t actually know. What your seemingly perfect discernment of strategy is really about concerns your own personal taste for the fight, for controversy, for argument, and your willingness to stand up publicly for a principle you believe will very likely run counter to elite priorities. That’s perfectly fine, but don’t mask your taste for public engagement in the garb of fake management theory.

It’s precisely for this reason that so many intellectuals and institutions stayed completely silent during lockdowns when everyone was being treated so brutally by public health. Many people knew the truth — that everyone would get this bug, most would shake it off just fine and then it would become endemic — but were simply afraid to say it. Cite the Overton window all you want but what is really at issue is one’s willingness to exercise moral courage.

The relationship between public opinion, cultural feeling and state policy has always been complex, opaque and beyond the capacity of empirical methods to model. It’s for this reason that there is such a vast literature on social change.

We live in times in which most of what we thought we knew about the strategies for social and political change have been blown up. That’s simply because the normal world we knew only five years ago — or thought we knew — no longer exists. Everything is broken, including whatever imaginings we had about the existence of this Overton window.

What to do about it? I would suggest a simple answer.

Forget the model, which might be completely misconstrued in any case. Just say what is true, with sincerity, without malice, without convoluted hopes of manipulating others. It’s a time for truth, which earns trust.

Only that will blow the window wide open and finally demolish it forever.

Who is actually running the country?

The Biden campaign team has admitted that they are seeking to shorten his speeches, claiming that they are seeking “quality over quantity,” but leading many to presume it is because he can barely talk.

Modernity.news’ Steve Watson reports that Biden Deputy Campaign manager Quentin Fulks told MSBNC:

“Our campaign believes in quality over quantity. We believe that these touches, these smaller things that are getting to the point about what is going on in the stakes of this election are gonna be easier for the voters to tap into.”

NBC reports Biden’s handlers are “looking to shorten his speeches” to limit his public displays of cognitive decline.

A Biden campaign spokesman insists it’s about “quality over quantity.” pic.twitter.com/GreyaVbgN6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 4, 2024

The announcement led many to ask, how much shorter can his speeches get?

Is that..possible?

I suppose they can just have him show up, smile, crap his pants and leave.

— JD Sharp (@imjdsharp) May 4, 2024

Prediction: biden’s speeches will be two words within the next month….. Hi. Bye.

— I put my faith in God, not the government (@DontBidenMe) May 4, 2024

At the moment he can barely manage three minutes without slurring and losing a battle with the teleprompter.

I guess they can’t shorten his responses in press conferences since he hardly gives any.

— Kelkat (@Tweetytweeter63) May 4, 2024

Who’s actually running the country?

👀 👀 👀

— iNeo_G 🚀 💫 ✨ (@iNeo_G) May 4, 2024

The campaign like to air pre recorded speeches, that have scores of edits and cuts in them, blatantly because he struggles to speak more than one sentence at a time.

And when Biden goes off script, he does something idiotic like calling Japan a Xenophobic country:

They are already hiding him from the press after failing to disguise that he can barely walk.

Probably because when he does encounter the press, he freezes and looks like he’s crapping himself:

Joe Biden is falling apart in front of our very eyes! They can hide him all they want but the people know he’s more than unfit to serve! https://t.co/RVjzPJoTma

— Tex-Mex Trumpian (@TexicanTrumpian) May 4, 2024

Is it any wonder he is less popular than any other president in modern history:

*  * *

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 Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

After the US withdrew from a major nuclear arms treaty with Russia in 2019, the Pentagon began to develop weapons that would have violated that agreement. Such a covert missile has now been deployed to the Philippines as part of the US military buildup surrounding China. The New York Times reports this system to be a covert missile launcher that Washington believes could jeopardize Xi Jinping’s position as president of China.

Capable of firing Tomahawks and other munitions, the Typhon launcher is concealed in a 40-foot shipping container and can hold up to four missiles. The Defense Department first deployed the launchers to the Philippines during war games late last month, after which China accused the US of “stoking military confrontation.”

Typhoon system, via US Army

According to the Times, Washington hopes to use the Typhon launchers to protect Taiwan from a Chinese attack. Sources who spoke with the outlet believe that Typhon’s strike power is enough to thwart an invasion of Taiwan and even force Xi from power in Beijing if an invasion fails.

Below is a section of the NYT report which sets a dramatic scene:

Setting squadrons of Chinese amphibious ships packed with troops ablaze in the Taiwan Strait, Pentagon officials believed, would not only protect the de facto independent island but may also make Mr. Xi’s own grip on power within the Communist Party untenable.

Without the legal restrictions of the I.N.F. Treaty, the Pentagon began experimenting with existing assets.

The Typhon launcher would have been banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Signed near the end of the Cold War, the treaty outlawed land-based missiles and launchers with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Tomahawks have carried nuclear payloads in the past, although the US retired that variant of the missile in compliance with the INF Treaty.

The Times’ Pentagon reporter also notes that the Typhon system could be deployed to the southwestern Philippines for a potential conflict in the South China Sea. Tensions between Beijing and Manila have been rising for several months over dueling claims about sovereignty over reefs in the sea.

The White House has reaffirmed its mutual defense pact with the Philippines, suggesting the Biden administration is ready to go to war with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Washington and Manila are additionally working on an intelligence-sharing agreement that is expected to be finalized this year. This pact, and a raft of other partnerships Washington has formed in the Indo-Pacific, are aimed at fighting a future war with Beijing.

Days after OnlyFans & TikTok star Farha Khalidi revealed the Biden administration paid her to push “full-on political propaganda” while asking her not to disclose that she was part of a covert propaganda strategy, the Biden-Harris campaign reposted on X a video of Gen-Zers regurgitating Democrat talking points, such as ‘Trump is a threat to Democracy.’ 

The PBS News Hour roundtable discussion with Michigan students appeared loaded and staged. The left-wing media outlet tried to create the vibe that Gen-Zers are voting for President Biden in November because they’re afraid of losing Democracy if former President Trump is reelected.

This is yet another example of Democrats brainwashing the youth into believing the biggest threat to America right now is the reelection of Trump. Under Biden, in just a few short years, the administration facilitated the greatest illegal alien invasion this nation has ever seen, now risking a major national security threat as unvetted migrants roam the nation, causing crime and chaos. Then there’s horrendous foreign policy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which risks pushing the world closer to World War III. Yet these kids, infected with the woke mind virus, are having trouble seeing reality. 

Biden-Harris campaign reposted the video on X, saying, “Gen Z voter: The biggest issue for me is Democracy. We saw January 6. Now Trump is admitting he’ll be a dictator on day one. That’s not just rhetoric, that’s an admission.” 

Gen Z voter: The biggest issue for me is democracy. We saw January 6. Now Trump is admitting he’ll be a dictator on day one. That’s not just rhetoric, that’s an admission pic.twitter.com/JxkQbLgcNa

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) May 3, 2024

However, as X users pointed out, how can there be a fair and balanced discussion when the Gen-Zer speaking in the video is the co-chair of College Democrats at the University of Michigan? 

Here’s what others said: 

Lol staged with paid actors

— Shawn spelled the right way (@ShawnsBrain) May 3, 2024

Right, because a bunch of teenagers who struggle with gender identity are exactly the type of people we should be listening to lmfao

— Heywood Jablome (@SeanSeneca30103) May 3, 2024

Not sure how 4 students represent all Gen Z voters but go on.

— This too shall pass (@coolname77) May 4, 2024

I hope the boys are ready to be drafted for world war 3

— Tammy (@Tammy8156) May 5, 2024

So why would the Biden-Harris campaign be focused on attempting to deceive youngsters into believing the cool thing in November is to vote for someone who could honestly be their elderly grandpa in a retirement home? 

The reason is straightforward. A recent Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll found that Trump leads Biden 47% to 40% among voters 18-34 in swing states. This is a significant shift from the last presidential cycle when Biden won 61% of voters under 30. 

The Biden administration understands they desperately need Gen-Z and millennial support to win in November, hence why they were paying at least one OnlyFans creator to spew propaganda. And why they pushed for an illegal alien invasion. 

Meanwhile, youngsters are coming to age in one of the worst economic periods this nation has seen in a generation. Elevated inflation is crushing household finances. Thanks to Fed chair Powell & out-of-control fiscal spending by Democrats. 

Youngsters are pissed about disastrous Bidenomics. 

The struggle is real for the new generation, which is just now learning that working a 9-5 isn’t as easy as college. pic.twitter.com/FvAeYkTddt

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 25, 2023

A lot of people seem to think this mindset is unique to Gen Z. It’s not.

Every generation goes through this. Watch Reality Bites, where a group of 20-somethings in the early 90s deal with the exact same struggles and emotions as described in this video.

pic.twitter.com/7h1gAN3c7R

— Matthew Kobach 🍕 (@mkobach) October 20, 2023

The Gen-Z girl who complained about the 9-5 work schedule has a comment for Business Insider (which tried to find out where she works) about the stress of finding a job as a post-grad. She’s got a point. pic.twitter.com/4ExfWrELLF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 27, 2023

Plus, on campus – there’s been a surge in Gen-Zers stepping up to protect the flag and the nation against Marxist radicals. 

The average 20-year-old boy on a big state college campus is a lot closer to the picture on the right than the picture on the left. https://t.co/6wI7LSl31Y pic.twitter.com/yx52F01kNY

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) May 4, 2024

We’ll leave you with this. 

Here are some more Gen Z voters.

How about you post these ones 🤨 pic.twitter.com/HgBN490Evm

— Rob Coates 🇺🇸 (@LuckyHippie926) May 3, 2024

Biden camp is in trouble. 

Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

A change in sector leadership in US stocks suggests the correction might soon be over and a bottom is not too far away.

The tech sector has led the recent advance in the US stock-market (i.e. the sector with the highest three-month return on a three-month smoothed basis), but in the last two weeks it lost that mantle to the communication services sector.

(Tech stocks are leading today after the payrolls miss, but on a three-month return on a three-month smoothed basis communication services are still ahead.)

As the chart shows, the two previous market corrections were accompanied by a change of leadership. But that change came near the bottom and ahead of the next advance.

The tech sector is lagging as its main constituents, Microsoft, Apple and Nvidia, have been lagging, while the communication services sector, predominately Meta and Google, went into the lead, driven the latter’s positive earnings surprise last week.

Further confidence that the current fall in prices is just a correction is given by buoyant excess liquidity that continues to be supportive for stocks and relatively low near-term recession risk (although that is always subject to changes based on the data).

Also the primary bull trend in the stock market remains intact. The 13 versus 26-week moving average crossover signal for the S&P was one of the earliest signs that the market’s nascent advance in early 2023 was durable. The positive stock-market regime that began late last year remains in place.

It’s very puzzling that the purple-haired communist revolutionaries sitting in tents across woke colleges and universities nationwide would advocate for Palestinians to break free from the support of freedom-loving Israel only to adopt the authoritarian control of Sharia law by Hamas. But perhaps, as we’ve explained before, the uprisings at colleges have very little to do with helping poor Palestinians and everything to do with abolishing capitalism and the socialist reconstruction of America. 

In the last several weeks, social unrest has been spreading like stage 4 cancer across college campuses nationwide. These uprisings have likely been influenced by Marxist groups grooming kids, infecting them with the woke mind virus (in this case, oppressor vs. oppressed). Really, how can these kids be oppressed if they’re attending elite schools, living the dream on taxpayer-funded student loans while getting worthless gender studies degrees? Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans are struggling to pay bills and put food on the table in the era of failed Bidenomics as inflation runs rampant.  

Like many law-abiding Americans watching the protests, we spotted similarities with demonstrators at multiple colleges and universities, including the same-style tent and white construction worker helmets being utilized by demonstrators.

Also, professional protesters showed up… 

This began the questioning of just how organized and funded these protests were. 

Professional agitators arrested at Columbia College campus.

Unveiling a Pattern of Disruption

Recent arrests at Columbia College campus in NYC have brought to light the activities of anarchists, revealing a concerning pattern of unlawful protest actions. These arrests,… pic.twitter.com/xqjoHp96Jx

— Viral News NYC (@ViralNewsNYC) May 5, 2024

To answer that question, the Wall Street Journal, published a new report that reveals the social unrest at colleges and universities was the result of a multi-month “training and planning” campaign by “activists and left-wing groups.”

At Columbia University, student organizers consulted heavily with radical leftwing groups, such as National Students for Justice in Palestine, veterans of campus protests, and former Black Panthers, many months before the protests. 

These campus riots have been spontaneous eruptions of support for Hamas terrorists. Luckily 500 professionally printed protest signs showed up unannounced out of nowhere! 😂 pic.twitter.com/caHr9dar1b

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 1, 2024

“We took notes from our elders, engaged in dialogue with them and analyzed how the university responded to previous protests,” Sueda Polat, a graduate student and organizer in the pro-Palestinian encampment, told WSJ. She said they met with former Black Panthers about how to organizer the movement. 

Meanwhile, the National Students for Justice in Palestine, or NSJP, with over 300 chapters across the US, was heavily involved in organizing college encampments and building takeovers. 

These building takeovers left the nation stunned… 

She participated in a hostile takeover of campus and subjected her classmates to “Zionist” purity checkpoints that determined whether or not they got to access their classes.

Her group vandalized and barricaded historic buildings and treated anyone not w/them as enemies.

They… pic.twitter.com/R71cXZvfFZ

— Mark Schipper (@TheMarkSchipper) May 3, 2024

🇺🇸🇵🇸 MORE FOOTAGE OF THE PRO-PALESTINIAN TAKEOVER OF CAL-POLY

Riot police are attempting to regain control of the campus after protesters barricaded themselves within the campus of California’s Polytechnic University.

Decisive action is called for as more universities around… https://t.co/d8VIvhuY2C pic.twitter.com/dLxXLIY2ci

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 23, 2024

Royce Hall is the most iconic building on the UCLA campus. I spent a lot of time there in college.

Look at what these supporters of Hamas terrorists did to my school, and tell me again how peaceful this protest is. pic.twitter.com/Ci7YEDvAwF

— Joel M. Petlin (@Joelmpetlin) May 2, 2024

Protesters that were Arrested last week at Columbia University in New York City had, for several Weeks and Months prior to the Establishment of the Campus Encampment as well as the Storming and Barricading of the Hamilton Hall Building, held discussions with Outside Extremists… pic.twitter.com/oBTvUOI55B

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) May 5, 2024

As early as November, we pointed out how NSJP was beginning to cause chaos across school campuses:

Brandeis University Bans Students For Justice In Palestine, Alleges Hamas Support

And…

Virulent Antisemitism And The Rot At Our Universities
Berkeley Instructor Offers Extra Credit For Attending Pro-Palestine Protest

WSJ pointed out, “NSJP have been received and administered by the Wespac Foundation.” 

According to Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, in a recent Washington Examiner op-ed, Wespac’s website has a photo of activists holding up a sign that reads “Another World is Possible.” He said this slogan is well-known and used by organizations that “despise capitalism but feel they must cloak their communism.” 

“WESPAC funds various revolutionary far-left/anti-Western groups,” Ryan Mauro of Capital Research Center, who tracks these activists groups, told Gonzalez. 

Mauro told Gonzalez that WESPAC donations include monies from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and George Soros’s Open Society. 

Back to WSJ’s report, weeks before the college protests erupted, students at Colombia University were given “Resistance 101” training with activists from Samidoun. 

“There is nothing wrong with being a member of Hamas, being a leader of Hamas, being a fighter in Hamas,” Samidoun coordinator Charlotte Kates told university students. 

Meanwhile, the Israeli government declared Samidoun a terrorist organization in 2021.

“They support terrorism, and they want to gain public opinion — support — for terrorism,” Yossi Kuperwasser, the former chief of the research division in the Israel Defense Forces’ military intelligence unit, recently said. 

ActiveFence Research sheds more color on Samidoun: 

What’s taking shape here is yet another Marxist movement, or perhaps ‘BLM-style 2.0’ emerging ahead of the summer months. These Marxists, like parasites, are hijacking the pro-Palestinian movement with their intent to destroy capitalism and America. 

Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who studies political violence, warned that protests are expected to continue through summer and fall.  

Just remember, Marxists at these colleges said the quiet part out loud last week. 

An extremist on the mic says: “There’s only one solution, intifada revolution. We must have a revolution so we can have a socialist reconstruction of the USA.”

This isn’t just about Israel/Palestine. It’s an attempt of the Marxist takeover of America. Our colleges have become… pic.twitter.com/2IEqRyuorB

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) April 30, 2024

In April, Samidoun and other groups unleashed protests that attempted to shutter airport terminals, bridges, and highways nationwide. These protests masqueraded as pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but their dark intentions by Marxists were to disrupt the economy.  

We asked in April: “Who Is Funding This Chaos? Pro-Palestinian Protesters Attempt To Paralyze Chicago O’Hare, Golden Gate Bridge.”

So where are the FBI, Congress, and the Biden administration? Why aren’t they investigating these left-wing artificial protests before they spark out of control and cause more chaos across the nation?

Caption this 👇 pic.twitter.com/HxDdS0Zpny

— wilder😎🇺🇸 (@wilderpatriot) May 4, 2024

However, this time around, unlike the BLM riots several years ago, there are more than ten million unvetted illegal aliens from around the world, some of whom do not like the US. The nation is on the brink of chaos if this continues. Yet, Democrats are mostly silent. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

During a Senate Energy and National Resources Committee hearing this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley exposed a Biden official as having no clue what is going on in her own department.

Hawley grilled Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland regarding alleged shady meetings with foreign “dark-money groups” that actively fund radical left-wing environmental initiatives. 

“Is it common practice at your department to meet with dark money groups off the books and conceal it from the public?” Hawley probed.

Talk about corruption: Biden’s Interior department has *off the books* meeting with liberal dark money group funded by foreign billionaire, conceals it from the public, then does everything they want. In this case, canceling critical mining in the US. To benefit China. pic.twitter.com/tfQeEXq1f3

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 2, 2024

Haaland Replied “Senator, thank you for the question, and of course, I can’t answer to, uh, if you’re referring to our former deputy secretary. He’s no longer at the department.”

“Who worked for you,” Hawley fired back.

“He worked for the president. He was appointed by the president,” Haaland said, attempting to to deflect responsibility.

“He’s your deputy secretary,” Hawley said, adding “Are you the secretary of the Department of the Interior? I thought that’s why you were here.”

Hawley then asked “Are you the secretary?” Scolding Haarland for attempting to look to colleagues for assistance. 

“Don’t look at her, look at me. Are you the secretary?” he repeated.

“I am,” Haaland responded.

Hawley further asked “Do these people who are sitting here today answering most of your questions, do they work for you? Do they report for you? You’re not in charge?”

“They work with me,” Haaland answered.

“They work with you. So you’re not in charge of the department?” An exasperated Hawley asserted, adding “Oh my gosh, I thought you were in charge! I thought that was why you were here!”

“We work as a team,” Haaland responded, 

“Oh, okay. So who’s in charge then?” Hawley demanded.

Secretary Haaland apparently doesn’t know who’s in charge of the Interior Department. Hint: it’s supposed to be her 👇 pic.twitter.com/c1BSXtiViW

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 2, 2024

“Uh, I, I provide the vision, I provide the overall direction and —” Haaland stuttered. 

“But you’re not in charge,” Hawley proclaimed, asking “Do you take responsibility for what happens at the Department of the Interior?”

“I take responsibility,” Haaland said.

“Good, then why are your leadership meeting with dark money groups and concealing it from the public? Why are they doing it off the books? How many times did this happen?” Hawley asked, returning to the original question. 

“Senator, this is the first I’m hearing of this,” Haaland claimed, adding “I don’t, I didn’t … my deputy secretary is no longer there, and, um, I can’t answer to what he did when he was there.”

Hawley again accused Haaland of refusing to take responsibility again, and charging that Haaland’s Department has “a corruption problem.”

“We have foreign billionaires, who are funding dark-money groups, coming to meet with your leadership, concealing it from the public, while they are filing lawsuits adverse to the department,” Hawley urged, concluding “The American people should be charge—not the foreign billionaires.”

The full exchange is below:

*  *  *

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.