Aggregator

When is the BAU back on the case?

Fred Armisen joins the cast in Season 2. Also guest starring are Andrew Rannells, Lilly Singh, Kumail Nanjiani and Tan France.

One of Claude Lemieux's longtime rivals had touching words for the four-time Stanley Cup winner, who died by suicide at the ago of 60.

Major League Baseball owners proposed a hard salary cap to the players' union during a Thursday meeting — and New York’s high-priced teams would feel the brunt of it.

The freebie trinket is inspired by the classic Season 7 episode "The Calzone."

Website building and hosting platform Webflow is just the latest victim of Artificial Intelligence that has wreaked havoc on California tech industry — making the shocking announcement Wednesday that many of its employees will be laid off. 

Even Iran's president recently acknowledged the strain on his country's resources.

"EU officials called this a 'digital leap.' From where I was standing, it looked more like a total cluster f*$k," said Ward.

Watch: Hollywood Actress Blows Whistle On Systemic Anti-White Discrimination In Casting

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Actress Samaire Armstrong, known for her role in the hit series The O.C., stepped forward with a raw account of Hollywood’s entrenched discrimination. For years, she stayed silent as casting directors repeatedly rejected her for one reason: her race. When she couldn’t hold back any longer she broke that silence, revealing how merit has been sacrificed on the altar of identity politics.

That was five years ago. In the intervening time, Hollywood has doubled and tripled down on this momentum.

Armstrong explained, “Over the last 6 years, I’ve heard nonstop, ‘They’re not looking for white.’ — ‘They liked you, but you’re white.’ And, you know, I kept that to myself in silence…the pendulum has swung so far, you know, like, ‘We’re gonna fit this transgender character in here now that we’re PC.’ Natural, organic stories stopped being told.”

“You gotta wonder, what’s the point of acting school and putting this time into developing the craft if that doesn’t matter anymore?” Armstrong urged.

Her testimony, shared in a PragerU interview and amplified across platforms, underscores a troubling reality: Hollywood isn’t just leaning into diversity — it’s enforcing exclusion.

This isn’t one isolated voice. Armstrong’s experience reflects a broader industry shift where skin color determines opportunity more than skill, training, or audience appeal. In a country still majority white, the creative heart of American entertainment has turned against its foundational talent pool.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences formalized this bias with its “Representation and Inclusion Standards” for Best Picture eligibility. Starting with the 96th Oscars in 2024, films must meet at least two of four detailed standards, backed by a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form (RAISE).

These rules prioritize “underrepresented” groups — defined to include women, racial or ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and the disabled or deaf — across every level of production.

Standard A: On-Screen Representation, Themes and Narratives
To qualify, a film needs at least one of these:

• A lead or significant supporting actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
• At least 30% of actors in minor and supporting roles from at least two underrepresented groups.
• A main storyline or theme centered on an underrepresented group.

Standard B: Creative Leadership and Project Team

• At least two creative leadership or department head positions filled by underrepresented groups (with at least one from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group).
• At least six other key crew or technical positions from underrepresented groups.
• At least 30% of the overall crew from at least two underrepresented groups.

Standard C: Industry Access and Opportunities focuses on paid apprenticeships, internships, and training programs targeted at preferred demographics. Standard D: Audience Development requires multiple senior executives or consultants from underrepresented groups in marketing, publicity, and distribution.

These mandates didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They accelerated after 2020 amid corporate panic over social justice pressures. The Academy framed them as promoting “equitable representation” to reflect a “diverse global population.” In practice, they function as barriers against projects centered on white characters or led by white creatives in a nation where whites remain the demographic majority.

Iconic films from Hollywood’s golden eras would fail these tests. Casablanca, The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, No Country for Old Men, or even Titanic in its original form wouldn’t check enough boxes. The rules don’t just encourage diversity — they penalize storytelling rooted in European-American cultural traditions or historical accuracy.

Armstrong didn’t arrive at her critique lightly. In her PragerU “Stories of Us” segment, she detailed the gradual erosion she witnessed. She acknowledged past imbalances — “Oscars were so white for decades” — but argued the correction overshot into absurdity. Natural character development and subtle narratives gave way to forced inserts and demographic engineering.

Organic tales of human struggle, ambition, love, and loss vanished under layers of ideological checklists.

This hits aspiring actors hard. Acting demands years of classes, auditions, rejections, and honing emotional range. When race becomes the deciding factor, that investment must feel pointless.

Reports from others in the industry echo her account. White actresses and actors describe similar experiences — agencies steering clients away from certain roles or auditions explicitly noting preferences for non-white performers. One parent recounted her son’s early acting opportunities drying up once “no whites” language appeared in casting calls. Families of talented young performers now face tough choices: pivot careers or accept systemic disadvantage.

Hollywood’s defense often falls back on “underrepresentation” statistics. Yet these ignore viewer preferences and box office realities. Audiences don’t reject diversity when it feels authentic; they reject pandering that prioritizes messaging over entertainment.

'This might actually be a good thing - but if you’re doing it to be tokenistic, it’s completely pointless!'

The Free Speech Nation panel discuss the Oscars’ new diversity and inclusivity rules.

🖥 GB News on YouTube https://t.co/Wa58gYGZwF pic.twitter.com/MLk5tcPb0c

— GB News (@GBNEWS) May 14, 2023

When every ensemble requires a precise racial mix, every leadership team checks ethnicity boxes, storytelling suffers. Characters become mouthpieces. Plots twist to accommodate themes rather than emerging from genuine conflict.

The decline isn’t imaginary. Recent years delivered a string of high-budget disappointments: franchise entries laden with awkward diversity lectures, remakes that rewrite history for contemporary politics, and originals that feel like committee products rather than visionary works.

Studios chase Oscar validation and corporate ESG scores. Meeting Academy standards boosts awards chances and shields against activist boycotts. But it alienates core domestic audiences who simply want compelling stories. International markets sometimes reward spectacle over messaging, yet even there, fatigue sets in when quality plummets.

Compare this to earlier eras. Classic Hollywood produced universal stories — tales of redemption, heroism, romance, and tragedy — that transcended demographics. Directors cast the best actors for roles, not the best demographic fit. Writers explored human nature without mandatory identity arcs. The result was timeless cinema that still draws viewers decades later.

Today’s approach inverts that. “Natural, organic stories stopped being told,” as Armstrong noted. Scripts now insert transgender subplots or racial redemption arcs mechanically. Casting directors scan headshots for skin tone checkboxes first. This creates a chilling effect: white performers self-censor or exit, while others game the system.

The financial toll shows. Major releases flop despite massive marketing. Streaming catalogs fill with forgettable content. Independent and international films — less beholden to U.S. Academy rules — often outperform in authenticity and engagement. Asian cinema, in particular, thrives on merit-based casting and culturally grounded narratives without Western-style guilt.

This discrimination fits a larger pattern of institutional hostility toward majority populations in Western nations. Policies that punish success and reward grievance thrive in elite circles detached from everyday consequences. Hollywood, overwhelmingly coastal and progressive, embraced these ideas enthusiastically after 2016 and 2020.

Armstrong’s conservative leanings — including past support for Trump and criticism of certain activist movements — make her voice especially threatening to the establishment. Speaking out risks career suicide in an industry known for enforcing ideological conformity. Her decision to go public anyway highlights growing cracks in the silence.

Critics of the standards face accusations of racism for pointing out anti-white bias. Yet the rules themselves codify racial preference. In a just system, opportunity flows from talent, work ethic, and market demand. Forcing outcomes by skin color inverts justice — it becomes discrimination with extra steps.

Entertainment should unite through shared humanity, not fragment by mandated identity tallies. When government-adjacent entities like the Academy dictate creative output, art dies. Viewers sense the fraud and tune out.

Broader society feels the ripple effects. Young white talent redirects energy elsewhere — tech, trades, entrepreneurship — where merit still rules. Cultural confidence erodes when a nation’s primary storytelling medium treats its founding stock as obstacles. Families notice the pattern in commercials, shows, and films: white characters often portrayed as clueless, evil, or sidelined.

Change won’t come from within Hollywood’s echo chamber. It requires audience rebellion — supporting projects that prioritize story over quotas. Independent creators, YouTube filmmakers, and platforms free from legacy gatekeepers already fill voids. Success stories like certain unapologetic comedies or action films prove audiences crave competence and fun.

Some performers and executives quietly admit the problems. Box office data reinforces the point: preachy content underperforms. Global competition from industries unburdened by these rules grows fiercer.

Armstrong’s stand adds to a chorus demanding restoration of merit. Her call to “break the silence before it’s too late” urges others in the industry to prioritize truth over career preservation. If enough voices join, pressure could build against the Academy’s rules and studio practices.

Ultimately, Hollywood’s anti-white tilt reveals deeper contempt for its audience and heritage. By sidelining skilled performers, the industry doesn’t just harm individuals — it degrades the art form itself. Viewers deserve better than propaganda disguised as entertainment.

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.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 17:40

The suspect who allegedly killed a young bride-to-be in a hit-and-run at a bus stop has been identified as 41-year-old San Diego health official Assmaa Elayyat.

Recruiters complain that GPA has become meaningless in an era of grade inflation.

Janney says she likes material that is “the messier, the better."

Financial stress is the number one party pooper, with 55% of people saying they would be more motivated to “prioritize fun” if low-cost options were available.

Roughly 300 demonstrators flocked to Bagels & Company, a popular Israeli-owned business in Jamaica Estates, where the vandal was caught on camera smashing potted plants and tossing chairs and tables.

Ella Shields, daughter of former Angels pitcher Scot Shields, just turned her dad’s MLB legacy into viral comedy gold.

Treasury Appointees Push To Put Trump's Face On A Brand-New $250 Bill

Two political appointees at the Treasury Department spent months pressing Bureau of Engraving and Printing staff to develop prototypes for a $250 bill bearing Donald Trump's portrait, even as bureau officials repeatedly warned them the project had no legal foundation and could take nearly a decade to execute properly, the Washington Post reports.

U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach and senior adviser Mike Brown, both political appointees, began pushing bureau staff last year to prepare designs for the note. Beach handed over mock-up materials in August and September, including a design placing Trump's face at the center of the bill, flanked by Trump's and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's signatures. The effort would mark the first time a living person appeared on U.S. currency since 1866, and current employees, speaking anonymously out of fear of retaliation, claim the internal pressure was real.

The artist behind the designs, British painter Iain Alexander, said he discussed the project directly with Trump and received feedback on specifics. "He likes to call me his favorite British artist," Alexander said.

Trump reportedly pushed for American flag colors and a "250" logo tied to the nation's semiquincentennial, and Alexander said Trump "absolutely loved" the proposed reverse side of the note, which would feature a women's liberation theme with Betsy Ross.

Bureau director Patricia "Patty" Solimene, a 24-year Army veteran and the first woman to lead the bureau, told Beach and Brown plainly that the project was unauthorized. One employee described her position this way: "She had told them we're not authorized to do this. We can't progress any further, and all the stakeholders have not even met to discuss the next steps." The same employee noted that "currency often takes six to eight years to produce a new bill, particularly one of such high value."

Solimene was reassigned from her position on April 27. The following day, she sent a farewell email to staff that read, in part, "The buck stopped here," and acknowledged the move was "not my choice." Brown subsequently became the bureau's acting director. Treasury declined to comment on the circumstances of Solimene's reassignment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Legally, the proposed bill faces several obstacles. Federal law restricts living individuals from appearing on U.S. currency, a rule that has been on the books for over 150 years. Beyond the portrait question, the bureau is authorized to produce only specific denominations, and $250 is not among them. Former bureau director Larry R. Felix explained that "a $250 note is not statutorily authorized" without congressional action, adding, "The secretary has to be given authority to do that." Alexander said he, too, had been told legislation was necessary.

And it is unlikely that Congress would approve it. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) previously introduced a bill in February 2025 directing the Treasury to issue $250 Federal Reserve notes featuring Trump's image, tied to the 250th anniversary celebrations beginning in July. The bill stalled in the House Financial Services Committee and did not receive a hearing.

A department spokesperson said the bureau is "conducting appropriate planning and due diligence" and would proceed with a commemorative $250 note only if Congress passes the required legislation. Treasury also said Beach has "never asked staff to print the bill before congressional passage." At the same time, the department confirmed Bessent would recognize Trump's "historic achievements" by adding his signature to existing currency, noting no law prohibits a sitting president's signature on bills. Solimene and her staff had separately agreed to print $100 bills featuring Trump's signature, which employees said were already in production at the bureau's Washington facility.

What's next?

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 17:20

DOJ Launches Criminal Probe Into E. Jean Carroll Over Alleged Perjury In Trump Lawsuits

The Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the veteran advice columnist and author who won two major civil lawsuits against President Donald Trump, CBS News reports. Carroll accused Trump of sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and then defaming her when he denied the encounter ever happened.

The probe focuses on Carroll's 2022 deposition. She stated under oath that no outside parties were helping fund her cases. Later it came out that a nonprofit backed by billionaire Reid Hoffman – a sharp Trump critic and major Democratic donor – had covered some of her costs.

The investigation is being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Illinois, led by Trump-appointed Andrew Boutros. No charges have been brought yet, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has stepped aside from the matter.

The Core Allegation: A Deposition Discrepancy

During her October 2022 deposition, when asked directly if anyone else was paying her legal fees, Carroll said she was on a contingency arrangement with her lawyers and denied any outside funding. But in April 2023, her team disclosed that money had come from American Future Republic, a nonprofit largely funded by LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.

Her lawyers called it an honest oversight – she simply forgot about the arrangement at the time. Trump’s side, however, called it suspicious and potentially damaging to her credibility.

The Carroll-Trump Verdicts

The lawsuits ended with big wins for Carroll:

• In 2023, a jury held Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll about $5 million.
• In 2024, a second jury slapped him with an $83.3 million defamation verdict.

Trump has vigorously appealed both outcomes, describing the entire process as a politically driven effort against him.

The Reid Hoffman Connection

Reid Hoffman has never hidden his dislike for Trump, and he’s poured tens of millions into Democratic causes over the years. He defended funding Carroll’s case as a way to make sure an ordinary person could afford to take on someone as powerful as a former president.

As the NLPC noted in March of 2025: 

Through yet another nonprofit (or possibly the same one), Hoffman also paid the legal bills for Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll, who sued him for defamation over her allegations of rape against him going back to the 1990s. To set the stage for the lawsuit to be able to move forward – through yet another secretive nonprofit group backed by Hoffman – Carroll told CNN that she helped New York Democrats to pass a new law in 2022 to extend the statute of limitations for sexual assault civil lawsuits beyond 20 years, which enabled her to sue President Trump during a one-year window. And Hoffman also said last year, just days before the assassination attempt in Butler, Pa., that he wished he could have made Trump a real “martyr.”

The investigation is still in its early days. Prosecutors will be digging through transcripts, financial records, emails, and anything else that might show whether Carroll intentionally misled the court.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 17:00

Anthropic is now the artificial intelligence king in Silicon Valley – unseating rival OpenAI as the most valuable AI company after a new whopping $965 billion valuation.  The AI giant said Thursday it inked a $65 billion Series H financing at the new valuation which is nearly triple from its value in February when it...

The Runyon Canyon hiker who suddenly collapsed on a trail there in front of his son and was frantically airlifted to a hospital died on Sunday.

Billionaire industrialist Bill Koch is taking his sprawling Aspen retreat to auction after failing to secure a buyer at nearly nine figures.