Connect with us

NEWS

Joe Rogan vs. Spotify, reporters reliving ‘Trump Years,’ Twitter casting movies: 2021 predictions for mainstream media & Hollywood

Published

on

Social justice warriors and their wokedom religion only became stronger in 2020, and it may get even worse in 2021 thanks to self-congratulating reporters, a frightened Hollywood, and shifting goal posts.

If you think Joe Biden entering the White House and a Covid-19 vaccine will return the world to some vague sense of normalcy in 2021, you haven’t been paying attention.

Cultural divides have only grown sharper in 2020, partly fueled by a heated and contested presidential election and virtue-signaling stemming from Covid-19 on both sides of the political aisle. Meanwhile, wokedom has quietly grown, claiming new victims this year and promising more cultural battles and changes to come in 2021.

Here are some predictions for what exactly some of those could look like…
5. MSM/panel discussions turn into ‘wartime’ vets reminiscing about surviving the ‘Trump years.’

If you want a look at what the mainstream media will be in a post-Trump presidency world, look no further than CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources.’

On last Sunday’s show, host Brian Stelter invited six “CNNers,” including constant Trump critics Jake Tapper, Jim Acosta, and Daniel Dale, onto his show to reminisce about what it was like to survive the “Trump years.” Listening to the ‘journos’ talk about their battle to call out the “lies” of the president and other White House officials, the conversation had the feel of war veterans gathering to discuss their time in the trenches together, fighting for their flag.

These ‘brave’ souls patting each other on the back for nearly an hour is exactly what mainstream media/panel discussions will be in 2021: journalists reminding the world of their victory over Trump and virtue signaling to the most extreme base on the left, practically begging to be thanked for their service.

Have you shown appreciation for your local liberal advoca, ahem, journalist yet?

4. ‘Family Guy’ eaten by its own liberal base, platformed conservatives like James Woods and Rush Limbaugh.

Fox’s ‘Family Guy’ has managed to toe an impressive line for nearly two decades now. The series has pushed irreverent, politically incorrect humor while never getting the heat and chants of ‘shame’ that come from the woke mob anytime an animated series like ‘South Park’ decides to poke fun at the whole world, liberals included.

‘Family Guy’ has managed to do this by constantly earning its liberal bona fides by making sure conservatives are always on their list of safe targets. Despite this, however, the cartoon has a dark, dark secret, one that could be weaponized against it should it ever cross the line in an increasingly triggered world: they gave mean, old conservatives a platform.

Trump supporter James Woods has appeared in multiple episodes of the series and is a staple among fans (though he’s been MIA for a few years now), and Rush Limbaugh got to sell himself to a younger generation in an episode that was almost an advertisement for his radio show (he also appeared in one of the show’s famous ‘Star Wars’ parodies).

In a culture where the standards for words and behavior is growing increasingly extreme, ‘Family Guy’ is going to have a more and more difficult time existing. A recent episode even won some praise from conservatives for poking fun at the extent political correctness has gone, with patriarch Peter Griffin trying to make a gender inclusive nativity scene.

While the segment pushed back against extreme transgender ideology, it finished up with Griffin taking a dig at himself for being “white,” therefore saving the show once again from the pitchforks of liberals. But how long can they pull that hat trick off?

These days, even speaking to someone deemed ‘hateful’ for their conservative viewpoints can earn one a wave of pushback (see: Alex Jones on Joe Rogan’s podcast), so how long before ‘Family Guy’ tells the wrong joke and its past comes back to haunt it?

2020 saw episodes of television shows like ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’ and ‘The Office’ censored after being deemed too controversial for today’s climate. Add to that trigger warnings on classic comedies like ‘Blazing Saddles,’ and the cultural wave of Black Lives Matter swallowing shows like ‘COPs’ and ‘Live PD,’ and the targeting of a long-running series like ‘Family Guy’ seems the only logical next step to feed the increasingly hungry woke wolves.
3. Casting upsetting the woke mob? No problem! Everybody just plays themselves.

Movies were basically canceled in 2020 with most theaters closing their doors, and many of the year’s biggest releases dumped onto streaming services or pushed to an uncertain future. However, one trend that caught fire in 2020, and seems to only be getting stronger, is in the area of casting.

Halle Berry ducked out on a gig playing a transgender character after ‘misgendering’ during an interview, and Shia Labeouf continues to be accused of ‘brownface’ for a role in ‘The Tax Collector’ where he plays a white gangster based on multiple real people. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative though.

The latest casting controversy comes from the series ‘The Stand,’ which hired a non-deaf actor to play a deaf-mute character. Hollywood insiders and deaf activists have promoted boycotts of the show over the casting decision (the mute thing is irrelevant, apparently), and CBS has responded by actually meeting with activists.

This meeting and other bowing-down responses to woke mobs who can’t wrap their heads around the idea of acting is only empowering the woke mob, and they will get more than blood in 2021.

While the only way to truly please this crowd would be for acting to simply be retired and people to only play themselves, it’s more likely consultants or advisory panels of social justice warriors with degrees that cost six figures will be let into the casting and pre-production process of film and television projects and force actors playing certain roles to be able to fit a certain number of ‘victim’ boxes that way they can prove that they too, like any good liberal, belong to enough victim classes to be able to do their job without bias.

2. Joe Rogan leaves Spotify, torches everything in his wake.

Joe Rogan has remained relatively unfazed by well-documented internal protests at Spotify over a $100 million contract the comedian and podcaster signed earlier this year.

The outrage stems from all the usual places: he’s white, he’s straight, he doesn’t blindly buy into every transgender narrative, and he has conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones on his program.

Rogan has said whatever pressure employees are putting on the company has not affected the content of his podcast, though some fans questioned certain episodes, including ones with Jones, being delayed in their move over to Spotify.

Rogan officially moves exclusively to Spotify on January 1, and that will be the true test of his willingness to stay with the streaming giant. Once he’s exclusively platformed though one place, it can give activists within the company more power to protest or push back against an episode containing, say, Alex Jones or any of a number of Trump supporters, who will surely find trouble getting platformed going forward.

Rogan had a successful podcast long before Spotify came along and he’s made clear he refuses to change his content for anyone. It’s only a matter of time before he realizes someone labeled ‘right-wing’ like him can only survive in the mainstream by being on the defensive, and anyone who listens to Rogan knows he’s no fan of defending himself.

The truth is Rogan can go solo and create a podcasting platform himself to match Spotify’s. Their other attempts at expensive podcasts include one from Michelle Obama and another from Prince Harry Meghan Markle. Think those will be enough to keep their podcasting experiment alive if Rogan decides to jump ship?

Considering the amount of zaniness and pot that’s passed around when Rogan invites his most controversial guest and friend Alex Jones on, perhaps a political ‘Cheech & Chong’ style show is in order from the duo in 2021.

1. Joe Biden wins an Oscar.

Name five 2020 performances that are, without a doubt, worthy of a best performance nomination. Go ahead.

The truth is the average person likely hasn’t consumed a whole lot of new films in 2020 thanks in part to theaters shuttering, as well as the fact that celebrities have spent the majority of their time praising the performances of liberal politicians, rather than their artistic peers.

Think Biden winning an Oscar is far-fetched? Is there anyone you can think of who would be at the ceremony who would object?

Plus, another politician won a major entertainment award this year: Andrew Cuomo. His “creative” output was apparently his press conferences which the Emmy Awards found to be “calming” during the pandemic. Forget controversies about nursing homes, sexual harassment, and lockdowns destroying businesses and just drink in the wondrousness of this sentence: Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, won an Emmy Award in 2020.

Biden being given gold by his Hollywood worshippers doesn’t seem so crazy now, does it? Perhaps they’ll start with a Golden Globe and work their way up in the name of fairness though.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

NEWS

China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies

Published

on

Starting next year, China will raise its retirement age for workers, which is now among the youngest in the world’s major economies, in an effort to address its shrinking population and aging work force.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s legislature, passed the new policy Friday after a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure, state broadcaster CCTV announced.

The policy change will be carried out over 15 years, with the retirement age for men raised to 63 years, and for women to 55 or 58 years depending on their jobs. The current retirement age is 60 for men and 50 for women in blue-collar jobs and 55 for women doing white-collar work.

“We have more people coming into the retirement age, and so the pension fund is (facing) high pressure. That’s why I think it’s now time to act seriously,” said Xiujian Peng, a senior research fellow at Victoria University in Australia who studies China’s population and its ties to the economy.

The previous retirement ages were set in the 1950’s, when life expectancy was only around 40 years, Peng said.

The policy will be implemented starting in January, according to the announcement from China’s legislature. The change will take effect progressively based on people’s birthdates.

For example, a man born in January 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 7 months in August 2032, according to a chart released along with the policy. A man born in May 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 8 months in January 2033.

Demographic pressures made the move long overdue, experts say. By the end of 2023, China counted nearly 300 million people over the age of 60. By 2035, that figure is projected to be 400 million, larger than the population of the U.S. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had previously projected that the public pension fund will run out of money by that year.

Pressure on social benefits such as pensions and social security is hardly a China-specific problem. The U.S. also faces the issue as analysis shows that currently, the Social Security fund won’t be able to pay out full benefits to people by 2033.

“This is happening everywhere,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But in China with its large elderly population, the challenge is much larger.”

That is on top of fewer births, as younger people opt out of having children, citing high costs. In 2022, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for the first time the country had 850,000 fewer people at the end of the year than the previous year , a turning point from population growth to decline. In 2023, the population shrank further, by 2 million people.

What that means is that the burden of funding elderly people’s pensions will be divided among a smaller group of younger workers, as pension payments are largely funded by deductions from people who are currently working.

Researchers measure that pressure by looking at a number called the dependency ratio, which counts the number of people over the age of 65 compared to the number of workers under 65. That number was 21.8% in 2022, according to government statistics, meaning that roughly five workers would support one retiree. The percentage is expected to rise, meaning fewer workers will be shouldering the burden of one retiree.

The necessary course correction will cause short-term pain, experts say, coming at a time of already high youth unemployment and a soft economy.

A 52-year-old Beijing resident, who gave his family name as Lu and will now retire at age 61 instead of 60, was positive about the change. “I view this as a good thing, because our society’s getting older, and in developed countries, the retirement age is higher,” he said.

Li Bin, 35, who works in the event planning industry, said she was a bit sad.

“It’s three years less of play time. I had originally planned to travel around after retirement,” she said. But she said it was better than expected because the retirement age was only raised three years for women in white-collar jobs.

Some of the comments on social media when the policy review was announced earlier in the week reflected anxiety.

But of the 13,000 comments on the Xinhua news post announcing the news, only a few dozen were visible, suggesting that many others had been censored.

Continue Reading

NEWS

Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine

Published

on

Moscow’s envoy to the UN has reiterated where the Kremlin’s red line is

Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied long-range weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.

Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of.

NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”

Putin issues new warning to NATO

“Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”

Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said.

The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.

Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.

 

Continue Reading

NEWS

China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?

Published

on

Beijing maintains a conservative economic agenda in its relations with the continent, while finding it increasingly difficult to avoid a political confrontation with the West

The ninth forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the FOCAC summit held in Beijing on September 4-6 marked a significant phase in Africa’s relations with its global partners in the post-Covid era. China is the last major partner to hold a summit with African nations following the end of the pandemic; Africa summits were held by the EU and the US in 2022, and by Russia in 2023. The pandemic, coupled with rising global tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and a series of crises, underlined Africa’s growing role in the global economy and politics – something that China, which has undergone major changes (both internal and external) as a result of the pandemic, is well aware of.

It is clear that the relationship between China and Africa is entering a new phase. China is no longer just a preferential economic partner for Africa, as it had been in the first two decades of the 21st century. It has become a key political and military ally for many African countries. This is evident from China’s increasing role in training African civil servants and sharing expertise with them, as well as from several initiatives announced at the summit, including military-technical cooperation: officer training programs, mine clearing efforts, and over $100 million which China will provide to support the armed forces of African nations.

In the political arena, however, Beijing is proceeding very cautiously and the above-mentioned initiatives should be seen as the first tentative attempts rather than a systematic strategy.

While China strives to avoid political confrontation with the West in Africa and even closely cooperates with it on certain issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Washington is determined to pursue a policy of confrontation with Beijing in Africa – this is evident both from US rhetoric and its strategic documents.

Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China’s soft power in Africa

A “divorce” between China and the West is almost inevitable. This means that Chinese companies may lose contracts with Western corporations and won’t have access to transportation and logistics infrastructure. Consequently, China will need to develop its own comprehensive approach to Africa, either independently or in collaboration with other global power centers.

An important sign of the growing confrontation between the US and China in Africa was the signing of a trilateral memorandum of understanding between China, Tanzania, and Zambia regarding the reconstruction of the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA), which was originally built by China in the 1970s. If it is expanded, electrified, and modernized, TAZARA has the potential to become a viable alternative to one of the key US investment projects in the region: the Lobito Corridor, which aims to enhance logistics infrastructure for exporting minerals (copper and cobalt) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia by modernizing the railway from the DR Congo to the Angolan port of Lobito.

In inland regions such as Eastern Congo, transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the process of mineral extraction. Considering the region’s shortage of rail and road networks, even a single non-electrified railway line leading to a port in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean can significantly boost the operation of the mining sector and permanently tie the extraction and processing regions to specific markets.

It appears that China’s initiative holds greater promise compared to the US one, particularly because Chinese companies control major mines both in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. This gives them a clear advantage in working with Chinese operators and equipment, facilitating the export of minerals through East African ports. Overall, this indicates that East Africa will maintain its role as the economic leader on the continent and one of the most integrated and rapidly developing regions for imports.

A former colonial European power returns to Africa. What is it after now?

The highlight of the summit was China’s pledge to provide $50 billion to African countries over the next three years (by 2027). This figure echoes the $55 billion commitment to China made by the US (for 3 years) at the 2022 US-Africa Summit and the $170 billion that the EU promised to provide over seven years back in 2021. Consequently, leading global players allocate approximately $15-20 billion annually to Africa.

In recent years, there has been noticeable growth in such promises. Nearly every nation is eager to promise Africa something – for example, Italy has pledged $1 billion annually. However, these large packages of so-called “financial aid” often have little in common with actual assistance, since they are typically commercial loans or corporate investments. Moreover, a significant portion of these funds is spent in the donor countries (e.g. on the procurement and production of goods), which means that they contribute to the economic growth of African nations in a minimal way.

As for China, it will provide about $11 billion in genuine aid. This is a substantial amount which will be used for developing healthcare and agriculture in Africa. Another $30 billion will come in the form of loans (roughly $10 billion per year) and a further $10 billion as investments.

The overall financial framework allows us to make certain conclusions, though it’s important to note that the methodology for calculating these figures is unclear, and the line between loans, humanitarian aid, and investments remains blurred. In terms of investments (averaging around $3 billion per year), Beijing plans to maintain its previous levels of activity – in recent years, China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) have ranged from $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Financial and humanitarian aid could nearly double (from the current $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year) while lending is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels (which would still be below the peak years of 2012-2018).

Can Africa seize control of its own energy?

China’s economic plan for Africa seems to be quite conservative. It’s no surprise that debt issues took center stage during the summit. During the Covid-19 pandemic, macroeconomic stability in African countries deteriorated, which led to challenges in debt repayments and forced Africa to initiate debt restructuring processes assisted by the IMF and the G20. Starting in 2020, a combination of internal and external factors led China to significantly cut its lending to African countries – from about $10-15 billion down to $2-3 billion. This reduction in funding has triggered economic reforms in several African countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria), which have shifted toward stricter tax and monetary policies. While promises to increase lending may seem like good news for African nations, it’s likely that much of this funding will go toward interest payments on existing obligations and debt restructuring, since China wants to ensure that its loans are repaid.

Despite China’s cautious approach to Africa, its interaction with the continent will develop as a result of external and internal changes affecting both Africa and China. Africa will gradually become more industrialized and will reduce imports while the demand for investments and local production will increase. China will face demographic challenges, and its workforce will decrease. This may encourage bilateral cooperation as some production facilities may move from China to Africa. This will most likely concern East African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, considering China’s current investments in their energy and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, with Africa’s population on the rise and China’s population declining, Beijing is expected to attract more African migrant workers to help address labor shortages.

Continue Reading

Trending