Happy Holidays!

 I want to take this opportunity to wish all my readers the very best for this holiday season. To the Christians around the world, a very merry Christmas to you. May you have a joyous time with your family and friends. 

To others of all religions, Jewish, Buddhists, Islamist, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintos, Baha'i's, I wish all the very best to all to you! 

May the new year bring happiness and prosperity to everyone! Thank you for being loyal readers of my blog. I promise to continue bringing you interesting and informative content through the coming year. If you have any suggestions or requests for a particular topic, please let me know. 

All the Best!

C Clayton Lewis

Nick Fuentes Has a Foothold...

 Younger audiences, especially Gen Z men, tend to gravitate toward online-first political figures for a mix of format, psychology, and context. Gen Z, for others like me who get a bit confused at the ages of the generations, are young people between the ages of 13 and 28. To give some insight into the mind-set of this age-coterie, let's take a look at a prime example; Nick Fuentes. Fuentes is a 27 year-old far-right political commentator and livestreamer who is the founder of the America First movement. He emerged in the late 2010's through online platforms, especially live video streams, where he blended nationalist rhetoric with provocative humor and confrontational tactics. 

Fuentes promotes a strain of white nationalism and Christian nationalism, while opposing immigration, feminism, and mainstream conservatism. He has made numerous statements widely criticized as antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic. His notoriety grew via livestreams and social media, though he has been frequently banned or restricted across major platforms for policy violations. Fuentes is a polarizing fringe figure, yet wielding significant influence within a narrow online subculture, but largely marginalized in mainstream politics. This, owing to sustained criticism, legal scrutiny around events, and platform bans. 

So, how does an uneducated, banal, bellicose young man come to occupy such a position of influence among his age group? What collection of circumstances blend and meld to make this possible? You may have heard detectives say, 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one.' To understand the psyche of this generation, we have to get inside their heads. First, let's look at their media habits. Livestreams, memes, Discord chats feel personable and interactive. They provide real-time engagement and a sense of belonging, as opposed to passive consumption. Traditional conservatism still centers on TV, op-eds, think tanks, formats younger users rarely, if ever, seek out. 

There's a sense of rebellion against institutions. Gen Z has a tendency to distrust universities, legacy media, political parties, and corporations. Anti-establishment rhetoric feels transgressive, especially when it provokes bans or outrage. Deplatforming, which Fuentes is acutely familiar with, paradoxically increases credibility among audiences primed to distrust authority. Younger men, especially this age group, often feel economically deprived, socially sidelined, and opportunity-starved. Movements like America First offer:

• clear villains
• simple explanations
• a strong in-group identity

This contrasts with mainstream conservatism's abstract language about markets and institutions. Fuentes' style of rhetoric provides shock humor, irony and taboo language which feels riskier and more exciting, not to mention appealing, than policy debates. The line between politics and entertainment becomes blurred; controversy becomes content. Younger audiences raised on viral culture favor attention, not moderation. The online platforms they favor tend to push: highly emotional content, conflict-driven clips, and "us vs them" narratives. 

To be a part of this 'landscape', there is no need to read books, attend meetings, or understand policy. Online content can stimulate a feeling of being politically awakened. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand requires patience, historical knowledge, and gradual engagement. 

As Gen Z ages, many of these young idealists will shift their perspectives toward stability. They will come to appreciate policy over provocation. Careers and families will leave little time for online identity politics. Younger audiences aren't necessarily attracted to extremism, they're attracted to immediacy, identity and defiance. Figures like Fuentes meet those needs far more effectively than traditional conservatives, even if the appeal soon fades to an erstwhile fad. 

Can the Middle Class Be Saved?

 Achieving the trademarks of middle class life in America has become increasingly difficult, and there are no signs of reversals of that trend in sight. Life is constantly changing, as we all so well know. Life includes economics, politics, cultural shifts, socio-demographic changes, technology, and more. They're all changing. Literally, life around us is constantly changing, and there is little we can do about it. Actually, close to nothing. All we can do is buckle up for the ride. Sadly, I have to admit, this 'life ride' is for the most part not a fun experience. In fact, it can, and does get 'fierce and ugly'. 

Allow me to articulate. I'm a 'boomer'. Born in the early 50's, a few years after the end of WWII. Thousands of GI's came home and 'got happy' with the war's end, hence, my generation. The US emerged from the war economically dominant, with Europe and Japan rebuilding. Massive industrial expansion and high productivity were the hallmarks of the period. Government investment was strong in the areas of GI Bill benefits, infrastructure spending, housing affordability and assistance... Housing was cheap relative to income. Many, if not most families could live comfortable on one income. Mine did. College tuition was low. I attended a state supported university, world renowned today, tuition was $3 per semester hour (1972). These years, 1945-1965 are considered by many to be the golden age of the American middle class. Jobs were plentiful upon graduation, you literally had your choice, often multiple choices. For competent achievers there was nowhere to go but up. And, it's important to note that there was far less competition for those jobs than those of today. 

I bought my first house when I was twenty-seven years old. I can't even remember how many I've bought and sold in the years since. The economic and political conditions of the boomer years I suppose you could say created a perfect storm of sorts. Boomers have become the wealthiest generation in US history. Subsequent generations undoubtedly hold some feelings of disdain and contempt for this, but bear in mind, boomers didn't set the stage for these circumstances. In fact, there is no one party, group, previous generation, cadre, cabal or any collection of humans anywhere singularly responsible for this. It came to be through the unfolding events of history. Humans have an innate tendency to seek answers to  events both good and bad, as to 'why', and whose fault was this. Which is understandable and reasonable, yet the truth too often unfortunate. Why did conditions evolve to economically favor the boomers? There are answers, but they're buried in volumes of history. World history, not just the U.S. . Whose fault was it? Again, I refer you back to the volumes of history. 

Make no mistake, not all boomers are wealthy. The gains were not evenly distributed. Women, minorities, and non-college workers often did not receive full benefits. Deindustrialization hurt many working-class boomers late in life. Could this be a bit of deja-vu, staring into the barrel of the "AI" gun aimed at us currently?

We are not a socialist society. Our founding fathers, our forefathers, fathers, and the vast majority of people today have made the deliberate choice not to be. 250 years ago, our system of government was not framed to distribute wealth amongst the masses. It was designed to create opportunity. It was designed with provisions for  charity and welfare, yet sanctions work, ambition, and opportunities for self-improvement. Our system of government and laws is rooted in the empirical knowledge of the successes and failures of history. To them, at the time it probably seemed to be nothing more than common sense. Today, it seems genius. 

To reach what was considered "middle class" of the boomer generation has become "nigh impossible" for current generations. High home prices, the cost of education, raising children, medical costs, groceries, transportation, no facet of the cost of living has been untouched. The lack of jobs, competition of available jobs, wages, have pushed all the trappings of "middle class" out of reach for so many. Technology has advanced perhaps more rapidly than inflation and rising costs, but it too has become radically expensive. Bought an iPhone lately?... I can recall when a mortgage payment was about a week's pay. Now a week's pay won't buy most people the latest iPhone. We're a free market society and they're charging what the market is willing to pay...

One of the biggest influences of my life, to whom I was not related, but consider him to be a brilliant soul, once said to me as I was graduating from college, "Life is hard. It's only what you make of it."  Thirty some odd years later, the gravity of his words hit home. Fifty some odd years later, I still think about what he said. It was hard when I graduated from college, it was hard thirty years later, it's still hard today as a retiree. I have had the privilege of traveling and working all over the world. I have lived and worked in third world countries and developed countries. Yes, it's hard here in America. But there's nowhere else on earth that it's any easier. Not even close. There's still opportunity here, plenty of it. Young people have to be smarter and work harder. Strangely, I was told the same thing myself, fifty years ago. 

I often revert to analogies between life and baseball. In baseball, it's often said to aspiring young players "you've got to want it." I dont mean simply desire it, or long for it, you've got to constantly crave it in your core kind of want it. Success in life, and maybe even being 'comfortably middle-class' requires the same now. 

We are Sorry Hong Kong. Truly Sorry.

 The deadly apartment building fire that claimed 160 lives in Hong Kong recently has launched a debate over construction safety, lax regulatory enforcement, and the failures that allowed such a catastrophe to unfold. The city's leaders ordered an investigation into the cause of the fire and police have made several arrests of individuals  suspected of negligence. In the recent past, such steps would have been seen as the initial moves in a process of public accountability that would be scrutinized, debated, and grilled by an outspoken press, civic groups and elected representatives. But in the Hong Kong of today, the response to the tragedy reveals something more disturbing. The city now operates under a political setting indistinguishable from that of mainland China. The island country once known for free speech, civil society, and grassroots community activism has been replaced by a firm deference to Beijing determined to silence independent voices that dare to question the official narrative. 

The tragedy didn't only expose the weaknesses in building safety, it confirmed that Hong Kong was now governed by Beijing. Gone is the public debate criticizing fire code enforcement to demands for transparency about how aging residential towers are maintained. Scrutiny and compassion have been replaced with mandates and oppression. 

The Hong Kong National Security Law imposed by China fundamentally changed the city's political and legal landscape. This "law" was passed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee and inserted into Hong Kong's basic law. Hong Kong's legislature had no say in the matter. None.

The NSL, to say the least, is controversial. Terms like subversions and collusion are loosely defined, allowing wide discretion in enforcement. Peaceful political activity, journalism, or advocacy can fall under the law. Peaceful political activity? Like a protest? Wasn't that what was happening in Tiananmen Square in 1989? The entire world knows how that turned out...

Much of the direction of how the high-rise apartment fire is being handled is undoubtedly coming from the Office for Safeguarding National Security which is staffed by mainland officials in Hong Kong. And, of course, the law overrides local law if there is a conflict. Why even have local laws?...

One very interesting and, might I say peculiar aspect about the NSL is that it claims jurisdiction over any person anywhere in the world, even non-residents, for actions or statements about Hong Kong. Has China single-handedly decided to relinquish the entire world of right to free speech? Take it up with America, Xi, and lotsa luck.

Since the NSL took effect, pro-democracy groups, parties and organizations have been disbanded. Many activists have been arrested, jailed, or gone into exile. Elections have been restructured so only "patriots" approved by Beijing can run. Independent media outlets have shut down (most notably Apple Daily). Journalists, media outlets and NGO's now operate under self-censorship. Large-scale protests that were common before 2020 have effectively disappeared. 

The United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and others say the law violates the Sino-British Declaration. No surprise there. Several countries imposed sanctions, ended extradition treaties, or offered immigration pathways to Hong Kong residents. China rejects criticism, arguing the law restored stability and order. No surprise there either. 

The fire of the Wang Fuk Court high-rise towers was a tragedy of immense proportions. Authorities have detained people suspected of safety violations, including issues with fire alarms and construction materials. The fire has deeply affected the community and stirred public debate about building safety, regulatory enforcement, and emergency preparedness. Our hearts go out to the people of Hong Kong and those affected by this tragedy. 

Claudia Sheinbaum - A New Kind of Leader

 Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo was elected President of Mexico in October 2024. She is a scientist by training, originally studying physics, then earning a doctorate in energy engineering from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Prior to becoming involved in politics, she authored over 100 academic articles and books on energy, environment, and sustainable development. Her technical background shapes how many see her governance style. 

Her scientific credentials give her credibility when dealing with climate, energy, and sustainability issues. She is seen as supportive of gender equality, women's rights, and social welfare initiatives. During her time as Mexico City mayor, she pushed for better public transport, environmental regulations, and social supports; blending technocratic and social-justice approaches. 

Since being elected president, she has become the first woman and first Jewish person to hold the office of President in Mexico. She has maintained strong public approval: at times reaching about 70%, which is among the highest for Latin American leaders in recent history. She has continued parts of the social-welfare and the state-centered economic approach associated with her predecessor, while integrating her science and environment-oriented background. She is often described as more measured and technocratic compared to the more fiery style  of previous leaders. She relies on data and policy over rhetoric. Her leadership will likely reshape how environmental, social, and urban policies are framed in Mexico, combining technical expertise with social priorities. 

There are several major challenges and controversies facing Sheinbaum's presidency. There are four major categories of concern. 

• High expectations and mixed results: Since taking office there has been a reported drop in homicides, some sources claim an approximate decrease of 32%. The overall picture still remains worrisome, though. Other serious crimes, especially extortion and disappearances continue to rise. 
• Cartel violence and "hot-spots": Certain regions, e.g. Sinaloa, Michoacan, have seen dramatic spikes in violence, including turf wars among rival factions and killings of public officials. 
• Systemic corruption and collusion risk: Critics and observers claim that tackling cartel power cannot succeed unless networks of collusion - which often reach into local governments, security forces, or even political allies are dismantled. 
• Public perception and fear: Even when official stats improve, many citizens still feel unsafe. Crime remains a leading concern and distrust in institutions remains high. 

Security isn't just a public safety issue, it affects investment, social stability, migration, and overall confidence in institutions. If cartels remain strong, they can erode governance and the rule of law. In spite of the progress she has made, Sheinbaum hasn't broken from the legacy of her predecessor, some institutional weakness and informal networks remain. The government's push for major judicial reforms has drawn significant criticism from oppositional parties, as well as international observers. Her administration inherited high public debts and structural problems, especially in the energy sector and social services. Addressing the debt while supporting social and security programs is going to be a tough balancing act. 

Without sustainable economic growth and structural reforms, social gains risk being ephemeral. Lack of investment can suppress many Mexicans in precarious labor, unemployment, and poverty, which in turn fuels social discontent and can even stoke the conditions for crime and instability. Public support and trust are key for democratic legitimacy and long-term stability. If people begin to feel the government is failing on security, justice or economic opportunity, popular discontent could grow potentially undermining her governance. 

Sheinbaum's success will require establishing a long-term vision, institutional overhauls, and transparency. She will have to dismantle the roots of corruption, build economic opportunity, strengthen judicial independence, and most of all, restore public trust. But if any leader in the recent history of Mexico has the mettle to pull this off, it's Claudia Sheinbaum. 

Captain Mark Kelly, Stand Down, Sir.

 If you live in America, you have no doubt seen or at least heard about the presumptuous video circulating on social media. The participants in the mentioned video included five other lawmakers, four US Representatives, one other senator and Senator Mark Kelly. Those six "spoke directly to members of the military" in the video, telling troops "you can refuse illegal orders." 

Here in America we have become somewhat 'accustomed' to weird behavior from members of Congress, at times. Weird behavior is OK, under most circumstances. This is a free country and there is certainly no law against "being weird." Of course, when it comes to members of Congress we expect a little more in terms of decorum. But even members of Congress have the same rights to free speech as every other American. 

The video in question though, is a patent exhibition of aberrant, arrogant and perhaps seditious behavior. For six members of the United States Congress to make a video and allow it to be circulated on social media while making blatant statements directly to members of our armed forces that it is acceptable to "refuse illegal orders" is nothing less than profane. Lesser adjectives cant even begin to describe such absurdity. 

What descries Captain Kelly's participation in this folly is his background and 'alleged' credibility. Captain Kelly has a distinguished military background. Make no mistake about it, active and retired military members such as Captain Kelly deserve the respect of every single American. All of them, including Captain Kelly certainly have my respect. His participation in this video and his statements however, deeply erode his credibility. Captain Kelly is a well-educated and highly intelligent individual. He is assumed to be capable of sound and reasonable judgment. His participation in this video brings that last assumption into question. 

Personally, I have blood-kin relatives who have given their lives in defense of our country. I have blood-kin relatives who have flown numerous combat missions, just as Captain Kelly has. None of those relatives ever had any doubt in their minds that every member of the military followed the chain-of-command, from the Commander-in-Chief on down. To do otherwise would lead to severe consequences. Captain Kelly knows this too. He knows it well. 

I thank you and commend you on your service to our country Captain. But regarding this matter, I suggest you stand down. If you choose to obfuscate your position and not atone for your statements, you should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and be court martialed. Just like every other American, Captain Kelly, you must "keep it between the white lines" or suffer the consequences.