Links - 1st May 2026 (2 - Women and Wokeness)

Men aren't drifting Right — but women are moving Left - "The timing of the new female progressivism, taking off in the early-to-mid 2010s, coincides with the rise of the social media-smartphone nexus, when apps such as Instagram and TikTok soared in popularity. This has been associated, as Jonathan Haidt notes in his recent book, The Anxious Generation, with a surge in mental illness — especially among young women. At the same time, there has been a jump in the share of young people — again, more female than male — identifying as LGBT. Finally, this marched in lockstep with a veritable explosion of campus no-platformings and campaigns to fire professors for speech deemed offensive to progressive sensibilities... As radicalisation took place on the Left, the Right remained broadly stable. Goldberg shows that increased public concern tracked growing media attention to “Critical Social Justice” themes, first on trendsetting sites such as Buzzfeed, then in mainstream outlets such as the New York Times. All this took place simultaneously in Britain and other Western societies... A belief system which demands the sacralisation of historically marginalised identity groups inclines people to prioritise group protection from offensive words over a person’s right to free speech."

Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 on X - "No one ever discusses the epidemic of bored white women feeling useless and needing something to make themselves feel worthwhile and heroic — but it’s a real problem. These women are addicts. And being an “ally” is their drug."

Meme - Brittany Martinez @BritMartinez: "According to a 2011 study, The "profile" of the most unhappy person in America was a 42-year old woman who was unmarried, had no children, and was a professional."

Clerpatriot on X - "Ariana Grande shared “love to Muslim communities, F*ck white supremacy.” This is the same woman who had an act of terrorism at her 2017 concert in Manchester: 22 people dead due to a derka derka with a bomb strapped to his chest. Did white supremacy cause THAT? SMDH"
zxy on X - "there’s almost nothing a woman can see, experience or read that will make her reject the consensus. this isn’t a hostile or bitter take. this is god’s plan, or it’s adaptive, or it’s both. doesn’t matter. it just is. i love them anyway and you should too"

Jonatan Pallesen on X - "There is a very large difference in wokeness between men and women. More than 1 Cohen's d."
vittorio on X - "wokeness is definitionally feminine.  collectivism, deference to authority for protection, harm avoidance over individual agency etc. are all female-skewed personality traits.  measuring a "wokeness gap" between men and women is just measuring femininity and graphing it with a political label"

Why are young white women so angry? - "Sixteen years ago, the journalist Aaron Renn wrote an article for my old website, New Geography, identifying a curious fact about some of America’s most progressive cities: they were disproportionately white... these very cities are also where some of the most disruptive, and even violent, protests against the ICE deportation push have been taking place. Look at the demonstrations and they aren’t dominated by “people of colour”. Instead, the crowds are made up to a considerable extent by white people, especially women. This also seemed to be the case with the recent No Kings protests, according to research from American University scholars. Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert described these demonstrations as “a kind of group therapy playing out in the streets”.  Ironically, the very organisation these people have been protesting against – ICE – is heavily Latino in many parts of the US and around 30pc staffed by Latinos at a national level. Inconveniently for the progressive narrative, both shooters in the tragic death of Alex Pretti appear to have been Hispanic... Agents who are spat on, insulted and doxed are surely more likely to overreact to harassment than to the peaceful protests that exist largely in the the progressive media’s imagination.  Who are these hyper-agitated people? They tend to represent a distinct sub-set of urban, educated whites, contemporary facsimiles of the 60s and 70s radicals, some of whom also embraced violent tactics. They cluster in favoured hipster cities where they increasingly elect anti-law enforcement socialist candidates, as they did in New York... progressive white people are now perhaps the most radical and agitated section of US society. Gen-Z women, in particular, are more likely to take radical positions than their male counterparts. These include the “fangirls” rallying to the cause of Luigi Mangione, who is on trial for murdering health care executive Brian Thompson in broad daylight. This female dominated cult seems determined to elevate him into an almost Christ-like martyr... The explanations for the radicalisation of urban progressives are multi-faceted. Some of it may reflect the fact that they tend to live in places with the fewest children. Married people with children generally eschew big cities and are also more likely to be more moderate to conservative in their politics.  Indoctrination in such things as the “settler colonial” paradigm at universities no doubt plays a part. This phenomenon now extends increasingly to high schools. I have had students who recounted how in high school they were repeatedly told that America was racist and that white people, including their parents, stood guilty for the transgressions of the past.  Young women’s radicalisation may stem in part from the fact they are now far more likely to go to such indoctrination mills. Today, 47pc of women in the US have college degrees, compared to just 37pc of men – a 10-point gap that has widened dramatically. Research published in 2024 showed 2.4 million more female than male undergraduates enrolled in American colleges (8.9 million vs 6.5 million), and in 2021, men received only 42pc of bachelor’s degrees – the lowest share on record. This indoctrination is most common in the humanities and social sciences, departments that also tend to be more female. Students in these disciplines have been at the forefront of campus unrest about whatever is the cause of the day – climate change, transgenderism, Gaza and now ICE.  Young women are considerably more Left-leaning than men or married women. Among Americans ages 18–29, 52pc of women identify as Democrats compared with 35pc of men, while 38pc of young men lean Republican – nearly twice the share of young women.  They also are far more likely to have a negative view of the country, with some 40pc stating they would like to leave the US permanently. Social scientist Sam Abrams describes this as a “gendered moral architecture”, where progressive women are the driving force behind cancel culture and the imposition of speech codes. There also appears to be an economic component. Women, particularly unmarried women, tend to be employed more heavily in “helping professions” such as medical care and teaching, even as many traditional male jobs, particularly in manufacturing, construction and transportation have disappeared. Whereas high taxes and regulation pose problems in the general economy, women predominate in fields that benefit from more government spending.  These young women, as well as their male counterparts, also face tough economic times for both non-technical and coding jobs. They make up a large part of what one Marxist scholar described as “the swelling population of college graduates caught in a vice of low-paying jobs”. All this perhaps explains why, in contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when minorities and poor people tended to drive protest, today it is places attractive to college educated white people that now appear the most likely to experience political violence and disruption. In 2020 Minneapolis, the site of George Floyd’s death, suffered several days of intense rioting after the killing. At the same time, Seattle also erupted, spawning a mini-Havana near its downtown, while Portland, half a continent away, suffered sustained rioting.  All these cities, once considered beacons of successful urbanism, are all suffering from a loss of domestic migrants, high property vacancies and persistent crime. Portland now has the second highest crime rate in the US and its once fashionable downtown is down on its luck. The same can be said of the once flourishing cores of Seattle and Minneapolis.  You can’t blame this odd phenomenon on angry proletarians, immigrants, and minorities. It’s largely white people destroying their own cities. Rather than workers of the world unite, today’s disruptions stem largely from those who once may have been considered among the privileged."

Meghan Murphy on X - "Unfortunately for women, the extent of retardation I'm seeing in the Instagram stories of women I know is making me think women are retarded.   Women: please stop. I do not wish to believe you are retarded.   But.  You fell for Covid hysteria You fell for BLM hysteria You for sure fell for Trump hysteria (and continue to) You transwomen are women'd your social media feeds for years You are now on the "ICE are fascists!" hysteria track Next month it's going to be something else Can you please not fall for every single hysteric news cycle trend fed to your algorithm?   Has it occurred to you that you could stop and think for a moment before posting something completely hyperbolic, based on the incredibly biased non-information your friends share in their Instagram stories, as it just might not be the full story? Has it occurred to you that *gasp* you might be... wrong? Again?  I know I know. Not all women.   BUT the extent to which I have observed women in particular engaging in this behaviour over the past ten years is a lot...   You don't *have* to jump on every bandwagon. You don't *have* to post every hashtag. You don't need to demand people who are not exactly like you unfollow you. That is childish and dumb, and people who are not exactly like you, you'll notice, don't do that to you. They don't tell you you are bad, just because you have bad opinions, which you do. You just don't know it, because you don't bother to consider that alternate views might be legitimate. Even though those views aren't in your friends Instagram stories! Imagine.   Imagine just not posting something stupid and hyperbolic on your social media feed every single time your friends do it. Imagine not posting a black square because everyone else is.  Stop being retarded. Use your brain. Maybe give it a minute or two. Maybe look beyond your algorithm. Maybe learn from history. Recall that the mob isn't always right. And your emotions, stirred up by flashing lights, are also not always right.   It's embarrassing the rest of us."

Neeraja Deshpande on X - "Everyone’s blaming the quality of the boys and Andrew Tate but, even as someone who hates the new RW misogyny, sorry, no: young women radicalized to the left well before young men radicalized to the right, and young women have gone way farther left than men have gone right.  Let’s get our heads out of the sand and stop pretending that young women don’t have a problem."
"Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" is at least 25 years old, for one

Thread by @Musa_alGharbi on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Critically, the cause of the gap depicted here is 100% shifts in *women.* Men 18-29 are no more rightwing than any other cohort of men. For men, it's basically a straight line going all the way down the generational ladder (with the exception of 45-64 year olds).  All the action is with *women.* But this is, unfortunately, unlikely to be how the trend is analyzed. We'll likely hear a lot about "right wing young men" after the election, even though they're no more conservative than any other dudes (and are markedly less conservative than 45-64 year olds).  Another example of ironically ignoring female agency in ostensibly "feminist" work. In truth, if we want to understand growing gender polarization in politics, all the "action" is on the female side of the equation.  But because polarization is widely perceived as "bad" and women are "good" scholars tend to ignore the female line, and try to explain "bad" things in terms of men, even if their own data clearly suggest that women are driving the trends. We see the same type of tendency in analyzing "red" and "blue" lines of political trends, as I detail here:  Anything that is "bad" (e.g. polarization around science, identity, etc.) is explained in terms of the red line, even in cases where all of the "action" is clearly on the blue line...
the above should have said that young men are no more likely to *vote GOP* than older voters. The chart is not about liberal/ conservative, but voting prefs! I didn't notice this, but the story that the initial chart is from is totally focused on *men.* Profoundly illustrating my point! The @nytimes own chart clearly shows basically a straight line among men across generations, and a huge shift among young women, but the story is "why are young men so right-wing" (they're not!) rather than "why are young women so Democrat." 😅
Which of these two lines is driving polarization? Which shifted more? Which is more responsible for the fact that the two lines are growing further apart?  When you graph it like this, anyone can see what's going on. But once you label the top line "women" and the bottom line "men" folks somehow lose their minds and can't see the obvious pattern.  (for the reference, this chart is, literally, just taking the data from the NY Times piece and graphing it as two lines from oldest voters to youngest, with the top line women, the bottom line men, indexed to propensity towards one party or the other) Put another way, it's just the @nytimes own graph, turned sideways, with labels removed."

wanye on X - "The reason that all liberal insults fail to land is because everybody can see clearly that they won’t follow those insults to their logical conclusion.  So, for example, a liberal will call somebody who very clearly has, like, an 85th percentile IQ a complete fucking moron, but they would never say that about dumb kids in failing schools, who they imagine to be just a few more dollars away from careers as astronauts  The liberal will call some morally average working guy a “bad person” but on the other hand the violent degenerate on his 50th arrest just needs our help.  In this you can see that it is for them merely a status game and they’re only concerned about status with respect to people who they see as status rivals."
Joakim Marias on X - "We can also narrow this down by looking at the neurological research from Tania Singer showing that empathy is the "Emperor's New Cloths" meaning empathy undresses the subconscious neurological and truthful reactions in men and women. Women are shown to have empathy for thieves and criminals, and men have no empathy for them and want to instill justice. The same is not true for women.
PS. Only 16 people were tested. But since they are using fMRI. People can't hide their neurological subconscious systems and reactions, making it so much more evident, even though there is a low cohort."
Max on X - "This study explains literally everything we see with white liberal woman’s suicidal empathy and its from 20 years ago.  In the experiment, there are subjects playing a game and subjects observing it.  when researchers shocked players for playing fairly, both men and women observers felt empathy for them.   However when researchers shocked players for cheating, male empathy went way down and their pleasure centers lit up. While women’s response was basically unchanged regardless of the players behavior.  Female biology literally feels empathy toward people receiving punishment regardless of whether they deserved it, while male empathy is conditional based on behavior.  In retrospect this is obviously exactly what happens but it explains so much about our modern political situation that i am dumbfounded i have never heard about it until now."

Meme - Democrat Party: *holding leash connected to nose ring*
Liberal White Women: *Woman with blue hair and glasses being led*

Mario Nawfal on X - "🚨 WOMEN JUMPED LEFT WHILE MEN CHECKED OUT. THE POLITICS FOLLOWED
“Men are radicalizing.” “Women are finally enlightened.” None of that survives 5 minutes of looking at the data.  Men barely moved. Women moved hard left. Fast. And it happened everywhere at the same time. U.S., Europe, Korea, Brazil. Different politics, same curve. That alone tells you this isn’t about Trump, campus policy, or whatever culture war people want to yell about this week.  Timing matters, as always. The shift starts right when smartphones and social media stop being a thing you check and start being the environment you live in. Always-on consensus. Always-visible approval. Always-visible punishment.  That system hits different depending on who you are. If you’re more sensitive to social rejection, you adapt by aligning. If you’re less sensitive, you resist longer or just disengage.   On average, women fall into the first bucket, men into the second. Not better or worse. Just different wiring meeting the same machine.  So women get pulled into hyper-consensus spaces. Universities. HR. Media. NGOs. Same language, same beliefs, same moral framing. Deviate and you pay socially. After a few years, the ideology feels like reality.  Men didn’t “stay sane.” They just didn’t get captured the same way. They checked out.   Games, porn, forums, podcasts, rage content. Less conformity, more numbness. That flat line everyone points to might not be health. It might just be disengagement.  Now the second phase is kicking in. Once the gap becomes explicit and the message turns into “you are the problem,” disengagement turns into opposition.   That’s why the male line is starting to move right now. Not because men suddenly got ideas. Because counter-alignment is the only move left.  None of this is about who’s correct. It’s about systems. We built global-scale pressure machines and dropped them onto a species with different psychological fault lines.   One half got pulled into conformity. The other half got pulled into apathy, then backlash.  Two machines. Two failure modes. One society slowly splitting down the middle.  The graph is a systems warning.  Source: @zarathustra5150 , @IterIntellectus"

Samantha Smith on X - "I love my friends. Most are extremely left-wing.   And I worry so much about them, and about the future of our society, having seen with my own eyes how easily the far-Left has propagandised young women.  We are being fed a constant stream of emotive, hyperbolic, angry messages about the state of “society”. We are told that the evils of the Western world are oppressing us. We are told that every traditionally minority group is being targeted.  We are told that, to be good feminists, to be free women, to have any rights or autonomy, we must be left-wing.  And, as a brown woman, I’ve felt that pressure tenfold.  I’ve been conservative for as long as I can remember. I was raised in an immigrant household, by a mother who fought against a violent autocratic regime in her home country. She taught me the value of hard work and the terrible reality of life under a corrupt government.  She raised me with the saying:  “The only people who support communism are those who are privileged enough to have never lived under a communist regime.”  Coming from a 3rd world country, she knew what real oppression looked like.   And the Western world is not that. Yet, the politics of the far-Left relies on creating a hierarchy of victimhood —  Teaching young girls like myself that society is working against us.  Teaching people of colour that we can only succeed if the white man steps aside.  Teaching lesbians that they must accept trans women as “real women”. And that it’s transphobic to say they don’t want to date a person with a penis.  Teaching female athletes that they should let biological men compete with them, stealing their opportunities and accolades.  This is the politics of the far-Left: oppression dressed up as empowerment.  And my generation is fed it in a constant stream of colourful Instagram infographics and loudspeaker-brandishing protestors.  Young women are being told that it is empowering to prostitute yourself online, that it is a form of “slavery” to aspire to be a mother and homemaker, that the only way we can succeed is if the white man steps aside.  And it’s working.  I see it everyday in the language of my friends. Even though most of them are not very politically engaged.  I see it in the way they get so emotional about causes that are completely misrepresented or fight for the “liberation” of Islamic regimes who oppress women and girls in ways they couldn’t even imagine.  And the results are just as chilling:  Birth rates at an all-time low. Divorce rates at an all-time high. Rape and child sex abuse skyrocketing. Femicide on the rise worldwide.  Islamic regimes stripping women of their basic rights and freedoms, while Western women shout “We Support Hamas!” on the streets of Western nations.  We must stop allowing the far-Left to dominate the political narrative by framing themselves as the “humane” ones.  We must start speaking outside of our bubble, because it is the outside world we need to de-radicalise.  Save Gen Z. Save young women. Save the world."

We need to talk about what's going wrong with young women - "If young men have trended Rightwards and downwards, young women have gone to the dark Left. Haven’t you noticed that the most passionate disrupters, yelling till puce in the face, are women? Major surveys have already shown that Gen Z women have moved sharply to the Left over the past few years. In the UK, the 2024 election showed how wide the gender gap, in electoral politics alone, has become. A good 23 per cent of 18- to 24-year-old women voted Green, compared to 12 per cent of young men and 6.7 per cent of the general population. Older women, unsurprisingly, have less time for the politics of loonyism... for young women, the picture is even worse than what the swing to Green politics looks like on the surface. The figures show they are most drawn to anti-Israel hatred. If we translate what concern about “Gaza” actually means in practice, it is even more mad. It means zero actual concern about the people of Gaza – if that existed, there’d be die-hard solidarity with the brave Palestinians protesting against Hamas. There’d be the ability to acknowledge that the single most collective abuse of Gazans over many years, right through the war triggered knowingly by its leaders, is Hamas rather than Israel. What caring about Gaza for these young women means is mostly, really, about the pleasure of blaming the Jews. Of having an evil yet popular cause. Of having discovered how intoxicating it is to denigrate the Jewish state and dehumanise its population. These girls were lit up by October 7 and the sense of meaning all the protest opportunities that followed gave them. Instead of igniting an awareness of the evils of murderous Islamism – as 9/11 did for my generation – it seems to have given them a pleasurable outlet to be as awful as possible in public. The Green turn is no surprise. Zack Polanski is the ultimate poster-boy of the Zionist-haters: he is just as obsessed with the “genocide” in Gaza as they are. In this sense, Greta Thunberg really is the perfect Joan of Arc of her generation. She has straddled the two worst and most popular concerns of her generation of girls and women: loony Greenism and loony Palestinianism. Both are ruinous and destructive. This should worry us all."
When you have no religion or kids to give you meaning in life, you look for substitutes

Meme - J.D. Haltigan, PhD 🏒👨‍💻 @JDHaltigan: "A mascrosocial cluster B crisis is ripping this nation apart because Leftism has hijacked the minds of progressive females who then LARP out dangerous Gnostic heroic delusions. They are mentally unwell, encapsulating all the behaviors you see here."
"NPD. Narcissistic. Need for admiration. Grandiosity. Lack of empathy. Sensitive to rejection. Sense of entitlement. Fragile self-esteem
HPD. Histrionic. Excessive emotions. Attention seeking. Need for approval
APSD. Anti-Social. Disregard for others. Disregard for rules. Deceit. Impulsivity. Lack of remorse. Harms others and animals
BPD. Borderline. Intense fear of abandonment. Emotional instability. Impulsivity. Identity issues
NPD and HPD: Excessive need for attention and admiration. Vanity. Prone to fantasize
HPD and BPD. Emotional expressiveness. Fear of rejection
NPD, HPD and BPD. Need to be extraordinary
NPD and ASPD. Exploitation. Disregard for others. Devaluation. Feels superior to others. Need for control
ASPD and BPD. Violence
NPD, ASPD and BPD. Intense anger
NPD, HPD and ASPD. Entitled
HPD, ASPD and BPD. Outbursts
NPD, HPD, ASPD and BPD: Unable to take criticism. Lake of empathy. Manipulative. relationship difficulties"

Joel Berry on X - "80% of the protestors are white liberal women"
James Lindsay, anti-Communist on X - "What got called Woke is Maoism made palatable to the West by passing it through lenses of identity politics all of which were eventually passed through poststructuralist feminism. Thus, white "liberal" women were the primary target as hosts and the ideology was adapted to them."

Robby Starbuck on X - "In less than 1 year Democrats got a subset of left wing women to support or defend: Tren De Aragua, Somali fraud, MS-13, communism, running over law enforcement, Antifa, Maduro, Hamas, Sharia law, assassinations & sex changes for kids. Evil but impressive psychological operation."

Brigitte Gabriel on X - "Women Day starts with Dick Cheney being dead and ends with Mamdani winning. Oh! Yes! Oh! Haha! So happy! Oh my god I'm so happy!"
"Something has gone horribly wrong with women in America. Who thinks like this?!"
Anton Chigurh on X - "The biggest threat to America isnt Hamas terrorists posing as refugees, Venezuelan gangs or violent migrants. Its upper middle class white women who would import port all of the above to destroy the country in order to satisfy their suicidal empathy."

Katherine Boyle on X - "The most interesting data in this essay: the leftward shift of women is a global phenomenon. Which means there’s a global political aesthetic that women have glommed on to. So much has been written about the commodification and uniformity of luxury over the last 15 years. A cool hotel in Seoul or London or Dubai looks exactly the same regardless of culture or borders. The same is now true of luxury beliefs globally, and women view the leftist political aesthetic as an aspirational luxury good worth wearing like a designer handbag.   Radical chic isn’t new, but it’s global, mass-marketed and easily adopted across borders and cultures now."

I am as pure as Caesar’s wife and my nasty friends tried to corrupt my perfect marriage with a sex cruise

I am as pure as Caesar’s wife and my nasty friends tried to corrupt my perfect marriage with a sex cruise : r/AmITheAngel (aka "I (37f) want to know if I was the asshole to back out of a "girls" trip because I didn't want to cheat on my (56m) husband?")

I (37f) want to know if I was the asshole to back out of a "girls" trip because I didn't want to cheat on my (56m) husband?

I know cheating is bad but my (40f) friend is so upset with me that I am starting to think I was wrong.

My girl friend and I met in a local mommy group and agreed to do play dates with our kids. I was a sahm and connecting with other moms was my way of having adult interaction with kids in tow. Let call her Shay. Shay and I got close and she had other female friends that she wanted to introduce me to. I was excited to be welcomed into this friend group and we were going to celebrate by going on a girls trip.

I was 100% down for it until I found out that they wanted to do an adults only NSFW cruise. They’re all single and were excited to do this cruise to hook up with guys on the cruise and have some fun. The thing is I am married. We’ve been together 14 years. Because the nature of the trip changed from just us girls to sexual exploration with other adults I figured that it was a given that my husband is automatically invited. I mean I am married so fidelity is expected.

So in the group conversation, at Shay's house with some girls on the phone, about it I said that I will need to know the new dates asap, since original plans changed, so my mom can watch the kids and my husband can schedule off to come.

They grew silent. And my friendT Shay gives me a dirty look and says wow. And I ask what’s wrong? She didn't say anything and everyone else was just uncomfortably silent. I asked is there a problem with my husband coming? Shay said yeah it's a girls only thing I didn't think you would be THAT kind of friend.

I pointed out this is an adults only basically a sex cruise and so why wouldn't I bring my husband? Am I suppose to just watch yall hook up and be the miserable third wheel? And Shay says well… and I cut her off because at this point I am a little mad. I say I like sex too and I need my husband so I can have somebody to sex with. Shay says there's going to be men there on the ship.

Another friend spoke up and said there's plenty of men to choose from so you don’t HAVE to be alone. And then I realized that they knew I was married and didnt care.

They're expecting me to cheat on my husband. The way explained it is, according to them they're uncomfortable with my husband being there and they would feel much better if I had sex with strangers instead. They didn't say It's better for me to have sex with strangers But It's implied. Because they are planning on meeting guys and having some Freaky fun on this cruise, they will be uncomfortable with doing that if my husband is there.

I don't understand how it's just us girls if they are going there to pick out men to have sex with. It's not gonna be just us girls if we are partnering up with men.but they are uncomfortable with my husband being there and the solution to them being happy is if he did not come And if I didn't want to be lonely and want to be able to have sex while I'm on the trip too then I should just pick one of the guys that are already gonna be available on the cruise ship. I don't understand why I have to pick some random man that I don't know to have sex with when I've already married my chosen sex partner.

they don't seem to understand that I'm not comfortable with sleeping with someone that's not my husband. They seem almost confused by why I would take fidelity so seriously.

If my husband went on a trip with his male friends I will be pretty upset if they pushed him to have sex with other women if they didn't respect our marriage.

But it doesn't matter that I voice that I wouldn't be comfortable because according to them, them being uncomfortable outweighs me being uncomfortable and that in order for them to be comfortable my only choices are tagging along not hooking up with any of the guys and just watching them all hook up with guys or cheat on my husband. It seems pretty weird that those are the only two options.

I don't totally understand why my husband being present would make them feel uncomfortable because they are single women. they are free to do whatever they want to do. What does my husband being present have anything to do with them?

I had a little bit of a dark thought and I was thinking maybe they want me to be in some type of compromising position so that they could you know take pictures of it and maybe shared on social media or accidentally sent it to my husband. Why else would a group of single women want to isolate a married woman from her husband and push and pressure her into having sex with people that are not her husband even though she voiced being uncomfortable and not wanting that.

So I'm thinking maybe it's a setup but then again I don't know if I'm just thinking the worst of people because I can't wrap my head around why it's such a big deal about me wanting to not sleep with other men and only wanting to be with just my husband and I also don't think that it's a girl's trip anymore if the objective is to hook up with men. That doesn't sound like a girls trip to me if you just going to a place to partner up with men that sounds like a group date type of thing and I don't understand why I can't have my chosen date.

Shay says wont tell anything but bringing my husband is disrespectful as well. I got really mad and I lashed out and said I don’t cheat on my husband and I won't be hooking up with randos on a floating std ship and backed out of the trip and went home.

Of course i told my hubby who is upset that they're pressuring me into cheating on him and he says if I go, he goes. I was going to put my foot down and say im bringing my husband anyways but now Shay won't even talk to me.

She doesnt answer my calls or texts. Me and my kids are iced out as our kids were friends.

She was so offended by my automated invite of my husband maybe I was wrong not to ask first before planning for him to come. Was I wrong to assume this was a given since I am married and not single? I haven't been single in a time and is this the norm now? Would you consider a plan to sleep with random people a girls trip?

Her ending our friendship makes me doubt I handled it well. Am I crazy or is this expectation unreasonable?

 

Links - 1st May 2026 (1 - Left Wing Economics: Canada [including High Speed Rail])

Kalshi on X - "JUST IN: NASA announces $20 billion plan to build permanent moon base"
Daniel Foch on X - "Why does it cost less to build a base on the moon than high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal"
Clearly, the benefits of high speed rail are so great that no matter how expensive it is, it'll be worth doing

Canada’s next budget bomb is the Alto high-speed rail project: Jerome Gessaroli in the Globe and Mail - "Without a single track laid, the Alto high-speed rail project is barrelling toward a costly fiscal reckoning. Size is a major factor. Alto is estimated to cost $60-billion to $90-billion and cover more than 1,000 kilometres. For an infrastructure project of that scale, even minor planning errors can add billions in public costs. Compounding that risk, Ottawa has proposed accelerating construction by roughly four years, effectively locking in fiscal and political commitments before routes, station locations and land requirements are resolved. There is nothing wrong with wanting Canada to pursue large projects that could add long-term value. Ambitious infrastructure can play a constructive role in economic development and national cohesion. Concern arises when an initiative is sold through aspirational language – described as a “game-changer,” a “generational investment” or a way to “turbocharge” the economy – before its costs, scope and risks are clear. That framing builds political momentum that constrains scrutiny and makes it harder to revisit assumptions as new evidence emerges, often resulting in higher costs for taxpayers and less than promised for future users. Yet Alto is being pushed forward despite key unanswered questions – including where the line will run, where stations will be located, how the train will enter major cities and what land must be acquired. International best practice, including guidance from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and research by economic geographer Bent Flyvbjerg, cautions against committing to large infrastructure projects before routes, costs and delivery risks are clearly understood. Accelerating a project of this scale under such conditions increases the likelihood that practical problems will emerge only after political and financial commitments are locked in. Canada has limited experience in building true high-speed rail. Even European countries with decades of experience often face major delays and cost overruns. Canada would be undertaking this for the first time, in an economy that has for years struggled to deliver infrastructure projects on time and on budget. A 2018 European Union audit found high-speed rail projects across the union experienced average cost increases of 78 per cent over original estimates. If jurisdictions with established expertise face increases of that scale, the fiscal risks for a first-of-its-kind Canadian project are inevitably higher. Canada has a recent record of large overruns on projects less complex than high-speed rail. Metrolinx says Ontario Line construction costs have nearly doubled since an original $10.9-billion estimate. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion’s final cost of $34-billion was about $28-billion above its original estimate. If projects of lesser complexity can go so far off course, a $60-billion to $90-billion high-speed rail carries fiscal risk on a different order. Political urgency cannot override complex engineering realities. The real question is how expensive Alto would be for the travel time it saves. Publicly available estimates suggest that high-speed rail on the Toronto–Quebec City corridor would reduce end-to-end travel times by roughly four hours compared with today’s service. On that basis, the project implies capital costs of roughly $250-million to $375-million for each minute of travel time saved. For context, the 2018 audit of EU projects found average costs of €90-million a minute saved ($146-million), though there was wide variation between lines. Alto appears well above that average. It is also useful to compare costs on a per-kilometre basis. High-speed rail lines in Europe have averaged about €25-million per kilometre, or roughly $40-million, according to the same EU analysis. For a corridor of about 1,000 kilometres, Alto would imply costs of about $60-million to $90-million a kilometre – again, materially higher than Europe. A 2025 C.D. Howe Institute report estimates high-speed rail could deliver $15-billion to $27-billion in benefits, ranging from faster and more reliable travel, reduced road congestion, improved economic connectivity and lower emissions. These benefits exclude operating revenues, and the report does not assess whether total benefits exceed the project’s costs. Even so, the benefits identified are modest relative to the capital investment required to build a high-speed rail line. Proponents of Alto also point to the use of public-private partnership to manage some fiscal risk. While this approach can shift some delivery and performance risks to private partners, cost increases from design changes, land acquisition, permitting or delays ultimately fall to government. For a project of this scale, taxpayers remain the backstop if costs rise or assumptions prove optimistic. The economic case for the full Alto corridor hasn’t yet publicly cleared a conservative cost-benefit test. Earlier federal analysis suggested the Montreal–Ottawa–Toronto segment was more plausible than the full Toronto-Quebec City corridor. The much higher costs now being discussed only further raise the bar to deliver corresponding benefits. The core issue with Alto is premature commitment. Best practice uses solid business cases to decide whether a project should move ahead before political commitments are locked in. Ottawa should lean on the brakes until that business case exists."

High speed rail is another Liberal legacy project without a plan - "Conservatives agree: Canada should be building more, building smarter and building faster. But Alto, announced in the final days of Justin Trudeau’s premiership, doesn’t reflect that kind of smart ambition. It looks more like a legacy project — another big promise without any clear plan to deliver. Conservatives have made our position clear, but doubts are being raised within the Liberal party too, with Liberal MP for the Bay of Quinte, Chris Malette, coming out in opposition to the project proposal. It is surprising that Prime Minister Mark Carney doubled down on this megaproject without any public fiscal review, independent scrutiny or even a feasibility report. Creating a new state‑run high‑speed rail corporation to build a Toronto–Quebec City line in an already well‑serviced corridor, at a projected cost of at least $90 billion or more, is a serious undertaking. Canadians are already facing a cost-of-living crisis with the highest food inflation in the G7 and record food bank use, along with record deficits that have risen to the highest ever under Carney (outside the pandemic). After doubling the debt, Carney is going to add another $90 billion, costing every family around $8,000 for a train most will likely never ride. There’s another cost that often gets overlooked. A $90‑billion crown corporation doesn’t just cost money; it kills competition and potential private sector investment. It risks crowding out the private bus lines and regional innovators that could actually drive prices down for students and young workers. When government dominates a corridor, alternative services struggle to compete, even when they deliver faster, cheaper or more flexible options. That’s not how you build an affordable, innovative transportation system. Conservatives support building infrastructure that expands opportunity — especially projects that attract private capital, encourage innovation, create jobs and grow the tax base. Of the 15 “national interest” pre-existing projects referred to the Major Projects Office, 14 are primarily financed by private companies or ratepayers. Conservatives support all fourteen because they follow a proven model: private expertise, private capital, and shared risk, with government focused on clear rules and timely decisions. That’s why Conservatives have long pushed for faster approvals and regulatory reform. Imagine a Canada where federal permitting takes months, not years; where housing, transit, clean energy and trade infrastructure can move at the speed of ambition. Young Canadians understand what delay really costs: fewer homes, slower climate progress and fewer opportunities to build a future. Builders should bring their best ideas and real investment, not simply bid on projects where taxpayers and consumers carry all the risk. Alto fails that test. Despite being labelled a “Progressive Public-Private Partnership (P3)” funding model, until the Cadence consortium actually invests in the project — which is not slated to happen until stage four — the taxpayer, not the private sector, is on the hook. Taxpayers would fund the design and construction, while private partners face little consequence if costs rise or timelines slip. Conservatives believe risk should be shared and incentives aligned because that’s how projects get built on time, on budget and with room for competition. Canada has learned this lesson the hard way. Major rail and transit projects across the country — from Ottawa’s Confederation Line to Toronto’s Eglinton Crosstown — have suffered delays, overruns, scope reductions or outright cancellation. Global evidence shows rail megaprojects average a 44.7 per cent cost overrun even after contingencies. Young Canadians, already under financial pressure, are the ones left paying for these miscalculations. Yet the government still hasn’t made a clear public case for why Alto is necessary. There is no public cost‑benefit analysis, no credible business case and no explanation of the trade‑offs. A recent McGill University financial analysis concludes that, even with strong ridership, the system would still require ongoing public subsidies, because fares would not cover operating and financing costs. Alto won’t help Canadians for years. Conservatives would deliver improvements within a single parliamentary mandate and we could be doing much of that work right now. Instead of tying up billions in a single long‑dated megaproject, Conservatives would focus on delivering better outcomes sooner. We would start by fixing what exists: improving VIA Rail’s performance, where subsidies have increased even as service has declined. We would work with Ontario to fast‑track the runway expansion at Billy Bishop Airport, unlocking new regional connections without new operating subsidies. We would partner with provinces and the private sector to encourage regional rail that integrates with existing bus and transit networks. These are solutions that expand choice and deliver real improvements along the Toronto–Quebec City corridor in the near term rather than decades from now. Conservatives are putting forward a plan that delivers more options, faster service and better value, all with less debt. We believe Canada is ready to build again. But that requires proper risk sharing, strong competition and respect for taxpayers and riders alike. Unfortunately, the government has not made a public case that justifies a minimum of $90 billion in borrowed money, nor has it reformed permitting or improved existing transportation options for the people who live along this corridor. Building a great nation doesn’t require government to drive the train. It requires government to clear the tracks so competition can thrive, builders can build, and young Canadians can move forward with confidence."

Editorial: A fast track to 50 years of losses - "The project is estimated to cost a staggering $80 billion, according to a November report by McGill University. The government has said high-speed rail would cut passengers’ travel times in half, increase tourism and housing development, and boost the economy. But it is unlikely these presumed benefits will outweigh the project’s vast costs. The McGill report projects Alto would lose money for 47 years after the line becomes operational. And even this long timeline may be too optimistic. Ahmed El-Geneidy, a McGill University professor and one of the report’s authors, told Canadian Affairs in December that this estimate was based on numerous generous assumptions. “We gave them the benefit of the doubt [that] the demand is going to be really, really increasing very much,” he said. In particular, they assumed actual ridership would match Canadians’ self-projected ridership levels. In their survey, one-third of Canadians living near proposed high-speed rail stations said they would use the line at least once a year. Respondents also said they would be willing to pay, on average, just $20 more for a high-speed ticket than current Via Rail fares. A number of factors here should give readers pause. One is that people’s actual behaviours often differ from their stated ones. It seems possible, even plausible, that actual demand could come in much lower, especially if Alto’s prices are higher than projected, or if alternative travel methods become more attractive. Self-driving cars and air taxis may sound like a thing of the future (or a Jetsons past), but are already operating in many parts of the world. Driverless taxis are available in about a half-dozen U.S. cities, as well as several cities in China. Even in Canada, Tesla’s EVs already have robust self-driving capabilities, though drivers are required to remain attentive. If, a decade from now, self-driving cars are widespread, travel could look very different. Ask yourself: would you travel by train if your car could shuttle you comfortably from Montreal to Toronto while you watched Netflix in the backseat? In short, conservative demand assumptions may be more appropriate. If so, Alto could lose money for well more than a half-century. Another concern is the opportunity cost. For what Alto is expected to cost, governments could complete rapid transit systems in most of Canada’s major cities, Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, told Canadian Affairs. Siemiatycki identified a laundry list of systems the government could complete for the same price: Toronto’s Eglinton crosstown extension; Vancouver’s SkyTrain extension; Montreal and Quebec City’s LRT projects; and Calgary’s Green Line. Once those were done, you’d still have $10 billion to fix the existing VIA Rail network. “This is just a staggering amount of money,” he said. Think about the daily and widespread benefits such transit projects would deliver to the majority of Canadians who live in major urban centres. By contrast, consider how few Canadians would benefit from this high-speed rail corridor. On top of this, it is primarily affluent and Eastern Canadians who would benefit. This risks fostering regional divisions at a time when Canada can ill-afford more causes for them. Albertans (and others) would rightly be able to point to this project as yet another example of a federal policy decided by Laurentian elites that literally favours Laurentian Canadians. To their credit, the Conservatives seem more attuned to this concern... Alto is one of the infrastructure projects that will have the support of the Carney government’s Major Projects Office, an office created to selectively fast-track “nation-building” projects. Alto, like the office itself, is ill-conceived. The office risks leading to politically appealing projects being blessed by government officials without being rigorously justified. It is especially galling for the government to be moving ahead with this project now. There is so little demonstrated demand for it, a long list of nationally-distributed transit projects where the money could be better spent, and simmering separatist sentiment out West. Alto isn’t a nation-building project. If anything, it’s the exact opposite."

Poilievre says government should cancel Toronto-Quebec City high-speed rail project - "Residents in those areas have been raising concerns about what the project would mean for their land — and pushing back against the idea that property could be expropriated."
Left wingers were frothing at the mouth, of course, since this combined their hatred of PP with their love of trains
We are told that building highways is bad because it results in land expropriation and dividing communities. But of course that doesn't matter when it comes to rail

Canada pledges $200 million to "spaceport" that is just a concrete pad - "the Carney government trumpeted its “historic” plan to develop a “sovereign space launch” capability that would allow Canada to launch satellites without relying on American help. There’s just one problem: Canada’s plan to do this involves sending the equivalent of $50,000 per day to Spaceport Nova Scotia, a concrete pad in rural Nova Scotia that has launched precisely two rockets, one of which was built by a university rocketry club... But despite officially breaking ground four years ago, the latest Google Maps images of the site show little more than a concrete pad and some basic access roads. Local activist Marie Lumsden, a member of Action Against Canso Spaceport, found much the same in a visit to the site last month. Against photos of the sparse amenities, she wrote that the space port consists of “a gravel road, two sea cans, and an un-serviced 25-by-35-foot concrete pad.” In an investor presentation just this month, Maritime Launch Services said that the site could support up to 150 satellite launches per year. But to date, it’s only launched two rockets, neither of which reached space. The first, in July 2023, was by a York University student group. The second, last November, was the test launch of a single-stage rocket by the Dutch firm T-Minus Engineering... For 2025, MLS’s financial statements show it only brought in $14,980 in revenue, all of which was recorded as “lease income.” This was against operational losses of $3.8 million. The year prior, there was no revenue, and operational losses of $3.4 million. The $200 million agreement with the federal government is actually the second time in six months that Maritime Launch Service has struck a multi-million-dollar funding deal with the federal government. In October, Export Development Canada approved $10 million in development funding for the company. Canada was the world’s fourth country to put a satellite into orbit with the 1962 launch of Alouette 1. But Canadian satellite launches have traditionally been performed on U.S. soil. The reason is partially one of geography. Satellite launches are easier to perform at lower latitudes due to the simple fact that the ground is moving faster in relation to space; land at the equator is spinning at 1,670 kilometres per hour, while at the North Pole it’s barely moving. This is why the European Space Agency performs most of its satellite launches at a site in French Guiana just north of the equator. NASA, similarly, does all its major launches from Cape Canaveral, which is located near the southern edge of the contiguous United States. As to why Maritime Launch Service claims Nova Scotia is the “most desirable” location on the continent, they say it’s because the site is uniquely free of obstructions, owing to open ocean to the east and south."
Roman Baber on X - "I'd love to have high speed train! Problem is $90 billion dollars for Alto will turn into half a trillion. The train will NEVER be built. But lots of Liberals will become rich at your expense. Just like with this stupid launch pad."

Toronto Culture | Facebook - "A Toronto-linked fintech startup says Canada pushed them out just as their business was taking off. Internet Backyard, co-founded by Gen Z entrepreneurs Mai Trinh and Gabriel Ravacci, relocated to the U.S. after struggling with Canada’s fintech infrastructure, venture capital access, and immigration timelines. The founders point to limited billing systems, a fragmented VC ecosystem, and long visa processing times that made it difficult to scale from Canada. They say the federal Startup Visa Program backlog can stretch close to a decade, while rising CRS scores often force founders to take traditional jobs instead of building companies. After moving south, the company incorporated in Delaware and raised US$4.5 million in a single week at a US$25 million valuation. Easier access to capital, talent, customers, and faster founder-friendly visas played a major role. The company is now valued at roughly $35 million, highlighting ongoing concerns about Canada’s ability to retain high-growth startups."

Charles Lammam on X - "Canada's startup exodus is accelerating. Nearly one of every two Canadian founders who raised over $1 million in 2024 are now based in the U.S. That's up from about one in five just a short time ago."
J.J. McCullough on X - "It’s fine, we’ll still call them “Canadian” for the rest of their lives, take credit for their accomplishments, award them the Order of Canada, and refer to them as “Canadian businessman” in their CBC obituary when they die in the US fifty years from now."
Time to "tax the 'rich'", impose a wealth tax including on unrealized gains and make the "rich" pay their "fair share"

Upto 40% of Canada’s top 1% income earners have moved to the US : r/TorontoRealEstate - "Keyword here is top 1% “income”, not wealth. Boomers with multi million dollar real estate portfolios are staying put while young people with high paying jobs like tech are leaving Canada in droves. More devastating is, the report estimates upto 50% of top 10% earners in Canada have moved to the US. Yet, the other insane stat is you need to have a top 5% income level to afford a median home in Canada. Apparently half of the people that can afford homes are leaving the country. And yet, every Canadian sub calls for more income taxes which basically kills any upward mobility and pushes smart young people out. We need to fundamentally rethink how income tax rates."

Court grants interim injunction pausing Rossland magnesium mine construction - "Construction on the proposed Record\ Ridge mine near Rossland, B.C., will be paused after the B.C. Supreme Court granted an interim injunction to groups opposing the project. The Save Record Ridge Action Committee Society (SRRACS) and Sinixt Confederacy were opposed to the open-pit magnesium mine in the west Kootenays, after the province's Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) had ruled that it wouldn't require an environmental assessment certificate... The decision has been welcomed by local residents who have been fighting the mine for years."
Build Canada! Canada Strong!

Parliamentary budget officer forecasts deficit rise: $68.5B - "Stupefying," “shocking” and “unsustainable” -- those were just some of the words Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog used Thursday to describe his scathing forecast for federal finances ahead of a long-anticipated fall budget. Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques published an updated economic and fiscal outlook on Thursday where he projected the federal deficit would balloon to $68.5 billion this year, up from an estimated $51.7 billion last year. He also expects the federal debt-to-GDP ratio -- previously a major fiscal anchor for Ottawa -- will no longer decline in the coming years. Jacques told a parliamentary committee Thursday afternoon it is the first time in 30 years he has seen a projection where that key metric rises over time... “I think everybody should be concerned,” Jacques told MPs on the government operations and estimates committee. “We’re hoping, and certainly expecting, the government as part of Budget 2025 to clearly indicate what the government plans to do to address ΓǪ this problem, because it’s certainly not sustainable.”"
Left wingers think money is fake anyway

Pierre Poilievre on X - "194 days. That’s how quickly Germany built the Wilhelmshaven LNG import terminal, start to finish. If Germany can build that fast, why can’t Canada? Let’s get our energy to Wilhelmshaven and across Europe to fuel free nations with Canadian energy."

Shannon Stubbs on X - "BREAKING: Canadian Natural Resources, one of the largest independent crude oil and natural gas producers in the world, will PAUSE their $8.25 billion oil sands mine project because of "regulatory uncertainty". According to them, the federal industrial carbon tax has created "uncertainty and economic burden for a long-term growth investment." The truth is, anti-development Liberal laws are still in place and continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability. Conservatives will repeal anti-development Liberal laws like the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada self-reliance, sovereignty, united, and affordable."

Ryan Williams Bay of Quinte | Facebook - "Canada is the world’s 4th largest oil producer. And yet Canadians still face an oil crisis. Why? Because for the last decade Canada has been waging a war on its own energy sector. The Globe and Mail just reported something that should embarrass the entire political class: Even today, Canada still does not have an east west pipeline connecting our own oil to our own country. In 1973, during the Arab oil embargo, Canada literally had to ship oil from Vancouver through the Panama Canal to reach Eastern Canada. Fifty years later… we still haven’t fixed it. Instead we did the opposite. Over the past decade Canada:
• Cancelled major pipelines like Energy East and Northern Gateway
• Passed Bill C 69, making major projects almost impossible to approve
• Blocked LNG development while the world begged for supply
• Forced our own refineries in Eastern Canada to import foreign oil
Today most of the oil used in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada still comes from the United States or overseas, even though the oil comes out of the ground in Alberta. Let that sink in. Canada exports crude south… then imports refined fuel back north to run our own economy. Now the world is facing another oil shock. The war in Iran has threatened the Strait of Hormuz, where about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply moves every day. Prices briefly surged near $120 per barrel, and analysts warn extreme scenarios could push oil toward $200. And Canada… an energy superpower… is still vulnerable. Not because we lack oil. Because we lack leadership and infrastructure.
How to fix it
1. Build east west energy infrastructure. Canada should never again need foreign oil to power its own provinces.
2. Scrap Bill C 69 and unblock major projects. Canada must be able to approve pipelines, LNG terminals and energy infrastructure again.
3. Build LNG export capacity immediately. The world needs reliable energy. Canada should be supplying it.
4. Treat energy as national security. Energy independence protects families from global crises.
Canada has the oil. Canada has the gas. Canada has the reserves. What we’ve lacked for the last decade is the political will to use them."

Links - 30th April 2026 (3 [including Nuclear Power])

Meme - Jonas Kristiansen Nøland @JonasNoeland: "🚀 𝐍𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 – 𝐀 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡! According to @IMFNews , nuclear energy has a significantly higher GDP impact per $ spent than renewables & fossil fuels. #EnergyTransition #GreenMultipliers ➡️https://sciencedirect.com/science/articl"
"GDP impact per $1 spent. Nuclear $4.11. Renewable $1.19. Fossil $0.65
Nicoletta Batini, Mario Di Serio, Matteo Fragetta, Giovanni Melina & Anthony Waldron, "Building back better: How big are green spending multipliers?", Ecological Economics 193 (2022) 107305; see Tables 2 and 4 (pp. 8-9)."
Of course, climate change hystericists were pretending that there was no source for this, even though the source was literally listed

Commentary: Don’t dismiss the fury over Fukushima’s water - "There’s zero risk to human life from releasing Fukushima’s contaminated water at sea under the plan proposed by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Drinking a glass of it directly from the outflow pipe would expose you to about as much radiation (from trace quantities of the hydrogen isotope tritium) as you’d get from eating a dozen bananas. Once further diluted in the vast waters of the Pacific, the radioactivity decreases to homoeopathic levels. The 1.3 million metric tonnes of water that TEPCO needs to get rid of sounds like a lot - but the Pacific Ocean holds roughly 500 billion times that amount.   At the same time, Japan of all countries should be empathetic in dealing with the sometimes irrational opposition that nuclear energy can generate.  For decades, US nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers visiting local ports had to give authorities 24 hours’ notice so that geiger checks could be carried out - despite more than 1,000 dockings passing without incident.   A 20-minute unapproved arrival in 2001 prompted the country’s foreign minister to temporarily call off such visits. In the 1960s, even agreed visits often prompted thousands of demonstrators to turn out."
From 2023

Meme - "GERMANY *power outlet*
FRENCH NUCLEAR POWER *Germany plugged into France power outlet*"

Disclose.tv on X: "NEW - German Chancellor Merz - "German federal governments had previously decided to phase out nuclear energy. The decision is irreversible. I regret that, but that's how it is.""
Guy BOOK IS LIVE! || CHECK BIO on X - "Someone needs to coin a name for this strategy of asymmetry. “We can let illegals in, but we can’t kick them out” “We can phase out nuclear, but we can’t phase it in” The faux irreversibility of bad decisions"

Whyvert on X - ""There are eight endowed chairs for nuclear research, but 173 endowed chairs for gender research" in Germany. Possibly related: an extractive institution extracts resources from society to benefit one small group, often stifling innovation and long-term economic growth."

Ursula von der Leyen on X - "The nuclear tech race is on. Europe has everything it needs to lead. We have half a million highly-skilled workers in nuclear. We have the ambition to move at speed and scale. For Europe to be a global hub of next-generation nuclear energy."
Hilarious from a German

Hans Mahncke on X - "It took me less than two minutes to find the roll call for Germany’s reckless and idiotic decision to shut down all nuclear power plants. Of course, Ursula von der Leyen voted for it. She is absolutely shameless, parading a false air of credibility over total hypocrisy."

John Fingleton on X - "Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.  Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment.
- Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature.
- Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain.
- Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale.
- Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely.
- Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
 If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.   A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.   Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.  Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.  https://gov.uk/government/pub"
bernoulli_defect on X - "SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.  I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.  Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large."

Germany's Merz calls nuclear phaseout 'serious strategic mistake' - "German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called Berlin’s exit from nuclear energy a "serious strategic mistake" and criticized previous governments for hastily shutting down the country's last atomic reactors. Speaking at a business conference in Saxony-Anhalt late Wednesday, Merz directed sharp criticism at the energy policies of his predecessors, including former Chancellor Angela Merkel, for creating the world's costliest energy transition... He added: "We're now making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world. I don't know of a second country that makes it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany does. We set ourselves a goal that we now have to correct, but we simply don't have enough energy generation capacity.”  During last year's election campaign, Merz heavily criticized the Green Party for pursuing what he called "ideologically motivated" energy policy, calling it inefficient and too expensive. Rather than advocating for a return to conventional nuclear operations, he argued that Germany should explore new-generation nuclear technology – specifically, small modular reactors."
How ignorant. Doesn't he know that renewables are the cheapest way to generate electricity?

Meme - Melanie Vogel @Melanie_Vogel_: "Sex is good but have you tried having your country shutting down its last nuclear power plants in 30 mn?"
The Spectator Index: "Germany's Chancellor Merz says it was a 'serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy'."

Meme - Melanie Vogel @Melanie_Vogel_: "Sex is good but have you tried having your country shutting down its last nuclear power plants in 30 mn?"
Dispropaganda @Dispropoganda: ""Sex is good, but have you tried destroying the environment by shutting down 0 emissions nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal?" - The "Greens"."

Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 on X - "French nuclear power carries the entire continent of Europe on its back Imagine the world if Boomers never sabotaged nuclear energy."

Meme - Office of Nuclear Energy I US Department of Energy @GovNuclear: "THAT'S IT? This is what 20 years' worth of spent nuclear fuel looks like safely stored at the former Maine Yankee nuclear plant. The plant generated 119 billion kilowatt hours of reliable power from 1972-1996, which is enough to power half a million homes each year."

Shocking moment nuclear chemist 'ate uranium' to prove it was harmless - "A nuclear chemist once 'ate uranium' while on camera to prove the substance was harmless.  The nuclear industry is certainly a much-talked-about one ever since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 which caused disruption across the entire globe.  But before all of that, nuclear chemist Galen Winsor toured the Northwest of the US for the conservative John Birch Society, where he would share theories on the over-regulation of the industry... Winsor died at the age of 82 in 2008, some 20 years after consuming the uranium oxide. His cause of death was not revealed in his obituary."

Noah Smith is too down on nuclear energy - "radiation is held to the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) standard, which makes it essentially impossible for nuclear to be cost-competitive.  Suppose I had a design for a cost-effective nuclear reactor, and I said I should be allowed to build it, because electricity is good and air pollution is bad. The regulator is going to look at it and say, “Well, that reactor seems awfully cheap to build, why not add a bunch more features to make the radiation levels even lower?” And then I will say, “That would be hideously expensive in a way that is net bad for public health, because it leads to more burning of fossil fuels and worse air pollution.” But the regulator comes back and says, “We’re not using a cost-benefit framework, we’re using ALARA.” And I say, “That doesn’t make sense, coal ash is radioactive — you are creating more radiation by raising my costs.” And the regulator says, “I don’t regulate coal plants, I regulate you — ALARA!”  As Jason Crawford writes, “any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.”  This is a deeply dysfunctional regulatory paradigm, and it reflects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s origins in 1974 legislation that was explicitly motivated by a belief that the old Atomic Energy Commission was too friendly to the industry."

Cynical Publius on X - "RE: General Flynn. In the Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and in other tyrannical communist states, innocent people routinely plead guilty to crimes they never committed so that their families would not be murdered. Consider that under the justice system created by Barack Obama, basically the same scheme was implemented."

Students 'drugged' in class ahead of gaokao - "the school confirmed the liquid being bumped into the veins of their third grade students was in fact amino acid to supply energy. A solution normally used in acutely ill people in a hospital setting.  The school's administrative officer surnamed Xia said students were offered the injection to help improve their physical condition and energy supply ahead of the gaokao. The school decided to administer the fluids in the classroom to save study time.  According to Gao Pingqiang, director of supervising office of the school, the pre-gaokao injection has become very popular over the years and some micro bloggers also said they had the injection and it helped them perform better for the highly-pressured exam that determines which university a student can attend.  Gao believes injecting amino acid has no harmful effects, can help relax students and refused to stop offering the fluids. "The school will not suspend the injection and we will continue if students want it," said Gao."
From 2012

TIL The Spanish Empire developed a long term plan to conquer China in the 16th century, a crucial part of the plan was to encourage mixed marriages between natives and settlers to turn China Hispanic and so easier to rule over. : r/todayilearned

Chris M. Walker | Facebook - "Boston Market conquered America with 1,200 locations. Then they changed one thing on their menu… …now only 16 stores remain
1985: Boston Chicken opens with one simple concept. Fresh rotisserie chicken for busy families who want healthy takeout dinner. They dominated this specific need better than anyone. By 1990, families were obsessed. Boston Chicken offered something grocery stores couldn’t: hot, fresh rotisserie chicken ready to take home for dinner. No competition came close to their quality and speed. By 1996, Boston Chicken reaches 1,200 locations nationwide. They own the rotisserie chicken market completely. Customers drive past McDonald’s and KFC just to get their chicken. The brand is unstoppable. Then CEO Scott Beck makes a fatal decision. He rebrands “Boston Chicken” to “Boston Market.” The plan: expand beyond chicken to capture more meal occasions and grow revenue faster. The kitchen becomes a nightmare. Instead of mastering rotisserie chicken, staff now juggles multiple proteins. Quality drops across all dishes. Service slows down. The simple concept becomes complex chaos. The consequences hit fast. Sales per location drop. Profit margins shrink. Customer loyalty weakens.
1998: Boston Market files for bankruptcy with massive debt. McDonald’s buys the bankrupt chain in 2000 for pennies. Even McDonald’s can’t fix the identity crisis. Sells to private equity in 2007. Multiple owners try to save it. All fail for the same reason. Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A owns chicken completely. They never expanded beyond their core chicken sandwich. 5,000+ locations prove focus wins over menu multiplication every time. Your biggest competitive advantage might be the thing you’re tempted to move past. Your one great product might be the only thing your customers actually want. Stop listening to people who tell you that growth means doing more. Start thinking like Chick-fil-A. Find your one thing. Do it better than anyone alive. Say no to everything that pulls you away from it. And never let anyone convince you that focus is a limitation. Sometimes the businesses that win forever are the ones that refuse to change what already works. Because when you try to be everything to everyone, you become nothing to anyone. Think Big."
Clearly, as Kodak taught us, companies that don't embrace innovation and change die

Camel Beauty Contest Botox Scandal in Oman (aka "Another Camel Beauty Contest Is Hit By A Botox Cheating Scandal") - "In the gilded arenas of Omani camel pageantry, where the desert wind carries whispers of ancient Bedouin pride and the scent of freshly groomed dromedary, beauty has always been a serious business—less red carpet, more sand-carpeted runway. But this February, at the 2026 Camel Beauty Show Festival in Al Musanaa (with echoes reverberating from Muscat’s judging rings), the pageant’s quest for the perfect camel hit an all-too-familiar hump. Twenty contenders were unceremoniously disqualified from the camel beauty contest after veterinary inspectors discovered they had been, enhanced."

How Did King Edward VII’s Love Chair Work? - "As a young man, the perpetually pleasure-seeking Albert, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) was responsible for commissioning arguably one of the most famous pieces of erotic furniture of all time – the love chair.  It took the form of a brocade 'bunk bed' of stacking seats, complete with stirrups to hold the legs of not one, but two different partners.  A threesome chair, if you will, designed for a royal with famously gargantuan sexual appetites.  King Edward VII's love chair, known as the ‘siège d'amour’ in French, epitomised opulence and sensuality. And, possibly more importantly, it allowed the overweight king-to-be to have sex with two women at the same time without crushing them... The famous love chair, kept at the famed Parisian brothel Le Chabanais, allowed the unathletic Bertie to have relations with two women simultaneously, all with the minimum of effort to himself, or risk to them. It also ensured his stomach was kept out of the way... the siège d'amour wasn’t the only piece of erotic furniture that the playboy prince kept at Le Chabanais.  Another of the future king's favourite diversions was to carouse with multiple women in a luxurious copper bath decorated with a half-woman, half-swan figurehead, filled to the brim with champagne, in which he splashed and cavorted with his multiple female partners. Sounds chilly, but certainly decadent."

How Often Friends Become Lovers - "A new study published in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Science suggests that romances, where partners start as friends rather than strangers or acquaintances, are more likely to be the rule than the exception in romantic relationships—and that this fact has been overlooked by decades of research in relationship science... the researchers estimated that 68 percent of romantic relationships start from friendship...  approximately 80 percent of published research focused on the “dating an acquaintance or stranger” pathway to romance. Additionally, only a small fraction of studies explored the “friends-first” romantic pathway.   “This means that the field of close relationships has only a partial understanding of how romantic relationships actually begin,” stated the researchers... the friends-to-lovers pathway was overwhelmingly rated as the best way to initiate a romance—better than meeting through mutual friends, better than meeting at school or college, and better than meeting at work. Interestingly, people viewed romances initiated online or on a blind date as two of the worst ways to start a romance... only 18 percent of people reported that their friends-first partner intentionally became friends because they were romantically attracted or interested. It was much more common for people to become friends naturally and then become attracted or interested after getting to know each other. On average, friends-first partners were friends for almost two years before becoming romantic partners.   Other research suggests that physical attractiveness may play an important role in the friends-to-lovers pathway to romance. A 2015 study found that the more dissimilar couples were on ratings of physical attractiveness, the longer the couples had known each other before entering a romantic relationship. In other words, couples who knew each other for less than a year before dating tended to be equally physically attractive (attractive men with attractive women, not-so-attractive men with not-so-attractive women). Still, couples who had known each other for more than a year before dating showed no evidence of similarity in physical attractiveness."

TIL that Cancún didn’t exist until 1970, its location was chosen using early computer models to identify a suitable place for a new resort city. The area had only three residents at the time. : r/todayilearned

The Sibling Most Likely To Cause Drama In The Family, According To Research - "A study done by MIT found that second-born children, particularly second-born sons, are the most likely to cause drama... The reasoning for second-born children tending to cause drama? The lack of attention given to them by their parents.   As the study showed how parental time investment is higher for first-borns at ages 2-4 and suggested that the arrival of a second-born child extends early-childhood parental investments for first-borns."

Origins of the "Marsiling Boulder" come to light after 35 years - "The origins of the massive boulder that has been a fixture by the sidewalk at the Woodland Ave 9 junction for the past 35 years have finally come to light. In a recent social media post, Singaporean Cheah Kim Huat shared the backstory of this mysterious rock, which has piqued the curiosity of many over the decades.  Taking to Facebook late last month, Mr Cheah detailed the events leading to the boulder’s current resting place. “Sharing this telltale about why this boulder has been lying at Woodland Ave 9 junction for the past 35 years. Yes, I put it there in 1989,” Mr Cheah began, explaining his involvement in a major infrastructure project at the time.  Mr Cheah recounted that his team was contracted to lay a 450mm sewer pipe for the new Woodlands zone. The project required them to install the pipe six meters below road level using a pipe jacking method. However, during the tunneling process, their microtunneling cutting head encountered a significant obstacle: a large boulder. To overcome this obstruction, Mr Cheah and his team had to dig a rescue pit to remove the boulder. “After backfilling the rescue pit, our tunneling works continued as required in our contract,” he wrote.  The real twist in the story lies in the specifics of the contract under which the work was carried out. According to Cheah, the contract stipulated that the team would only be compensated for removing man-made structures encountered during the tunneling process. Since the boulder was a natural underground formation, it did not qualify for compensation for disposal under the contract terms.  “The reason the boulder is still there is because our contract clearly stated that we would only be compensated if our tunneling machine encountered man-made structures in our jacking path. Since the boulder is a natural underground formation, it is not covered in our contract cost for disposal,” Mr Cheah explained."

Lightning rod fashion - Wikipedia - "Lightning rod fashion was a fad in late eighteenth-century Europe after the lightning rod, invented by Benjamin Franklin, was introduced. Lightning rod hats for ladies and lightning umbrellas for gentlemen were most popular in France, especially in Paris. The concept that inspired the fashion was that a lightning bolt would strike the Franklin-designed protective device instead of the person, and then the electricity would travel down a small metal chain into the ground harmlessly. The technology was already used to some extent in France to protect wooden buildings, and was therefore an accepted science concept that developed into a temporary fashion."

automatic rotating stir fryer | Facebook

Woman allegedly stabbed date in retaliation for US drone strike that killed Iranian leader - "Las Vegas police arrested a woman who allegedly stabbed her date she met online in retaliation for the US drone strike that killed an Iranian military leader in 2020.   Henderson Police Department charged 21-year-old Nika Nikoubin with attempted murder last Saturday after she allegedly lured a man she met on the dating site Plenty of Fish in bed only to attack him with a knife"
Of course, she only got probation

Jonatan Pallesen on X - "Regrettably, politicians are often worse thinkers than ordinary people. This is because elections unfortunately select for people who are flawed thinkers. The optimal politician is somewhat high IQ but with a broken understanding of the world and a broken sense of logic.  The reason for this is that voters hold many misguided folk beliefs about economics and other things. And when you go to vote, you vote for a politician who holds these views as well.  For an ordinary person it's easy to hold such beliefs. You rarely think about them or hear arguments about them. Instead you just live your unrelated life and keep holding these beliefs without reflecting much on them.  But for a politician it is harder to keep holding these folk beliefs. You have to deal with these issues often in your daily life, and you are constantly presented with other views and arguments about them.  So then you have three paths available:
1. Realize that many of your beliefs are wrong, and stop supporting them. Then your political support is lost, and your political career likely over.
2. Realize that many of your beliefs are wrong, but keep supporting them. This may work. But it's easy to risk seeming fake, and you are up against skilled politicians who really do believe their pablum.
3. Never realize that your beliefs are wrong.
This third path is clearly advantaged. But for it to work, you have to be a particularly flawed thinker, unable to update on evidence and reasoning even when confronted with it repeatedly. This will lead to a parliament with many people selected for their inability to reason clearly about how the world works. So they will make bad policy decisions, even beyond the economic folk beliefs that got them elected in the first place."

The EU remains an enemy of democracy

The EU remains an enemy of democracy - spiked

Péter Magyar’s victory in Hungary has been greeted among Europe’s media and political elites with the kind of theatrical glee usually reserved for the fall of a tyrant. At last, they claim, democracy has returned to Hungary. At last, Hungary is ready to return to the embrace of the EU. At last, the long nationalist nightmare is over.

They desperately need a reality check. Outgoing prime minister Viktor Orbán’s 16-year-long reign did not rest on tanks, forged ballots or a palace coup. It rested on repeated free and fair democratic electoral victories. You may loathe Orbán. You may despise Fidesz. But to speak as if democracy has only now reappeared in Hungary is deeply mendacious. 

It’s pretty clear that the EU and its media cheerleaders only like democracy when the voters deliver the ‘correct’ outcome. Had Orbán won again, Ursula von der Leyen and friends would not have been hailing democracy in action. They would have reverted to type, instantly attacking the result, blaming fake news, disinformation and foreign interference, while talking up the supposed threats to European values and the risks to the rule of law.

Indeed, everything in the pre-election atmosphere pointed in precisely that direction. EU elites didn’t just oppose a possible Orbán victory. They attempted to pre-emptively delegitimise it, too. If Orbán had won, it would have been held up as proof that Hungarian democracy was malfunctioning. This, then, was the pretext for the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, to intervene in the election.

Under the Digital Services Act, Brussels has arrogated to itself the ability to monitor and manage any online ‘information space’ during elections. It calls this its new ‘Democracy Shield’. During the Hungarian election, the Commission activated a part of this ‘shield’, called the Rapid Response System, which allowed it to force media platforms to remove ‘flagged’ content without due process.

Of course, we have no idea what content was targeted or what effect it had. In all likelihood, it had little impact on the outcome of the election. But what’s important here is the fact that this process of monitoring and regulating the online information space took place at all, with little to no transparency or accountability.

The European Fact-Checking Standards Network, which forms part of Brussels’s censorship system, has openly boasted of its apparent success in the Hungarian elections. In a newsletter sent earlier this week, it announced that its members’ ‘pre- and real-time debunking’ of everything, from AI-generated images to manipulated videos, was ‘pivotal’. But pivotal how exactly? Which images and videos did it ‘debunk’ and why? It did not say.

The media silence over all this has been deafening. An unelected supranational bureaucracy has policed the conditions of democratic speech within a member state and no mainstream journalist has batted an eyelid.

‘The Managed Ballot’, a new report from MCC Brussels, sets out how the Romanian presidential election of 2024 and its re-run in 2025 set the precedent for what happened in Hungary. The first ballot in 2024, won by TikTokking right-wing populist Călin Georgescu, was annulled amid allegations of Russian meddling and suspicious social-media activity. The Commission used that first ballot to intensify its scrutiny of TikTok in particular and to build a broader election-monitoring framework under the Digital Services Act.

Whatever one thinks of the Romanian case itself, it established a political template for the EU – a model for influencing an election by creating a fog of suspicion, through claims of technological interference, long before any transparent public accounting has taken place. By the time the Hungarian election came around, the fact that the Commission had assumed the right to police social media no longer seemed shocking: it had become normalised.

It’s in response to this that MCC Brussels established the Democracy Interference Observatory (DIO). Its aim is to document and expose this new managerial interventionism for what it is. Too many among Europe’s political and media classes have opted for euphemism and evasion. They have called these acts of censorship ‘resilience’ and portrayed bureaucratic intrusion into elections as a means to ‘defend’ democracy. Our task in the DIO is to call things by their proper names. And in the Hungarian election, we did so to real effect, exposing Brussels’s attempts to police the boundaries of political contest, while mouthing pieties about freedom and pluralism.

The danger posed by the EU’s ‘democratic defence’ operation is only likely to intensify in the coming months and years, especially with major elections approaching in Spain, France and Italy in 2027. Brussels now has the machinery in place for future interventions.

The Russian-interference narrative has been crucial to the EU’s efforts. In both Romania and Hungary, it framed certain actors and electoral currents as the products of Russian influence. It deployed guilt-by-association tactics and relied on unnamed sources and unverified claims to sow suspicion. The point was not to be alert to possible threats – it was to delegitimise nationalist or populist opponents and taint any possible victory in advance. If enough moralising smog is pumped into the atmosphere before polling day, any unwanted result can later be met not with respect, but with procedural aggression. After what happened in Romania, when the result of the first ballot was annulled on grounds of Russian interference, who can say that fear is fanciful?

And yet here comes the most delicious irony of all. The man endlessly caricatured as Europe’s would-be authoritarian strongman behaved with more democratic dignity in defeat than many of his self-styled liberal critics have shown in victory. Viktor Orbán conceded quickly, and made no effort to cling to office. He accepted the verdict of the electorate, congratulated his opponent and moved on.

So much for the feverish insinuations that he would resist a Magyar victory by any means necessary. So much for the fantasy that only Brussels and its allied guardians stand between Europe and Orbánist barbarism. Orbán’s concession showed that democratic habits have become embedded in Hungarian political life – including among those the EU has spent years demonising and treating as politically semi-legitimate.

That is why the true victors here are not the Eurocrats, or the pompous establishment commentators celebrating the ‘restoration of decency’. The true victors are the Hungarian people, who turned out in huge numbers and delivered a clear verdict. That is what democracy looks like: citizens making a choice and political actors accepting it. The EU did not teach Hungary democracy. If anything, Hungary has much to teach Brussels.

After all, the EU’s governing philosophy remains profoundly suspicious of the demos. It still sees ordinary citizens as low-information, emotionally combustible and permanently vulnerable to ‘misinformation’. It still treats free speech less as the lifeblood of democratic life than as a dangerous channel through which the wrong passions and opinions might circulate. It still prefers managed politics to messy politics, supervised elections to free elections, approved narratives to open contestation. That worldview did not disappear because Brussels liked the Hungarian result.

The EU may be hailing democracy in the wake of Orbán’s defeat, but underneath the celebrations, there remains the same old technocratic arrogance, the same old fear of uncontrolled speech, the same old inability to trust the people. Today, Eurocrats are cheering voters in Hungary because they delivered the approved answer. But they could turn on voters in Spain or France or Italy tomorrow if they deliver the ‘wrong’ answer.

This is why the Democracy Interference Observatory is not closing shop. It is preparing for the next round. Because if Hungary has proved anything, it is that the battle in Europe is no longer simply between left and right, or liberal and conservative. It is between two visions of democracy – between those who support, and those who fear, the self-government of a free people.