Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Socialist Mamdani Purges Business Leaders From Key NYC Fund

Radical socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has purged a longstanding advisory board of business and civic leaders.

The Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City is a city-affiliated 501(c)(3) nonprofit that raises private donations to support public programs and City Hall priorities by partnering with agencies, philanthropies, and community groups.

According to Bloomberg News, Mamdani sent letters thanking the advisory board members for their service. A separate communication from the fund stated that the entire board of advisers would be disbanded.

The New York Post reports:

It’s raised hundreds of millions since its 1995 inception – including a staggering $107 million to support family members of rescue workers killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

During the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fund raised $54.5 million for an emergency relief fund that covered meals and personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers.

But Mamdani started eroding the fund’s lucrative business connections as soon as he took office in April, appointing a former dockworker and a high school teacher to serve on the fund’s board of directors.

In April 2026, Mamdani started to overhaul the Fund’s Board of Directors, shifting it away from lucrative corporate and business leadership toward working New Yorkers and progressive advocates.

He added a Bronx public school teacher, a former longshoreman/UAW organizer, and his own chief of staff, Elle Bisgaard-Church, as chair.

Keep reading

Historian Visits Smithsonian After a Decade, Finds ‘A Completely Different Place’ That Puts Activism Ahead of History

The Smithsonian Institution, particularly the National Museum of American History (NMAH ) and related exhibits, has been accused of downplaying or negatively reframing aspects of American history in favor of a more critical, race- and social-justice-focused narrative.

Dr. Jody Edward Ginn, a historian and museum professional, made his first visit in a decade and was troubled by what he found.

According to Fox News, after reading the administration’s Domestic Policy Council report accusing the Smithsonian and the NMAH of failing to present history “in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic,” he decided to travel from Texas to see for himself. He said he found it to be “a completely different place than when I was there in 2012.”

Per Fox News:

“Its mission is clearly exactly what they changed it to be. It is a museum for activism. They use history, but that’s kind of the problem. You know, scholars of history, and I don’t consider these folks scholars anymore. They’re activists.”

******

“From the moment I walked in, it’s a very different experience,” Ginn said. “Now, I wasn’t totally shocked by this because I’ve been watching this evolution in my field for over a decade.”

As he made his way through the exhibits, Ginn said the institution seeks to “specifically direct” visitors “to action” rather than give them the information to “make their own decisions.”

“It became this goal, their own stated goal, to turn museums from institutions of education, of public education, into institutions to encourage activism, which could also be said to indoctrinate.”

Ginn also noted that he found “factually incorrect information” and, in some exhibits, what the institution left out was just as misleading.

“The biggest problem is in what they leave out.”

NMAH’s shift toward wokeness and activism has been a hot topic in DC. During a House Oversight hearing, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) grilled NMAH’s Director, Dr. Anthea Hartig, over the institution’s anti-white agenda and efforts to rewrite American history.

Keep reading

Spain’s Socialist Government Allocates €25 Million to Immigrant Minors Who Invaded Ceuta as One in Three Spanish Children Lives at Risk of Poverty

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist government has announced an extraordinary €25 million package of public funds to care for the unaccompanied migrant minors (commonly known in Spain as MENAs) who arrived in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta during last week’s invasion.

The announcement comes as official figures show that between 28% and 33% of Spanish children live in poverty or are at risk of social exclusion—the highest child poverty rate in the European Union. That means roughly 2.6 million Spanish children are living in economically vulnerable conditions while the central government approves emergency funding for foreign minors who entered Spain during the recent border crisis.

The funding was announced Tuesday by Spain’s Minister of Inclusion, Social Security and Immigration, Elma Saiz, who said the money will be used to provide urgent assistance to the approximately 860 to 1,000 immigrant minors who remain under Ceuta’s custody following the illegal mass entry of tens of thousands of Moroccan nationals, most of them young men. The new funding comes on top of a previous €5.5 million allocation.

Saiz said the measure demonstrates the government’s “commitment” to protecting vulnerable people. Critics, however, argue that it effectively rewards what they describe as a mass illegal border incursion that challenged Spain’s sovereignty while thousands of Spanish children continue to face severe economic hardship.

Madrid Received Warnings—But Responded Too Late

The controversy intensified after reports emerged that Spain’s National Intelligence Center (CNI) had issued several warnings to the Interior Ministry in the days leading up to the border invasion about the risk of a mass crossing.

Keep reading

Young Woman Shares Distrubing Details of Child Migrant Program Under Biden’s HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra She Says Led Her Straight Into the Hands of Child Traffickers

On Monday, Republican Steve Hilton, who is running for Governor of California, shared disturbing testimony from a young migrant of life under the Child Migrant Program during the Biden administration.

Juana Rebecca Pérez Santay said the program, led by Hilton’s opponent in the governor’s race, Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, kept her held ‘like a slave,’ and delivered her to child traffickers.

Juana, who says she was 17 when she crossed the southern border in May 2021, entered the federal system for unaccompanied minors, which Becerra boasted at the time was an “assembly line” through which minors flowed.

After she arrived, she was placed with a “sponsor,” an adult approved to act as her legal guardian, a process run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of Health and Human Services, which Becerra oversaw.

She says she was taken from the shelter by a ‘social worker’ and left alone at an airport. She called the ‘sponsor’ who sent three men to pick Juana up.

After she got in their car, they told her, “You are going to stay here, but from today you are going to start working.”

Juana says she spent up to 20 hours a day, seven days a week,  making tortillas and food, while being deprived of food and water.

Keep reading

Spain Created the Invasion and Then Pretended to Be the Victim

Spain has demonstrated precisely why government is so often the source of the crisis rather than the solution. The Sánchez government issued a sweeping royal decree to legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants, bypassed Parliament, and then acted astonished when people outside Spain interpreted the message exactly as any rational person would: enter the country illegally today and the politicians may legalize you tomorrow.

The decree did not explicitly state that every migrant arriving by boat would automatically receive legal status. It applied to undocumented migrants who could prove that they had lived in Spain for at least five months before January 1, 2026, but leave it to government to hide the fine print. Then Spain’s Supreme Court restricted the immediate expulsion of migrants arriving by sea. Smugglers and social-media accounts distorted that ruling into a promise that anyone who entered Spanish territory through the water could not be sent back, and Madrid failed miserably to contain or correct the message before people began moving. The outcome was entirely predictable.

Approximately 60,000 migrants reportedly entered Ceuta in roughly 24 hours. Ceuta normally has around 85,000 residents, so the government allowed a sudden influx equal to about 70% of the city’s entire population, temporarily pushing the number of people in this small Spanish enclave toward 145,000 almost overnight. This was not a normal migration flow. It was the sudden transformation of an entire city caused by politicians who played with human incentives and never prepared for the consequences.

People swam around the Tarajal breakwater, breached barriers, and poured across sections of the border where Moroccan enforcement had weakened. At least 57 people reportedly died from drowning or in stampedes, although the early numbers varied, and those deaths belong on the conscience of every politician who sent the signal that reaching Spain would provide a new life.

Ceuta’s facilities were already collapsing before this mass influx. The city was caring for 472 unaccompanied minors by July 28 after receiving more than 250 in only two weeks, and officials admitted that the child-protection system was operating at 1,600% of its intended capacity.

Keep reading

What Does Glyphosate Have to Do With Cheap Factory Farm Meat? Plenty.

For years, Bayer and the biotech giant it purchased, Monsanto, have faced allegations that glyphosate, the active ingredient in its popular herbicide Roundup, causes cancer.

The saga has resulted in over 100,000 lawsuits, billions of dollars in settlement funds, a U.S. Supreme Court case and several actions by the Trump administration.

But amidst the flurry of legal activity, few have stopped to ask a fundamental question: Why are we spraying so much glyphosate in the first place?

The answer, in many cases, is animal agriculture. In the U.S., a significant amount of applied glyphosate is used to grow crops to feed farm animals, not humans. While President Donald Trump has defended glyphosate as crucial to maintaining food security, that’s an overly broad characterization.

In truth, glyphosate has largely made meat production cheaper, as fewer weeds lower the cost of feed production for livestock. Some studies have found glyphosate also reduces greenhouse gas emissions from feed crops by enabling no-till agriculture.

In June, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling in favor of Monsanto regarding glyphosate. A Missouri gardener who’d been using Roundup for about two decades developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sued Monsanto for not including a cancer risk warning label on its Roundup products, arguing that it breaks a state failure-to-warn law.

The lower court ordered the company to pay him over a million dollars in damages, but the Supreme Court overturned that ruling, citing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Under FIFRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has final authority, superseding states, over what pesticide product labels are required to say.

Because the EPA had already ruled that glyphosate isn’t a carcinogen and therefore doesn’t require a cancer warning, the Supreme Court overturned the state court’s determination that Monsanto erred by not including such a warning on Roundup sold in Missouri.

Keep reading

Edmonton Police urge citizens to snitch on their neighbours for deportation talk

You typed a comment about Canada’s broken borders, and someone reported it as hate. According to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS), that’s an investigatory offence, even if it’s not a crime.

Last week, the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) posted a dramatic video overlaid with censored online comments: “Send them back home.” “Canada needs deportation.” “Hang him.”

The accompanying message declared: “Online hate isn’t ‘just a comment.’ It hurts real people and harms real communities. Hate has no home here.” Viewers were then directed to a ‘hate’ reporting portal.

While the post has since been deleted after massive public backlash, the timing is no coincidence.

It follows Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026, with key provisions having come into force on July 18.

The legislation strengthens Criminal Code hate-propaganda rules, defines “hatred” as an “intense and extreme” emotion of vilification and detestation, creates a new offence for displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols, establishes a stand-alone hate-crime offence, and criminalizes intimidation or obstruction near places of worship, schools, and cultural sites.

EPS wasted no time in jumping on the new laws’ bandwagon with their video that blurred the line between actual criminal hate speech and everyday political opinion, while soliciting reports of non-criminal “hate-motivated incidents.”

Conservative MP and lawyer Roman Baber pushed back hard. “No, Edmonton Police, you have no jurisdiction to limit online speech unless a criminal law is broken,” he wrote in a widely shared post.

“The criminal offence of hate speech is limited to the definition articulated by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago. Not what others find offensive.”

Keep reading

Father Shoots His Daughter’s Alleged R*pist After Posing as Her on TikTok – Then He is Charged By Authorities and Given a Higher Bond than the P*dophile

A loving Ohio father who was furious over a monster sexually assaulting his daughter took a unique approach to put a stop to the abuse, but is now paying a price.

As WBNS reported on Tuesday, Diego Montoya Gonzalez was shot by a 11-year-old girl’s father last month at their Grove City home after the child’s mother discovered video footage of her being r*ped.

The day after the footage was found, the child’s father posed as his daughter on TikTok to lure Montoya Gonzalez back to their home. Then, he shot him twice.

The dad said he acted in self-defense, claiming he only wanted to ‘beat up’ Montoya Gonzalez but saw him reach for a gun first.

But the dad’s daring act to save his innocent girl comes at a legal cost: WBNS reveals that he is being charged with felonious assault. His bond was set at $100,000.

Many Americans would certainly consider this decision by the authorities outrageous, especially since he was trying to protect his child.

Like WBNS, The Gateway Pundit will not identify the father to safeguard the little girl’s privacy.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Appeals Court Counters County: Upholds Foster Parents’ 2A Rights

Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals District III (CAD III) countered Washington County’s gun control rules for foster parents, rebuking the county for some of the controls and completely erasing others.

The ruling, issued in Lafferty v. Pertl, was handed down July 31, 2026. The case centers on Brian and Katie Lafferty and their fight to retain their Second Amendment rights while serving as foster parents.

The appeal to CAD III was made after a circuit court granted summary judgement against the Laffertys procedurally.

The Laffertys have been seeking to exercise their state and federal constitutional rights for five years while the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Washington County Human Services Department (the County) have dithered, moved the goal posts, and changed the rules of the game every step along the way.

CAD III then observed that while some of the gun controls have been amended and done away with, the mandate that “foster parents’ firearms be stored unloaded as a condition of obtaining a foster parent license” still exists and “violates both the federal and state constitution.”

Moreover, The Washington Times pointed out that CAD III was not pleased with the way Washington County had been tardy in informing the appeals court it had removed some of its gun control and CAD III subsequently “scolded the county for playing games with the courts over the changes.”

Keep reading

Dear America, We Do Not Beat China in the AI Race if We Become China in the AI Race

America is in an AI arms race. That’s the official story, anyway — a convenient narrative blasted from the teleprompters of corporate media and the podiums of bought-off politicians. We’re told that to question the wholesale surrender of our power grids, our water aquifers, and now our public lands to the data center boom is not just naive, but unpatriotic. This is the oldest trick in the book of statecraft: wrap a corporate giveaway in the flag and dare anyone to question it. The moment dissent gets reframed as disloyalty, you know you’re being scammed.

This was the raw, unfiltered message from Donald Trump at his Ratepayer Protection Pledge event, where he looked at his own constituents and told them, regarding the industrialization of their communities, “You can’t fight it. You have to go with it.” There is no clearer definition of tyranny than that. It’s the voice of an apparatus that has stopped asking for consent and started issuing commands.

Before we go further, let’s be crystal clear about what a free market actually is, and how it relates to the building of these data centers, because the term has been so grotesquely twisted it’s nearly lost its meaning. A free market is what happens when private individuals or companies make consensual deals. It is the opposite of the centrally planned, state-subsidized, resource-commandeering binge we are currently watching unfold.

And the most damning evidence that this AI boom has nothing to do with free enterprise is the simple fact that they are building it on your land. This isn’t private companies buying private property from willing sellers. This is the state acting as a real estate agent for the corporate elite, handing over vast tracts of public and military land in negotiated deals that the communities sitting next to them never got a real vote on.

Consider the facts. In Nevada, the federal Bureau of Land Management just approved the first commercial AI data center ever authorized on public land, waving aside desert tortoise habitat and the already-drought-stricken Colorado River. The agency did it, according to the conservation groups now suing to stop it, by reusing an old environmental review written for an entirely different solar project — meaning no new review and no public comment period were ever required, and the city of Boulder City itself says it was never consulted. The Department of Energy is running the same play with the wreckage of the Cold War: it has tapped SoftBank to build a 10-gigawatt AI campus at the former Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant in Ohio, selected Brookfield and NextEra for a $100 billion complex at the former Paducah uranium plant in Kentucky, and picked Amentum and DC Blox to develop a gigawatt-scale campus at the Savannah River nuclear-weapons site in South Carolina.

The Department of Defense has gotten in on it too, conditionally selecting Carlyle and CyrusOne to build hyperscale data centers on Army land at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, while the Air Force has offered up nearly 4,700 acres across three bases in Alaska for the same purpose. It has even trickled down to city hall: back in 2023, the Manassas, Virginia city council voted unanimously to sell 21 acres of city-owned airport land directly to Amazon for a new data center, with no ballot, no referendum, and barely a public hearing.

When the state is auctioning off the very land it supposedly holds in trust for the public, this is not capitalism. This is corporatism. It is a direct transfer of public assets into private, politically connected hands, and it makes a complete mockery of any claim to a “free market.”

With every one of these backroom deals comes the same tired promise: jobs. But the state’s own numbers expose the fraud. At a cost of roughly $13 million in investment per permanent job in Virginia, or $11 million per job in a recent New York deal, these are not job-creation programs. They are handouts to automate human labor. You’re being asked to celebrate a system where your own tax dollars subsidize the very automation that renders you obsolete.

The real costs — the ones that never make it onto the glossy brochures — are being socialized and dumped on an unwilling public. Residential electricity prices have shot up more than 36 percent since 2020, with data centers a primary driver. Dominion Energy in Virginia pushed through its first base-rate hike since 1992, and Baltimore residents saw their bills climb by more than $17 a month after a record power auction. The grid is being strained toward the breaking point, and the cost of every upgrade flows directly to ratepayers who never consented to any of it. It’s a textbook case of privatized profit and socialized loss: politically connected corporations reap the rewards, and you get handed the bill.

These facilities are also vampires, and they are draining the aquifers dry. U.S. data centers consumed more than 200 billion gallons of water last year, with roughly 93 percent of that footprint hidden inside off-site power plants where nobody’s looking. In drought-stricken Texas, consumption is projected to explode 714 percent by 2030, yet a state legislative hearing revealed that a staggering 83 percent of the state’s data centers simply refused to comply with mandatory water reporting. This stops being a negotiation and becomes the outright seizure of a shared public resource, with the state acting as armed lookout for the plunder.

It becomes something far more sinister when you remember what a lot of this infrastructure is actually for. Data centers themselves are neutral, but their deployment by the state is not. When the Department of Defense leases military land to build data centers, it isn’t for hosting cat videos. It is the physical construction of a turnkey surveillance apparatus, built on the one category of American ground that is already unambiguously controlled by the government, with none of the normal local checks that even a private developer would face. We are being told to subsidize the very infrastructure that is increasingly being used to watch our every move — and to do it on land we collectively own.

Keep reading