Fandom Pulse on X - "The Boys series finale introduced Gunter Van Ellis: world's richest man, 17 children, amateur astronaut, talks about white fertility rates, wears a "We Believe In Homelander" hat. Homelander took him to space. Elon Musk replied to a post about the scene with one word: "Pathetic." Showrunner Eric Kripke quote-tweeted Musk's response and posted: "I'll never get a better review ever." Kripke confirmed Homelander was modeled on Trump, and it was obvious this new character was modeled on Musk. Did The Boys end as a superhero show or a political broadcast?"
Meme - BigCharles_06 @Charles36138349: "I think my respect for Starr has just shot up into the stratosphere. Dude was genuinley trying to put work into making his character and Kripke at every point was like, "but how can we tie this back to TRUMP????" And Anthony was the one to pull him back."
The Boys Out of Context Clips @T...: "Eric Kripke reveals Antony Starrs goal was never to create Homelander as a Donald Trump Parody. #TheBoys totally understand Ant's point of view. He's like, 'I'm not doing a caricature. I'm trying to create a character with a consistent internal life.' And I absolutely agree Show more"
Clearly Anthony Starr's one of the clueless people who doesn't understand that The Boys has always been mocking people like him
Meme - Fans (as Starlight): "You made those fucked-up choices. You ruined the final season of your own show. You're not a fucking baby. For once take some responsibility for yourself."
Eric Kripke (as The Deep): "No!"
Roman Helmet Guy on X - "Emily Wilson read the story about a Cyclops eating Odysseus’s men and thought: “Wow, this monster is a non-White person. People might get the idea that non-White people are savage. I better not use the word ‘savage.’ That would reinforce colonialism.”"
Roman Helmet Guy on X - "Emily Wilson completely changed the meaning of a key word in the Odyssey to make it seem like Helen of Troy didn't blame herself for starting the Trojan War, when in fact the text makes it clear that she did. In 4.145-146, Helen calls herself κυνώπιδος (dog-faced). This is an insult meaning "shameless." It is commonly used to refer to unfaithful lovers. For example, it is used elsewhere in the Odyssey (8.319) to refer to Aphrodite after she cheats on Hephaestus with Ares. Fagles translates 4.145-146 to: "all you Achaeans fought at Troy, launching your headlong battles just for my sake, shameless whore that I was.” Lattimore translates 4.145-146 to: "for the sake of shameless me, the Achaians went beneath Troy, their hearts intent upon reckless warfare." Wilson completely changes the meaning of κυνώπιδος to "hounded" (she is trying to be cute by translating 'dog-faced' to a word that still relates to dogs, even though its actual meaning is completely unrelated). She then applies this word to the Achaeans, saying that they were hounded, not Helen. Her translation is in the image below. This is obviously an ideological change that she made because she personally believes Helen shouldn't be blamed for the Trojan War. She deliberated distorted the meaning of one of the foundational texts of Western literature to conform with her modern beliefs."
Meme - Greg Lukianoff @glukianoff: "Politically active faculty at elite and flagship universities aren't just overwhelmingly Democratic. They're very progressive. Not just NPR-tote-bag-and-recycling progressive, but progressive to the point that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would sit just slightly left of them by comparison."
"Distribution of Faculty Ideology Compared to U.S. Congress. 55-University Sample Facuty. US House. US Senate"
Meme - The Critical Drinker: "The three stages of games journalism grief: 1. It's not true, you're just sexist. 2. It might be true but it's a good thing, stop being sexist. 3. OK, it's true and its bad but youre still sexist."
"Okay, Let's Talk About Kay Vess' Face. The chuds is right: Kay Vess does look weird. It's not for the reasons they tell you, though! It could be because of technical issues and limitatlons or just because she was supposed to look ike that. Whatever it is it's not because of a conspiracy against gamers to make women in video games more ugly."
Meme - mobile vulgus @brassman666: "The Taliban execute homosexuals."
$arah @pples @JustifiedNo: "The US does it far more often. Many LGBT people have been fighting alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda against Amerikkkan imperialism. Al-Qaeda has no specific policy to target LGBT folx...far from it. The US, however, does."
Antidissident on X - "The TSA chap let the 9/11 hijackers through because he didn't want to be seen as racist"
Take it from a therapist. Toxic culture is turning everyone into ‘victims’ - "I recently wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal under the headline “Is ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ real?” It went viral almost instantly. Within hours my inbox was flooded with angry messages. I was accused of defending a fascist, labelled a protector of paedophiles, told I had blood on my hands, and sent messages wishing me dead. A surprising number came from fellow therapists. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so revealing. Many of the same people who preach emotional maturity responded with volatility and cruelty, mirroring the very traits they usually claim to condemn. Their outrage became a form of moral elevation. Their sense of injury became a license to attack. As a psychotherapist practising in New York City and Washington, DC, I see this logic every week. Patients insist they “had no choice” but to lash out at a partner, ghost a friend, or retaliate at work because they “felt disrespected”. These aren’t extremists. They’re ordinary people who have absorbed a cultural belief that emotional pain automatically grants moral authority. The parallels between individual psychology and the wider culture are striking. Consider two recent American incidents. Last year, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot dead on a Manhattan street. The alleged shooter’s rage at the insurance industry was treated by many as if it explained, or excused, the crime. Online and in the streets, he was elevated to folk-hero status. Barely nine months later, the conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on stage at a university event in Utah. Within hours, pockets of the internet justified the murder as political payback. In both cases, violence was filtered through grievance rather than rejected outright. The grievance became a badge of righteousness. The sense of injury became a license to celebrate bloodshed. This same worldview now shapes far more mundane situations. You dislike your job? It must be a toxic workplace. A friend disagrees with you? He’s a narcissist. A colleague corrects you? That’s emotional abuse. Experiences that once required patience or perspective to manage are now framed as injuries inflicted by someone else. Words used in therapy, such as trauma, toxic, unsafe and triggered, have drifted far from their clinical purpose and are applied to everyday frustrations as if mild discomfort were equivalent to harm. In America, this mindset is often reinforced by therapists who rarely challenge their patients and instead rush to affirm every feeling. “Of course it’s their fault, not yours” has become an all-too-familiar refrain. Empathy is not the problem. The way we weaponise it is. When ordinary frustrations are recast as psychological injuries, the person who feels hurt instantly ascends to the moral high ground and often believes they are entitled to respond in ways they would normally recognise as excessive. Grievance becomes an emotional permission slip. Social media supercharges this dynamic. Outrage has become performance art. Platforms reward sharpness, not nuance. People compete to be the most aggrieved because grievance now signals virtue. Call everything harm and treat every slight as an injury, and suddenly the calmest voice looks apathetic while the angriest looks righteous... This emotional logic has hardened into identity. More people now define themselves not by what they value but by what they believe has wronged them. Victimhood becomes a personal brand. Patients in my office cling to slights because letting go would mean giving up the story that gives them meaning. The same trend appears in politics, where movements define themselves through the injuries they claim to have suffered. Once grievance becomes identity, stepping back feels impossible because it threatens the sense of self... What makes this grievance culture so corrosive is its refusal of complexity. Once someone sees themselves as wronged, they are often unwilling to entertain any fact or nuance that might soften their moral certainty. Compromise looks like weakness. Ambivalence looks like betrayal. When grievance becomes the frame, people stop asking what is true and lock themselves into a victim mindset that leaves no room for growth. The outcome is predictable: more conflict, more fragility, emotions treated as evidence. None of this means emotional pain is trivial. It’s not. But emotional pain is not the same as injury or trauma, and it does not justify retaliation. Public life depends on the ability to tolerate uncomfortable feelings without turning them into moral authority. Without that capacity, every disagreement becomes an emotional arms race, and the loudest claim of victimhood wins. The backlash to my WSJ piece was only one small expression of this psychology. The people who wished me harm thankfully did not act on their anger. But the underlying logic – “I feel wronged therefore I may attack” – is the same one that cheered two assassinations. A culture organised around grievance eventually loses the ability to function. When feelings eclipse facts and discomfort is treated as injustice, the guardrails of public life collapse. The solution is emotional clarity, not emotional hardness. We need to relearn the difference between discomfort and danger, offence and injury, disagreement and harm. Resilience means being able to feel without letting those feelings distort reality. Responsibility means refusing to let grievance run the show."
Alice Smith on X - "“You must not divide us!” Screams the Left as they divide everyone up in terms of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, pronouns, Palestine, and anything else their vicious little minds can dream up."
Michelle Obama has just got white men horribly wrong - "So, I’ve been getting it wrong all these years. All those white men, often very senior, who have sat in my training courses and talked about their fears of speaking up in meetings or giving presentations and media interviews, and about how they so often feel unworthy, were in fact telling me a load of porkies. Or so Michelle Obama would have us believe. Because we now know from the former first lady, speaking in London this week, that white men don’t actually feel impostor syndrome. These were her words: “There are so many people like me, like you: women, minorities, folks who aren’t supposed to be at these tables. They are sitting around thinking that they’re impostors … I’ve never heard a white man talk about impostor syndrome. I haven’t met one.”"
By attacking Palantir, MPs are putting politics above patients - "By the NHS’s own count, the platform has already delivered more than 110,000 operations that would not otherwise have happened. Nearly 300,000 patients have been discharged from hospital sooner. Its cancer tool means tens of thousands more patients have heard within 28 days whether they have the disease. You would think a record like that would be celebrated. Instead, this week, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee published a report on digital government. Some of it is right – legacy IT systems are a genuine scandal – but it also urges ministers to cancel Palantir’s NHS contract, with no view on what would replace it. In doing so, this Westminster committee of MPs has put politics above patients, harming them and setting a dangerous precedent. The committee – chaired by Dame Chi Onwurah – insists its objection is not ideological. But its own report concedes the programme is working, and Whitehall agrees: the Government’s infrastructure authority rates it green, its highest delivery rating awarded to just 30 of 213 major projects across the whole of Government – and reckons it returns almost five pounds for every one spent. So the real argument is narrower: a company whose founders are outspoken, and which works with the US military and immigration enforcement, should not be trusted with NHS data... The report alleges a “clear mismatch” between Palantir and British values. So what are the values of the NHS? They are delivering care to patients across England, free at the point of delivery. That is what our software helps NHS staff do. To tear up a contract won through an 18-month open competition, in which every major tech company bid and 30 independent evaluators assessed the field, would be to override a fair, expert process for political ends. Where it cannot win on politics, the committee turns to the language of national security – sovereignty, dependency, lock-in. But these fears describe a platform that does not exist. The first is that funnelling so much of the NHS’s data through a single American company creates a chokepoint a foreign power could one day exploit, leaving the service “at the mercy” of others. But there is no central vault to seize. Each NHS trust controls its own data; Palantir cannot use it, sell it, or move it. This is a fact a health minister has confirmed to Parliament. The second is that Palantir will be impossible to remove. Yet it already has been. Over the past two years two Government departments – the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Cabinet Office – moved off our software and took their data and intellectual property elsewhere without difficulty. The committee’s alternative – build a replacement platform in-house or find a UK-based alternative – runs straight into its own report, which catalogues the NHS’s long and painful history of in-house IT projects that overran, under-delivered or collapsed. No UK-based platform exists at this scale or capability today. Recommending that ministers tear up the contract in February 2027 – months away – without naming a credible replacement is reckless. Would those MPs tell their constituents: because we dislike the way a foreign government uses similar software, your operation will be delayed?"
Time to blame Tory "underfunding" of the NHS for poor performance
Lancashire chief executive has no case to answer for ‘old white men’ jibe - "Lancashire chief executive Daniel Gidney has been told he has no case to answer after a complaint to the Cricket Regulator following his description of a group of club legends as “old, entitled, white men”."
How the Left has bullied Britain into going for woke - "He found that 'wokeism' is one of the top three concerns for people, and more of an issue than sexism or populism. Some 40 per cent said cancel culture engendered a 'thought and speech police' approach that could ruin lives. In contrast, a quarter of respondents thought cancel culture was a force for good because those who express racist or sexist views must face the consequences. What is so extraordinary, however, is that the domination of woke as an issue has been achieved with little deep support from the public. Just 5 per cent of UK voters identify as woke, while roughly a third of the public do not even know what the term means, according to the survey. Britain is not yet as divided as the U.S. but it is heading in the wrong direction, with a large segment of our population gripped by severe disillusionment. Only 34 per cent of people felt that 'Britain is an exceptional country', while more than a fifth of respondents believe Britain has 'failed its people'. For Luntz, this rings alarm bells because 'when people think they are 'ignored' or 'irrelevant', that's a crisis'. No fewer than 37 per cent said the UK is 'institutionally racist and discriminatory', a figure exceeded by the 41 per cent who accepted the concept of 'white privilege'. The political breakdown of those figures shows that support for the Conservative and Labour parties is increasingly split across cultural lines: for example, 81 per cent of Tory voters believed Britain was a nation of 'equality and freedom' and only 19 per cent believed it was 'institutionally racist and discriminatory'. In contrast, 52 per cent of Labour voters hailed British 'equality and freedom' while 48 per cent saw this country as racist and discriminatory. So how has the woke ascendancy been achieved, given the low levels of support for it? Luntz believes it is a case of 'the loudest voices in the room' being able to impose themselves. But other factors have played their part, such as the failure of businesses and politicians to provide effective leadership, with the result that grievances are unaddressed and resentment is allowed to flourish. 'There are two numbers [in the survey] that really interest me,' Luntz says. Just 42 per cent of Britons feel they are invested in their country; and only 27 per cent feel their country is invested in them. Those numbers help to explain the high levels of antipathy towards MPs, Parliament and big companies, he adds. Businesses have certainly played a negative part by cowering before the woke campaigners instead of concentrating on their commercial role. He has a message for companies faced with woke agitators: 'Their job is destroy you. Your job is to do yours.' Businesses can safeguard themselves by acting responsibly and looking after their employees and communities as well as their customers: 'Woke only works if there is a real grievance, like a chief executive taking a bonus while laying off staff. It dies without that oxygen.'... he thinks the move away from New Labour's stance will do the party no good electorally: 'You have to govern from the centre, as Tony Blair showed. Labour's recent history goes: loss, loss, loss, loss, Blair, Blair, Blair, loss, loss, loss, loss.'"
From 2021
Boris Johnson urges G7 leaders to be 'more feminine' - "Boris Johnson today urged G7 leaders to aim for a more 'feminine' and 'gender neutral' recovery from coronavirus in a bizarre opening speech. Officially kicking off the summit in Carbis Bay, the PM appealed for them to 'level up' and not repeat the mistakes of the aftermath of the credit crunch when 'inequality' increased... As the leaders - including US president Joe Biden - sat around a table before the first session, Mr Johnson told them they need to 'build back better' and be 'united in our vision for a cleaner, greener world'. 'I think that is what the people of our countries now want us to focus on. They want us to be sure that we are beating the pandemic together and discussing how we will never have a repeat of what we have seen but also that we are building back better together,' he said. 'Building back greener and building back fairer and building back more equal and, how shall I, in a more gender neutral and, perhaps a more feminine way."
From 2021. Left wingers still claim the Tories were right wing; in this case it wasn't even that they talked right and governed left
Tristin Hopper on X - "A year ago I published Don't Be Canada, outlining eight areas in which Canada is uniquely dysfunctional. In the interim 12 months, the Government of Alberta has made meaningful progress on *all eight* categories. This is why I keep telling people that reform is possible now, and to not wait for a messiah to fix everything from Ottawa.
The Province of BC, meanwhile, has invented several new problems that are now uniquely dysfunctional in Canada. Its quite a cross-the-Rockies duality we've got going."
Martyupnorth®- Unacceptable Fact Checker on X - "Here is a one-line summary of each of Tristin's 8 points:
Housing crisis: Canada pioneered turning entire cities into over-leveraged real estate bubbles, driving home ownership out of reach for ordinary people because prices detached from wages.
Crime and justice: Soft-on-crime policies, catch-and-release bail, and activist courts created a revolving door for repeat offenders, leaving our streets unsafe.
Harm reduction & drugs: "Safe supply" and decriminalization experiments escalated addiction and public drug use, worsening overdoses, tent cities, and societal harm instead of reducing it.
Euthanasia (MAiD): Canada rapidly expanded medical assistance in dying into one of the world's most aggressive programs, with soaring death numbers and cases pushing it as a tratement for poverty and disability.
Healthcare system: Despite high spending, Canada's "free" system ranks near the bottom in performance among developed nations, with deadly wait times and dysfunction.
Transgender policies: Canada went further than most countries with permissive rules on youth transitions, pronouns, biological males in female spaces, and related ideology in schools and institutions.
Identity politics and "anti-racism": Canada outdid even the U.S. in embracing divisive oppressed frameworks, including declaring itself guilty of an ongoing "genocide" against Indigenous people with little accountability.
Censorship and speech laws: Expansive hate speech rules, online content takedowns, and bills like the Online Harms Act pushed Canada toward Orwellian restrictions, chilling expression and drawing international warnings.
Canada took progressive ideas further and faster than peers, almost always with cascading negative consequences, turning a once-stable nation into a totally dysfunctional one. He's right in saying that Danielle Smith is the only one finally acknowledging that things aren't working, and is trying to reverse some of these pad idea. It's still not enough to save Alberta, we need to divorce ourselves from the rest of Canada and their bad ideas."
This is why left wingers hate Alberta so much
Meme - *Soldier protecting sleeping child meme*
Chinese people: *knives, bullets and grenades*
White people: *soldier blocking weapons with body*
Black people: *child stabbing soldier*
@BALUCIAGA: "the chinese launched a black baby doll called "natasha" and people are bolling it, stretching it, beating it, stomping on It and abusing it for "stress relief" content. this is so disgusting."
Meme - Andy Ngo: "The nutter who wrote this is @annkillion. The same publication published a column defending the last World Cup being hosted in Qatar, a country governed under a version of Sharia where male homosexuality is acriminal offense."
San Francisco Chronicle: "The open hostility to gay rights in today's U.S. creates an anxious environment for fans traveling to attend World Cup matches. Pride Houses, such as the one in San Francisco, offer a safe haven."
Readers added context: "The previous FIFA World Cup in 2022 was hosted by Qatar, where same-sex acts are illegal and punishable by up to 7 years in prison, unlike the US where they have been legal nationwide since 2003 and same-sex marriage since 2015."
Mischevious slippage calling protecting children from trans mania "open hostility to gay rights"
Naturally, the article provides no evidence at all of gay rights being under attack
Outrage as scientists push to create ticks that spread red-meat allergies: 'Isn't this biological terrorism?' - "Researchers Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth from Western Michigan University published an inflammatory paper in 2025, making the case that society had a moral 'duty' to spread ticks that were infected with or engineered to carry alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). AGS is a real medical condition transmitted to humans through tick bites, causing victims to suffer allergic reactions when eating red meat, including beef, pork and lamb, dairy and other products derived from mammals. The symptoms can range from a mild case of hives or stomach pain to severe and even life-threatening cases of anaphylaxis - where blood pressure suddenly drops and the person becomes unable to breathe as their airways swell up. Crutchfield and Hereth claimed that it was morally wrong to eat meat because of the suffering animals endure and the environmental damage that the meat industry allegedly causes. They argued that the only reason society should not be spreading ticks to infect people with AGS today is that scientists do not currently have an easy and effective way to do it on a large scale... They also claimed that this process would not violate anyone's rights, despite proposing to intentionally infect the population with a life-threatening infection... Despite the study's claims that spreading diseases through ticks was only a philosophical experiment, scientists have claimed that the CIA has already been using ticks as weapons for decades. Dr Robert Malone, who helped lay the groundwork for mRNA vaccine technology, claimed he analyzed declassified government documents from Cold War biological weapons programs that link the spread of Lyme disease to CIA experiments. Malone highlighted experiments in the 1960s that allegedly released more than 282,000 radioactive ticks in Virginia and open-air tick research at Plum Island, a federal laboratory located near the Connecticut community where Lyme disease was first identified. Malone’s report argued the research was part of a much larger Cold War biological weapons program known as Project 112, which involved dozens of secret tests aimed at studying how insects could be used to spread pathogens."
Bodily autonomy is only sacrosanct when it pushes the left wing agenda (i.e. abortion)
Richard Medhurst on X - "Literally half the problems on this planet can be traced back to the UK. Including the US and Israel. It's extraordinary."
Octavian 🇪🇺 on X - "Yes, without Britain, there would be no steam engine, steam trains, telephones, parliamentarism, modern constitutionalism, English as the lingua france, penicillin, end of the slave trade, ATMs, logarithms, Shakespeare, the theory of evolution and so much more. In 1000 years, once we have gotten over neurotic jealously and third worlidsm, people will look at Britain with more admiration than we look at Ancient Greece today. It is quite evidently the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It's not even particularly close."
Paul Kelly on X - "Most of these were developed by Scots. But yeah, crack on and use ‘Britain’ when it suits you."
Vexxed on X - "When I’m in a victim complex competition and my opponent is anyone not from England"
Time to denounce English nationalism
We're still told that left wingers don't hate their countries
What proportion of heterosexuals is ex-homosexual? - "How many heterosexuals are 'ex-homosexuals'? In 1984, a random sample of Dallas adults indicated that 8 (2.7%) of 294 currently heterosexual men and 4 (1.0%) of 393 currently heterosexual women said that they were ex-homosexual. Of an urban sample from 5 additional cities, 0.5% of current heterosexuals reported that they had been homosexually 'married'. It thus appears that perhaps 1-2% of heterosexuals are ex-homosexuals. Proportionately more adults than teenagers and more men than women moved from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Of the 18 who changed, 12 became heterosexual and 6 bisexual, suggesting that perhaps two-thirds of those who abandon "being" homosexual 'become' heterosexual and a third 'become' bisexual. Because labeling oneself 'homosexual' is so mutable and value-laden, the term 'omnisexual' is suggested."
Weird. We are told that sexuality is immutable
Lois McLatchie Miller on X - "🚨🇬🇧: NEW: The UK government’s PREVENT anti-extremism awareness training, provided for teachers through mainstream education platform “The Key”, now warns teachers that children in their class using the “Pepe the Frog” meme might be part of a far-right incel group 👇"
