Pop star Olivia Rodrigo hosts all-female music fest to fund Planned Parenthood; 'I am so ecstatic'



Singer Olivia Rodrigo says her upcoming all-female music festival is dedicated to "advancing and advocating for women and girls."

Strangely, this seems to mostly translate to donating money to pro-abortion and race-based advocacy groups.

'I've had a dream of doing this festival for years.'

Dream theater

Rodrigo made headlines more than two years ago when she partnered with a national abortion network to give out emergency contraceptives — the morning-after pill — to concert attendees on her tour. After the story made the rounds, Rodrigo's publicity team put a stop to it and asked the group to cease handing out its packages that included two boxes of the pills and promotional codes that linked to an abortion fund.

Now, the 23-year-old has taken things a step further by hosting her own music festival to promote "meaningful change."

"Truly never felt more excited to share a piece of news with you all," Rodrigo wrote on X. "I've had a dream of doing this festival for years and i am so ecstatic its finally coming true!!"

The singer noted that "100 percent of the net proceeds will go to charities dedicated to advancing and advocating for women and girls."

These organizations include abortion clinic Planned Parenthood as well as several other abortion advocacy groups.

Other partners featured are the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which says it is invested in the "fight" to "expand access to abortion and contraception and advance health equity."

RELATED: Abortion promoters told to stop handing out morning-after pills at Olivia Rodrigo concerts due to the presence of children

truly never felt more excited to share a piece of news with you all. i’ve had a dream of doing this festival for years and i am so ecstatic its finally coming true!! Daisy Chain Fields features an all-women lineup and 100 percent of the net proceeds will go to charities… pic.twitter.com/bPXHfLl1WJ
— Olivia Rodrigo (@oliviarodrigo) June 22, 2026

Immigrant song

Race-centric advocacy groups are also getting support, including the Black Mamas Matter Alliance and the Johns Hopkins Center for Indigenous Health.

Another partner, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, notes that while it supports domestic workers, the women they back are "mostly women of color [and] immigrants" as well as "mothers and low-wage workers."

The company also has a directive dedicated to "black domestic workers," with the title "We Dream in Black."

The upcoming music festival takes place in August in Irvine, California, featuring artists like Doechii, Chappell Roan, and Sarah McLachlan and Stevie Nicks as special guests.

Outlet Young Hollywood described the festival as a way to "bring women together," while creating a "safe and welcoming space" that will support "queer and female communities by donating profits to charities focused on social justice and helping women."

RELATED: 'I'm really excited': Pop star Olivia Rodrigo gives out morning-after pills at concerts for 'reproductive health freedom'

Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images

Vaxxin' and relaxin'

In 2021, Rodrigo visited President Joe Biden at the White House to promote COVID-19 vaccination among American youth, with the president claiming it was of the utmost importance for those ages 16 to 25 to get vaccinated.

At the time, Rodrigo said she was "beyond honored and humbled" to "help spread the message about the importance of youth vaccinations."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EMMY-BARRASSMENT: TV king Taylor Sheridan snubbed, while canceled Colbert cleans up



Taylor Sheridan is the undisputed king of modern TV.

“Yellowstone.” “Tulsa King.” “Landman.” “Dutton Ranch.” “The Madison.” “1923.”

What, is Willy gender fluid this time around?

He’s prolific and popular, drawing the biggest names to his shows. Think Billy Bob Thornton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kurt Russell, and Kevin Costner.

He just can’t buy himself an Emmy. The mega-producer got shut out, again, this week while Stephen Colbert’s canceled “Late Show” earned a record nine nominations. Could it have something to do with Sheridan’s embrace of heartland stories and Colbert’s failed war against a certain president?

Forget about it, Taylor. It’s Hollywood town ...

'Moana' lost at sea

Let’s give Dwayne Johnson credit. He’s no Rachel Zegler (or Milly Alcock, for that matter). Those stars hurt their respective films (“Snow White” and “Supergirl”) with their disastrous press interviews.

Johnson knows better. He’s generally positive, and after he stepped on a banana peel by endorsing Joe Biden, Johnson announced he’s steering clear of politics.

Smart.

Yet his newest Disney venture, a live-action “Moana,” looks like another blockbuster dud. The film could earn as little as $40 million in its opening weekend, a fine haul for most movies but not an expensive Disney romp.

We can smell what the Rock is cooking, and it might be another “Baywatch” ...

#OscarsSoWhat?

Are we heading toward #OscarsSoWhite: the sequel? A new report reveals interesting data points regarding “representation” within the industry. Never mind that said diversity measures never include Christians, conservatives, or gasp, Christian conservatives.

We’ll set that on a shelf for now.

Those Emmy nominations indicate diminishing DEI. TheWrap.com reports that “representation for actors of color at the 2026 Emmys continued to decline sharply, with only 18 performers from Asian, black. and Latino communities represented among the 91 nominees.”

That’s down from last year, when 24 of the 92 nominees were "POCs."

How do we even know this? It's simple: Entertainment news outlets like far-left TheWrap.com pore over every award nomination list looking for the slightest insinuation of bias.

Kevin Sorbo, canceled by the industry for being a Christian conservative, couldn’t be reached for comment ...

RELATED: 'Landman': Is Taylor Sheridan's gritty oil drama the last honest show about America?

Taylor Hill/Getty Images

Save the whale

What’s the one word that sets a movie lover’s teeth on edge? “Reimagining.” Yes, it’s happening, again, and the victim this time is a poor, innocent whale.

“Free Willy,” the 1993 charmer, is heading back to captivity. And naturally, the folks behind the project aren’t settling for a mere "remake" ... or even "reboot."

No, they used the other “R” word, or at least the Hollywood Reporter used it twice in the story tied to the new version of the classic, feel-good flick. What, is Willy gender fluid this time around?

Why change what isn’t broken? The original film spawned two sequels and an animated series. Now, this.

Keiko the whale deserves better.

'Ghostbusters' helmer gets 'Detention'

"Bridesmaids" director Paul Feig is directing his first horror movie.

Or second, if you count his “Ghostbusters” reboot. That high-profile flop may have been light on scares — or laughs, for that matter — but it was certainly a nightmare for Sony. As well as for anyone who managed to sit through it.

Should we expect another cinematic atrocity?

His recent action-comedy "Jackpot" would seem to suggest we should. That Prime Video original went bust as one of the worst movies of 2024.

Or any year, really.

But let's not forget that Feig has fought his way out of director's jail before — by helming “A Simple Favor” and its 2025 straight-to-video sequel, plus last year’s surprise hit “The Housemaid” with Sydney Sweeney.

Now, Feig is teaming with horror maven Jason Blum to direct “Detention.” Literally nothing is known about the project for now — except that Feig expects to go "darker" than ever before.

Let's hope that refers to the story — and the mood of innocent moviegoers after wasting two hours ...

Sheen settles

We wouldn’t call this “winning.” Not even close.

Troubled actor Charlie Sheen has agreed to pay ex-wife Brooke Mueller $500,000 in back child support. The move means the former couple won’t have to litigate the matter in court. That’s probably wise, but skimping out on child support is terrible, period.

Sheen has seemingly cleaned up his life, apologized for his manic “tiger blood” phase, and opened up via his 2025 autobiography “The Book of Sheen.”

Let’s hope this ends up being one of the last vestiges of his chaotic bad-boy phase.

8 months after forced cull, Universal Ostrich Farms still in limbo



Eight months after federal officials destroyed more than 300 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, the property remains under quarantine, with owners saying they still have no clear timeline for when they'll be allowed to reopen.

Katie Pasitney, daughter of farm co-owner Karen Espersen, says the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has prevented the family from cleaning up the property while citing an ongoing "fallow period," intended to allow any remaining H5N1 virus in the environment to naturally become inactive, as the reason the quarantine remains in place.

'They continue down this anti-science avenue, which is destroying the credibility of the CFIA internationally.'

No reprieve

The ongoing restrictions come months after the CFIA ordered the destruction of the farm's ostriches following an outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza. The owners fought the order through the courts, ultimately losing their final appeal when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case. The CFIA has maintained that culling infected poultry is required under Canada's disease-control protocols to limit the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

Pasitney recently joined former Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz for an interview to discuss the continuing fallout from the cull and what she says are unanswered questions about the government's handling of the farm.

'The Ostrich Con'

Following the cull, CBC news program "The Fifth Estate" approached Pasitney about participating in a documentary on the controversy surrounding Universal Ostrich Farms. She says she and her mother initially declined but ultimately agreed after producers indicated the program would proceed with or without them.

"We have nothing to hide," Pasitney says she thought at the time. "We have everything to show, and we're going to answer the hard questions."

It wasn't until the documentary aired that Pasitney learned the CBC had titled it "The Ostrich Con." She says the title immediately told her how the broadcaster had chosen to frame the story.

"The only con that was happening here was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ... trying to blindfold the public, saying, 'This is a virus, this is a virus,'" she said. "We were not the con."

Pasitney says she was also disappointed that key portions of her interview did not appear in the finished program.

She says CBC reporter Mark Kelley asked whether she was embarrassed to seek support from Americans, including U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"I said, 'If our country would have listened, and we would have had any true leadership that would have taken the time to understand what we were trying to fight for, I wouldn't have had to go out of country,'" she said.

Her response, she says, did not make the final cut.

Ongoing damage

Pasitney says the most frustrating aspect of the ordeal is that the CFIA has not returned to conduct further testing while continuing to prevent the family from restoring the property.

"They have not been on our farm since [the cull]," she said. "There has been no more testing."

If the agency believes the virus remains a concern, she argues, it should be testing the soil, water, and surrounding environment rather than simply extending the quarantine.

Pasitney says the impact extends far beyond the financial loss of the birds.

"When your animals are destroyed and the damage is done, it doesn't just end in our fields, and it doesn't end in our barns, and it doesn't end in our pastures. It follows into our homes," she said, calling it "generational trauma."

She worries the episode has permanently damaged public confidence in government institutions.

"The generations that are watching this are learning not to trust our government," she said. "They're learning not to trust our RCMP."

RELATED: Massacre at Universal Ostrich Farms: Canada kills hundreds of birds despite no evidence of avian flu

Universal Ostrich Farms

'The antithesis of science'

Ritz, who served as Canada's agriculture minister under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper from 2007 to 2015, said he finds the continuing quarantine difficult to justify.

"The whole mandate of CFIA is one based on science. It is to support food safety and trade corridors," he said.

He argued that the agency has moved well beyond that mission in its handling of Universal Ostrich Farms, later describing what he called the "egregious behavior" of CFIA "thugs."

"I can't, for the life of me, understand the powers that be allowing this to happen," he said. "We've got a rogue element within CFIA. There's still some really good people there."

Ritz said he knows current CFIA President Dr. Harpreet Kochhar from his time in government and pledged to contact him regarding the ongoing quarantine.

He also questioned the agency's use of a "fallow period" while simultaneously preventing the farm from cleaning the property.

"What you guys wanted to do was clean up ... and actually extend that containment," Ritz told Pasitney during the interview.

"They're not allowing you to do that. That, to me, is the ... antithesis of science."

'No containment'

Ritz also questioned the agency's public statements regarding the disposal of the birds.

"There's no containment," he said. "We saw that when they hauled the birds away. There was no containment. They sat in yards in Surrey and rotted on the spot. It was just heartbreaking to see that go on. And they continue down this anti-science avenue, which is destroying the credibility of CFIA internationally."

The CFIA did not respond to written questions asking when the quarantine will be lifted, what scientific criteria must be met before it ends, and why the agency did not remove spent cartridges, blood-soaked hay, and other debris that remained on the property following the cull.

For Pasitney, however, the central question remains unanswered.

Eight months after the cull, she says her family members are still waiting to learn when they will be allowed to begin putting the farm — and their lives — back together.

An open letter to new Southern Poverty Law Center President and CEO Ryan P. Haygood



Dear Mr. Haygood,

My name is Brad Dacus, and I am the founder and president of the Pacific Justice Institute.

Congratulations on your appointment as President and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

One cannot openly profess devotion to Jesus Christ on Sunday morning while leading an organization that labels fellow believers as hate groups on Monday.

I understand that you are a purported follower of Jesus Christ and that the SPLC Board has publicly praised your religious convictions and concern for human dignity.

I am also a Christian. However, I believe there is a contradiction between the faith we both profess and the institution you now lead.

For nearly 30 years, PJI has defended religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, and other constitutional freedoms. We have represented churches, schools, students, parents, veterans, business owners, and everyday Americans who believed their rights had been violated because of their faith and had nowhere else to turn.

Yet the institution you now lead classifies PJI as a “hate group” and has placed our nonprofit on a “hate map” alongside reputable Christian ministries such as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, and American Family Association.

PJI and these ministries have spent decades serving others and helping people live according to their convictions. We love God and our neighbors, and we seek to serve our communities faithfully.

Yet the SPLC’s judgments of PJI and these organizations now bear your signature.

Mr. Haygood, how do you reconcile your Christian witness with leading an institution that publicly brands Christian ministries as hateful because of their Bible-based beliefs?

One cannot openly profess devotion to Jesus Christ on Sunday morning while leading an organization that labels fellow believers as hate groups on Monday.

Do you believe adherence to biblical teaching is sufficient grounds to classify a ministry as a hate group?

Let me be clear: PJI categorically rejects the SPLC’s accusations. We do not incite violence, bigotry, or hatred. The SPLC is wrong about who we are and what we do.

Your public profile cites 2 Timothy 1:7: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” If those words genuinely guide your leadership, then a public examination of the SPLC’s accusations should not be viewed as a threat, but as an opportunity.

That is why I am extending a direct and public invitation to you:

I welcome you to join me for a recorded, in-person conversation. Sit across from me and explain why PJI and these other ministries deserve to be classified as hate groups. Defend the SPLC’s accusations and conclusions.

The issue before us extends far beyond PJI or the SPLC. It concerns whether Americans can still disagree without being publicly vilified and whether deeply held religious convictions can be represented fairly in our national conversation.

The invitation stands, and I truly hope you accept it.

Running the Race,

BRAD DACUS

Founder and President
Pacific Justice Institute

Editor's note: This letter originally appeared at pacificjustice.org.

Police 'flabbergasted' after finding out what one man has been doing in an Arizona forest for 8 years



An unmarked dirt trail in the Tonto National Forest once gave police an indication of what was going on in the park, and it turns it out was much worse than they thought.

In 2025, an acre of land was being investigated, with an officer describing it as one of the "worst" cases he has ever seen. This June, forest rangers were not prepared for how things had progressed.

'I was flabbergasted by the amount of debris in the area.'

Garbage in

Two U.S. national forest rangers came upon an illegal site in Tonto National Forest in central Arizona in June, and with it was 65-year-old Mark Aaron Gatz.

According to documents acquired by ABC News, Gatz was operating an illegal campsite that contained not just a wood-burning fire — a huge problem in itself — but also 1,000 pounds of trash.

Gatz's encampment was entrenched in garbage that had built up over two years of him living in that location, with the man telling officers that he had been living in the forest for eight years in total.

WCNC-TV reported that the trash was scattered over about half an acre of forest service land and was causing permanent damage to the ecosystem. The garbage included items like tires, plastic bags, regular trash bags, aluminum cans, and more.

Aside from finding Gatz's illegal campfire, they also saw he had made a canopy to go over his SUV that was parked in the forest.

"I was flabbergasted by the amount of debris in the area," a responding officer reportedly wrote in response to the mess.

RELATED: Why are today's parents so scared of the sun?

-

Bless this mess

This latest discovery was part of an extensive rap sheet that had been built by the older male; police soon discovered Gatz had six outstanding federal warrants from previous forest-related violations.

The citations go back to May 2025 when forest officials followed a dirt trail to a campsite littered with clothes, tools, plastic, and other trash. Authorities determined it was there for at least a month.

In early July 2025, officers reportedly responded to complaints of a "large messy campsite" that contained years' worth of trash. It was described at the time by one officer as "one of the worst residential cases" he had seen in the entire forest.

Gatz was cited for unsanitary conditions due to his household trash being scattered around the land.

Then, in February 2026, forest officers found a red and white trailer that was surrounded by tarps and string used as clothes lines, seemingly to dry towels, sheets, and sleeping bags. This belonged to Gatz, who was also allegedly operating a 3-foot campfire made of stone and clay.

RELATED: What was the 'alt-right'? 'Whitepill' clears up the media hysteria

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

Camp scamp

The serial camper has been in violation of U.S. Department of Agriculture rules surrounding camping in a national forest. The rules state that camping for more than 14 days in a 30-day period or more than 30 days in a 365-day period is prohibited.

According to ABC News, Gatz pleaded guilty to a violation of fire restrictions for his recent activities, along with residential use of the forest without a permit. He was sentenced to three years of probation.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Flock Safety CEO: It's "terroristic" to want to know where we put our spy cameras



For years, Americans have been told not to worry about the explosion of AI surveillance cameras. They're only looking for stolen cars. They're only helping solve crimes. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Then the CEO of one of the country's largest AI surveillance companies, Flock Safety, said something that should make every American stop and think.

Americans can support law enforcement while also believing there must be limits on mass surveillance.

In an interview with Forbes last year, Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley called DeFlock — a volunteer group that maps the locations of Flock's automated license plate reader cameras — a "terroristic organization." He contrasted the group with the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, saying those groups use the courts, while DeFlock's "primary motivation is chaos."

Think about that for a moment.

Citizen terrorists?

DeFlock's primary activity is mapping the locations of publicly visible cameras installed throughout American communities. Flock argues that publishing those locations could help criminals avoid detection. DeFlock argues that citizens have a right to know where government-connected surveillance technology is being deployed. Reasonable people can disagree about that. But calling transparency activists "terroristic" is something else entirely.

Words matter, especially when they come from the CEO of a company whose business depends on collecting, analyzing, and sharing vast amounts of location data. He didn't call the group irresponsible or reckless; he chose language normally associated with violent extremism. That choice tells us how criticism of surveillance is increasingly viewed by the industry building it.

Then there was another statement from that interview that deserves just as much attention. Langley said, "We're not forcing Flock on anyone."

Really?

No choice

Americans never voted to install AI-powered camera networks throughout their communities. They didn't vote for systems capable of tracking vehicle movements across cities. They didn't vote for technology that has evolved far beyond simply reading license plates. Today's systems can identify vehicles by make, model, color, aftermarket wheels, roof racks, bumper stickers, damage, window tint, and countless other characteristics — even when a license plate isn't visible. Every generation of this technology becomes more sophisticated than the last.

This isn't simply about solving crime anymore. It's about building an increasingly comprehensive picture of where vehicles travel, when they travel, and how artificial intelligence can connect those movements. That is why transparency matters. If these cameras are installed in public places with taxpayer dollars, why shouldn't the public know where they are? That's the question DeFlock is asking. And asking it, apparently, makes them terrorists.

It's also a question the surveillance industry appears increasingly uncomfortable answering. Perhaps the most revealing part of this controversy isn't the quote itself. It's what it says about the mindset behind the technology.

When someone maps surveillance cameras, the cameras aren't questioned. The person documenting them is. That's an extraordinary shift. The debate moves away from whether expanding surveillance deserves public scrutiny and toward whether the people asking questions are somehow the threat. That inversion should concern anyone who values accountability.

RELATED: California wants to decide what tires you can buy — what could possibly go wrong?

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Mounting frustration

The frustration is building. People across the country are vandalizing or removing Flock surveillance cameras. While Flock doesn't operate in Europe, activists have targeted similar surveillance cameras in London, France, and Italy.

To be clear: Destroying public or private property is illegal, and I don't support it. But those incidents reflect something policymakers and technology companies shouldn't ignore — a growing segment of the public feels these systems are being imposed without meaningful public debate or consent. Ignoring that frustration won't make it disappear. Calling critics "terroristic" certainly won't either.

The irony is hard to miss. The surveillance industry frequently tells Americans these systems are about building trust and making communities safer. But trust isn't built by dismissing or demonizing people who ask legitimate questions about privacy, accountability, and the limits of government surveillance. Trust is earned through transparency — and right now, that transparency is disappearing fast.

Just asking

Americans can support law enforcement while also believing there must be limits on mass surveillance. They can believe violent criminals should be caught while also asking who owns the data, who can search it, how long it is retained, and whether artificial intelligence should be allowed to follow their daily movements without their knowledge. Those aren't extremist questions. They're the kinds of questions citizens in a free society are supposed to ask.

Garrett Langley's comments may have been intended to defend his company. Instead, they revealed something far more important. They exposed an attitude many Americans have long suspected exists beneath the rapid expansion of AI surveillance: that questioning the system is becoming more objectionable than expanding it. He said the quiet part out loud. And that matters, because once a society accepts ubiquitous surveillance as normal, history suggests it rarely moves in the opposite direction.

So let me get this straight: We did not vote to add these surveillance cameras, and letting people know where they are located makes us the bad guys. This is not a joke.

I guess I'm "terroristic" for discussing this and telling everyone about it.

'The ship is already sinking': Why the 'Citizen Vigilante' director wants to shock you



The corporate entertainment complex is experiencing a collective nervous breakdown. The catalyst for this sudden departure from sanity is "Citizen Vigilante," a cinematic hand grenade that blows the lid off the establishment's favorite lies.

Directed by the notoriously uncompromising Uwe Boll, the film takes the documented reality of Europe's border crisis, pairs it with an industry outcast, and refuses to apologize for the violence that follows.

'Everybody loved that I knocked out the critics,' Boll notes dryly. 'They stepped into the ring and received a much-needed reality check.'

Film reviewers, conditioned by years of ideological conformity, responded with their usual panic-stricken script, hurling accusations of "fascism" like overexcited monkeys slinging feces.

Crying 'fascist'

When asked why modern film critics seem so threatened by stories that reflect public frustrations instead of establishment-approved narratives, Boll doesn't hesitate.

"They know that the facts are against them and they have no defense," Boll states matter-of-factly. "So they label everyone a fascist or a Nazi if they point out that criminals need to be prosecuted and, if possible, deported."

"The leftist governments in Europe are victims of their own propaganda. They are under immense pressure to ignore grooming scandals, knife stabbings, and all forms of violent random crime."

The hysterical reaction from the press stems from a deep-seated fear of the obvious. For years, the European establishment maintained control by enforcing a strict code of censorship around the predictable outcomes of open-door migration policies. "Citizen Vigilante" breaks that code with a sledgehammer.

The film acts as a mirror to a continent where citizens are told to accept acts of savagery as a standard feature of daily life. When art reflects the dark reality instead of the utopian fantasy, the gatekeepers reach for the chloroform.

RELATED: 'Citizen Vigilante': A cinematic hand grenade lobbed at the cathedral of liberal pieties

bollfilms.com

Hammer time

The casting of the lead role provided another opportunity to challenge the industry's enforced consensus. Beyond his fit for the role, casting Armie Hammer felt like a well-earned middle finger to an entertainment industry obsessed with moral conformity.

"Armie was a major star and would be the perfect James Bond," Boll says. "Unfortunately, in today's climate, a one-legged transgender person from Bangladesh has a better chance of getting that part."

"By the way," he adds, "that is not a joke against transgender people — that is a joke against the insanity of the woke police running Hollywood. Armie acted irresponsibly years ago, but he committed no crime. He rehabilitated himself and deserves to be a major star again. He was perfect for the role of Sanders, so I hired him."

Boll is right. Hammer, a genuinely gifted actor, is not a criminal. Whatever one makes of his personal controversies, they are not comparable to the depravities of Harvey Weinstein. On screen, the American’s stoic, unsentimental delivery of justice feels both refreshing and revolutionary.

Hollywood thrives on a system of selective banishment, enforcing a social credit system that demands absolute ideological submission. Hiring Hammer was a calculated rejection of that ecosystem. It demonstrated that a filmmaker with independent backing can bypass the arbitrary tribunals of the cultural elite.

Wake-up call

The performance itself fuels a narrative that focuses directly on the systematic failure of European state institutions. The complete lack of public safety in major European centers is a daily reality on the streets of Berlin, Paris, and London, where the native populations find themselves treated as second-class citizens by their own representatives.

This fact is not lost on Boll.

"Germany is going down the drain, just like the U.K. and France, and we have watched it unfold for at least 15 years," the filmmaker explains. "Now that more middle-class citizens are feeling the impact, they are starting to wake up and get upset. The general population always reacts too late, usually when the ship is already sinking and they have lost their jobs, their homes, or are simply running out of money for groceries. Then they become resentful and depressed.”

He considers his latest film “a harsh wake-up call designed for shock value to accelerate that awakening. Politicians are elected to bring safety and prosperity to their country. That is not happening.”

In Germany, he adds, “our bridges and schools are literally falling apart, but we are funding bicycle lanes in Peru. That is a documented fact, not a joke." He’s right. It’s true.

Contract killers

This disconnect forms the emotional center of the film's protagonist, a man driven to extreme measures by the state's total abdication of authority. The character's narrative arc reflects a growing sentiment across the continent. When the social contract is voided by the ruling class, the consequences will be severe.

Michael Sanders goes to some incredibly dark places by the end of the film, leaving fans to wonder if the sequel will bring a deeper escalation of his crusade or a confrontation with the true cost of taking the law into his own hands.

Boll remains coy about the exact plot of the sequel. "Maybe both," he offers.

Bounty hunter

Obviously, one cannot interview Boll without discussing his decision to stream the film for free on X via Elon Musk's account. This move bypassed traditional distribution entirely, rendering traditional studios obsolete.

"Thanks to X, the world could watch the film for two days," Boll says. However, he adds, “you still need theatrical releases, Blu-ray, television, and streaming revenues to generate a profit. If you launch exclusively on social media, you would need an alternative model to get compensated for the work."

In theory, this alternative model would look like a digital bounty system — direct-to-consumer micro-subscriptions or platform-backed ad-revenue splits driven entirely by viral engagement rather than studio greenlights. It is desperately needed because the current gatekeepers don't just take a cut of the profit but also a cut of the truth.

The entertainment elite dislikes independent distribution channels because they destroy the monopoly on information. This rebellious streak defines Boll's career. Twenty years ago, he famously challenged his fiercest critics to actual boxing matches and beat them in the ring, an event that permanently altered his relationship with the film establishment.

"Everybody loved that I knocked out the critics," Boll notes dryly. "They stepped into the ring and received a much-needed reality check." With "Citizen Vigilante," Boll delivers the ultimate right hook, forcing open the eyes of the cultural commissars who would very much like us to ignore reality.

What was the 'alt-right'? 'Whitepill' clears up the media hysteria



I remember back in the early Trump days, I would cruise by the Politics section of my local bookstore to see which celebrity leftist pundit they were promoting this week.

One day, I noticed a small subsection within Politics called the Alt-Right.

The alt-right was like the early punk movement. If you were actually there, it was crazy fun. If you weren’t, everything you heard about it was negative.

I was amazed that a bookstore in my blue city would admit that the “alt-right” existed. But then I saw that all these books were about the evils of the alt-right.

Without exception, these books described a dark and dangerous world of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, racists, homophobes, and misogynists ... most of whom apparently lived in caves in the darkest reaches of Idaho.

The authors of these books often struck a self-congratulatory tone. How brave they were to explore these nefarious netherworlds!

Eggheads unlimited

The truth was that all of these books were incredibly dry and boring. Most were published by university presses and featured dubious statistics, out-of-context quotes, and obvious misrepresentations.

The writers were brain-dead academics. They had no understanding of trends, or vibes, or zeitgeists. They barely knew what a meme was.

And of course, they lacked any sense of humor at all. This made it impossible for them to understand the sarcasm and irony of the quick-witted young bloggers and commentators they were supposedly writing about.

An untold story

I remember wondering if anyone would ever write an honest account of the alt-right. Probably not. It’s fairly common that most vanguard youth cultures are dismissed or misinterpreted.

The alt-right was like the early punk movement. If you were actually there, it was crazy fun. If you weren’t, everything you heard about it was negative.

So you can imagine my surprise when I heard about Scott Greer’s latest book, "Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America."

Though the official title was relatively innocuous,the word on the street was this is it, this is the first serious history of the alt-right, by a writer who understood it, participated in it, and was very nearly destroyed by its fallout.

Needless to say, I was eager to read it.

How far we’ve come

Greer named his book "Whitepill" because it describes the many advances conservatives have made during the Trump era and celebrates their many victories.

For those of us over 50: To be “white-pilled” about something means to be excited or happy about it.

In the first sections of the book, Greer reminds us of the state of conservatism during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

It was “cuckservatism” basically, to borrow an alt-right-ism. The Republicans were so eager to please and so afraid of offending that they came up with catchphrases like “compassionate conservatism” to market themselves.

They promoted same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and a host of other leftist projects.

We think of our current Republicans as being hypocritical, if not traitorous, for not protecting Americans from voter fraud, violent crime, and open borders.

But they were even worse 20 years ago! Greer gives a good, succinct accounting of this.

A new defiant energy

In response to the extreme wimpiness of 2000s establishment Republicans, a new defiant energy began to appear among young conservatives.

Greer describes an obscure 2008 article by historian Paul Gottfried, who predicted the end of that era’s gutless conservatism:

Beneath that crumbling establishment, [Gottfried] saw the stirrings of a “younger, less inhibited” generation of rightists willing to defy taboos and confront head-on what he described as an “intolerable political situation.” He called this nascent rebellion the Alternative Right.

Most people who read "Whitepill" will have a rough idea of what Gottfried’s alternative right became, but Greer simplifies it for the normies: "[The alt-right] was an online phenomenon, an ideological and aesthetic counter-culture that broke hard from the philosophical premises underpinning the modern [liberal] 'idea' of America."

And more specifically:

Many young white men in particular came to feel alienated by a new liberalism that pathologized their "whiteness" and demanded that they "check their privilege." The Alt-Right explained to them in explicit terms why and how they could reject this new social paradigm."

RELATED: The cure for liking socialism? Visiting a socialist country

L-R: The author in East Berlin, 1984. Blake Nelson; Cuba, 2007. Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Youth must be served

From there, Greer takes us through the initial flourishing of alt-right culture. The kids were going to have their say!

But he also points out its obvious limitations, mainly that it was completely online and mostly anonymous. Its growth was therefore random and chaotic. There was no accountability; there were no boundaries.

If it sometimes felt like a “movement” or even a “political party,” in reality, it was a free-floating, spontaneous, cultural phenomenon created in the cartoon world of the internet.

Still, an entire generation came to know its symbols, its humor, its language, its youthful goofiness. It was hopeful and fun, and it pointed toward a way out of the mess we were in.

The end of the beginning

Of course, we all know where the alt-right story ended: in Charlottesville, in the summer of 2017.

The Charlottesville “Unite the Right Rally” was doomed from the beginning. Though I had only just become aware of the alt-right myself, even I could sense the danger inherent in its real-world manifestation.

I remember one blogger I followed begging people to stay away. “IT’S A TRAP!” he kept saying. And he was right. And a lot of people got caught in it.

Life in the swamp

Greer occasionally inserts his own experiences as a writer, editor, and journalist into this narrative. And it’s good that he does. As he describes his early career in Washington, D.C., you get a sense of what a treacherous time it was to work in politics.

Imagine trying to hold down a real-world job as a young conservative in the midst of peak wokeness! At different points, Greer was doxxed, fired, and blacklisted. But he managed to soldier on.

Which is good news for the rest of us. Because he has written an exceptional book about a very important subject.

Perhaps the most notable thing about "Whitepill" is that despite Greer’s obvious right-wing bias, he actually succeeds in producing a balanced and objective account of what happened and why. He is — as best he can — attempting to tell the truth.

Imagine that. An honest person in politics. That is indeed a white pill.

CEO behind 100% AI movie: You should 'accept' the future of entertainment



An artificial intelligence company's CEO said the public is better off preparing for the inevitable rather than fighting it.

The founder of AI studio Particle6, Eline van der Velden, says she worries for people who don't embrace AI, and that includes detractors of her new project.

'We have to accept that this is going to be part of our every day.'

Resistance is futile

Van der Velden's studio is behind the AI character named Tilly Norwood, whom the company is pushing as the first AI actress to ever exist. Now, Particle6 is announcing its wholly AI movie titled "Misaligned."

According to Variety, the movie is described as a comedy-drama and a "coming-of-age story infused with existential AI chaos."

During press for the film, van der Velden pushed a viewpoint that her company is at the tip of the spear in what she considers to be the inevitable.

When ABC News' Kyra Phillips asked why audiences should embrace her movie, van der Velden revealed that the purpose of her project isn't exactly to make money.

"It's less about, you know, making this a box office hit and more about preparing people for the transition that we're about to go through, so retooling, reskilling people, and getting them ready. I think that's the most important thing to me," the CEO told the host.

Van der Velden then cited several celebrities who have either promoted AI outright or decided to use it in production processes as evidence that "we're seeing a slow warming up of the industry."

RELATED: Physical media revolution! Global brands join fight to troll Sony with 'digital' food and products.

-

Clanker go home

Van der Velden soon went on the offensive, saying that she has concerns for those who do not accept her worldview.

"We have to accept that this is going to be part of our every day. And I worry for people who put their head in the sand and don't embrace AI because the future world will require people to have AI skill sets," van der Velden claimed.

For the praise the CEO cited from actors, there have been equal — if not more — parts in opposition, including from Morgan Freeman, who mocked the AI actress in November.

"Nobody likes her because she's not real and that takes the part of a real person," Freeman stated. "So it's not going to work out very well in the movies or in television. ... The union's job is to keep actors acting, so there's going to be that conflict."

RELATED: Hollywood screams as Google invests $75M in A24 — but swears its AI tools won't scare creatives

Florencia Tan Jun/Sportsfile for Web Summit/Getty Images

Creative controller

Van der Velden defended her project as "just creating characters," explaining that, as a former actor, she has been creatively fulfilled by her e-daughter.

"The reason I called her an actor was that she could play multiple characters, and I was an actor, and I feel like I'm creatively fulfilled by her being able to create all these, you know, play all these different characters in different films."

Variety noted that the AI film is being designed as a hybrid production combining AI art with traditional film and TV.

"Our work this year has proven something we suspected all along,” van der Velden added, per Variety. "AI can support premium narrative filmmaking, but only with substantial amounts of human craft, skill, judgment, and time. That's not a limitation of the technology. That's the point."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

2,500 reasons 'The View' is pure leftist propaganda — and 1 reason the FCC should leave it alone anyway



This just in from ABC: "The View" is a news program.

Yes, that’s the same “View” that traffics in more conspiracy theories than a tinfoil salesman at an Alex Jones convention.

In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.

Ridiculous? Of course it is.

The surprising part isn't that ABC is saying it. It's that, for decades, the FCC has effectively treated it that way by exempting programs like "The View" from the agency's equal-time rules.

Now that long-standing interpretation is under attack — and while it's hard to argue with mocking the gynocentric gabfest's journalistic standards, the government shouldn't be deciding which shows qualify as "real" journalism.

News flush

The dispute traces back to January, when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that late-night and daytime talk shows could no longer rely on a decades-old interpretation of the "bona fide news interview" exemption to the equal-time rule. Carr argued that broadcasters had stretched the exemption beyond recognition, saying legacy networks had treated their talk shows as news programs "even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes."

Congress created that exemption in 1959 after broadcasters warned that forcing equal time for every candidate interview would discourage political coverage altogether. Lawmakers ultimately concluded that preserving editorial discretion better served the public than having regulators second-guess programming decisions.

The first major test came a few weeks later. Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico appeared on "The View" months before his expected primary against Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Under Carr's new interpretation, ABC could no longer simply assume the interview qualified for the exemption, prompting the FCC to investigate whether the appearance should have triggered equal-time obligations.

The effects were almost immediate. Citing the same regulatory uncertainty, CBS lawyers advised Stephen Colbert not to air a scheduled interview with Talarico on "The Late Show." Rather than risk an FCC dispute, Colbert released the interview on YouTube instead, where the agency has no jurisdiction. Whether you sympathize with Colbert or not, the episode demonstrated how quickly regulatory uncertainty can begin shaping editorial decisions.

Narrow 'View'

Carr's criticism wasn't pulled from thin air. The show's guest lineup is notoriously one-sided. According to the Media Research Center, last year "The View" hosted 128 liberal-leaning guests compared with just two conservatives. One of those two, actress Cheryl Hines, is generally considered "conservative" only because her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., serves in the Trump administration.

The guest tally merely scratches the surface. The Media Research Center has also cataloged nearly 2,500 examples of bias, misinformation and one-sided commentary on "The View." If Carr wanted evidence that the show resembles partisan advocacy more than journalism, he hardly had to look far.

The latest examples don't require a fact-checking degree to decipher — just functioning eyes and ears (a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either).

Whoopi world

Let’s start with Whoopi Goldberg. The Oscar winner has used her “View” pulpit to suggest President Donald Trump planned to separate interracial couples. Her proof? Zip … zero … nada. Nobody tell Usha Vance, an Indian-American woman and the second lady.

That kind of commentary is disqualifying on the surface. It’s doubly damning for a verifiable “news” outlet.

More recently, Goldberg and co-host Joy Behar railed against the GOP’s SAVE Act legislation, saying it’s deeply unpopular. Or as both Goldberg and Behar said into their live mics, “nobody wants it.”

Multiple recent polls show that more than 80% of the public want voters to show ID before voting, the thrust of the legislation.

Good luck finding more than 80% of Americans to agree on, well, anything (beyond a white-hot hatred for robocalls).

That’s not just a little bit off. It’s a major embarrassment, particularly for a “news” program.

RELATED: VEEP TV: JD slays in 'View' ratings coup

Andrew Harnik/Al Drago/Getty Images

Fact-chuckers

“The View” hosts also sit silently as guests utter the most unhinged comments without a fact-check or pushback. Earlier this year, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) claimed the modern GOP was hell-bent on bringing back slavery.

The four “View” hosts couldn’t raise a single objection, nor ask the veteran Democrat to back up his outlandish claim. Would Walter Cronkite sit still while a guest uttered something so outrageous?

“And that’s the way it isn’t.”

The show’s coverage of Austin Metcalf’s shocking 2025 murder proved how dangerous — yes, dangerous — “The View’s” misinformation can be. Co-host Sunny Hostin lied about the weight disparity between Metcalf and his killer, Karmelo Anthony.

She also lied that Anthony was the only black person in the team’s tent area where the fatal stabbing occurred. Multiple black students were there at the time. Some even testified on behalf of the prosecution.

Some news program. Is it any wonder TikTok accounts repeat misinformation tied to the case?

Fake news fever

And this isn’t a recent problem. “The View” has been twisting the truth like a Bavarian pretzel for years. In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.

Evidence? Proof? Hey, Goldberg starred in that adorable “Sister Act” series. That’s enough, apparently.

Two years ago, the same Goldberg said President Trump would throw Americans into camps, including gay Americans, and “disappear” them. Any update on that claim?

In other words, Carr has identified a real problem. His solution is the dangerous part.

Butt out

Treating "The View" as the equivalent of a bona fide news interview program stretches the term beyond recognition. But the government has no business deciding otherwise.

Those slopes can be mighty slippery.

The Twitter Files offered a preview of how quickly government officials can move from combatting misinformation to shaping public debate itself. The power to decide which outlets qualify as "real" journalism won't remain in the hands of today's regulators forever. Eventually it will belong to another administration with very different political priorities.

Conservatives, of all people, should understand that lesson. The power you give your friends today will eventually belong to your opponents.

More voices, not fewer. Even if some of those voices would make Cronkite spin like a top in his grave.