Social Media Freed the World

Mega-thread with over 250 (and counting) documented election rigging methods.

@kevinolearytv @paengineer I did NOT see that coming. 🙄

We uncovered something far bigger than I ever expected. After seeing coordinated false attacks against the Utah data center project, we brought in an advanced data science team to trace where the content was coming from and the results were shocking. What we found led back to organized networks, political activist groups, and funding trails tied to massive international entities. We dug through IRS 990 filings, tracked IP data from around the world, and uncovered what appears to be a coordinated campaign targeting energy and data center projects across multiple regions. I shared 90 pages of evidence with federal law enforcement and raised concerns directly with contacts at the White House. This isn’t speculation. The filings, funding records, dates, and connections are documented. There’s a coordinated PR war happening around energy infrastructure and data centers, and we’re not going to ignore it.

@thinkingwest This is communist propaganda. If anyone wants to understand how this happened in the first place: a.co/d/01PiqyNa

The FDR worship needs to end. Putting him over Washington? Criminal behavior

@5min__crafts What kind of sorcery is this? No wonder I can never learn these knots from watching the videos. One frame shows the rope end behind the main line and the VERY NEXT FRAME shows it going in front.

7 Knots Everyone Should Know

@WallStreetMav @gegifford44 Losing business is a victory for a communist.

Seattle’s Democratic Socialist Mayor is losing businesses like no where else. The Colombia Tower Club just closed after 40 years. Amazon Fresh and Amazon Go has closed all their stores. Jeff Bezos left, Howard Schultz founder of Starbucks left. Their capital gains tax collection is down 50%. Per Cushman Wakefield vacancies rates are 36.5 for commercial property. Pioneer square is at 50% vacancy. The Needlle, Seattle’s iconic structure is now a homeless encampment. Business are running from socialist ideas and sanctuary cities. At this pace tax rates will increase on those remaining. It’s just a matter of time for the city to collapse. Fewer people to tax, fewer jobs, more homeless.

@SocraticScribe We need electron microscopic views of everything.

The fractal symmetry of a honey bee under an electron microscope is unreal, microscopic geometry layered with near-mathematical precision. A creature once thought to “defy physics” in flight turns out to be engineered by physics at every scale.

@SteveDeaceShow @drawandstrike And what, exactly, is an "Epstein client" ? Someone who rode on his plane? Someone who consulted him? Someone who emailed him? What, exactly, are the people on Massie's list being accused of?

Help me understand why you wouldn't just do this first thing on Tuesday, and then you've got six months to apply pressure as a member of Congress after you've done so? Why wait? Why even wait this long?

@OwenGregorian Fortunately males that opt out of work shouldn't reproduce anyway. We have enough beta-males as it is.

No Wonder Men Are Opting Out | Bettina Arndt, Zerohedge The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic, inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible and less than a real man. Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame and the yoke comes off. Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins. The trend is not confined to America. Similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK, Australia and Canada. The marriage collapse runs in lockstep with the workforce data. According to US Census Bureau data, married-couple households made up 71% of all US households in 1970; today it’s just 47%. As University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox documents in his 2024 book Get Married, the marriage rate has fallen 65% in the last half century. Ehrenreich had made the argument that marriage and productivity were inseparable — that the same mechanism which got men to the altar got them to work. The data suggest she was right. What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — and could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition. If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal. The modern woman: a prospectus: - They are the most miserable, anxious and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material. - Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem. - Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt. - They’ve gone full throttle Left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently. - They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories. - Yet their hypergamy is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they still demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn. - The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag. - They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting. What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life? To examine more carefully what is going on here, let’s start by looking at the latest addition to this sorry reckoning. I’m referring to the finding published in the New Statesman last month that many young women don’t like men. A Merlin Strategy poll of young Britons aged 18 to 30 found three times more young women than young men held a negative view of the opposite sex. Only about 50% of women had a positive view of men compared to 72% of men feeling positive about women. For women under 25, it was even starker: only around one-third (35%) reported a positive view of men. This applies particularly to professional and managerial young women of whom just 36% hold a positive view of men, compared with 61% of working-class women. The contempt for men is hardly surprising – that’s what they have been taught. Mary Harrington, a British journalist and cultural critic who writes on Substack, frequently criticises what she calls the “femosphere” — the online feminist spaces where women bond through shared grievances about men. “The online feminist scene often feels like one long group therapy session for women to compare notes on how awful men are,” she writes, suggesting this makes men the universal scapegoat, where ordinary male behaviour is routinely framed as toxic or oppressive, while women’s collective resentment is rewarded and amplified. “Casual, low-level male-bashing has become the background hum of progressive online culture.” Not only does this toxic climate encourage women to be wary of men, but growing up in a hate-fuelled online sewer takes a toll on their mental health. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has long been warning that the toxic world of social media would lead to a rise in mental health problems, particularly in girls and young women. “Since the early 2010s, young people across the developed world are becoming more anxious, depressed and lonely. The increases were even greater in young women,” he said. Recent large-scale surveys (Ipsos 202-–2026 across 31 countries, Gallup 2025) are showing Gen Z women currently report the highest recorded levels of anxiety, persistent sadness, hopelessness and depression of any female generation at the same age. Not much fun for their partners. Last year Psychology Today had a stark warning for men about these women as marriage prospects. The saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ may have some validity, but the lesser-known saying ‘anxious wife, miserable life’ has research-approved validation. … The more neurotic the spouse is, the less happy the relationship — but women’s neuroticism seems to carry more weight in the overall marital happiness equation. Then there’s the intriguing issue of married women turning off the tap, leaving sex-starved husbands as the norm. For as long as anyone can remember, men were shamed into showing up economically. Society has absolutely nothing to say to women who stop showing up sexually. One obligation was enforced by church, law and community for centuries. The other is now abrogated on the grounds of bodily autonomy. So here we have the portrait of the modern woman as marriage prospect: miserable, anxious, politically radicalised, contemptuous of men, often sexually rejecting and trained to see menace in ordinary male behaviour. And yet the puzzled chorus from commentators, economists and policymakers continues: why won’t men commit? Why won’t they work? The approved explanations are dutifully trotted out. The economic story: men have been displaced by automation and globalisation. The health story: opioids, disability, mental illness. The educational story: men are falling behind women in universities and therefore in the job market. The cultural story, favoured by progressive commentators: toxic masculinity is preventing men from adapting to a modern service economy. All of these contain a grain of truth. But they do not account for what is really going on. The obvious explanation — the one staring out of every data table — is intentionally ignored. Marriage was the primary incentive for sustained male economic effort. It has always been — Ehrenreich knew it in 1983, and the economists have now confirmed it. There’s an economic research paper, ‘The Declining Labour Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men, which establishes that the prospect of forming and providing for a family constitutes a critical male labour supply incentive, and that the decline of stable marriage directly removes it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas calculated that declining marriage rates are responsible for roughly half the drop in the hours men work. Remove the marriage and you remove the responsibility. The data have been telling us this for decades. But here is what nobody in the mainstream conversation will say: it is not only that marriage has become too costly and too legally treacherous for men — though it has. It’s that many young women themselves have become, to put it plainly, not worth having. Half of young British women don’t trust men. More than half of educated young women view men negatively. They arrive at relationships pre-loaded with grievance, primed by algorithms that have fed them a diet of male failure and female outrage since adolescence. They are, by their own account, anxious, miserable and politically furious. What rational man, surveying this landscape, concludes that what his life is missing is a legally booby-trapped commitment to a woman primed to be impossible to keep happy? Ehrenreich feared in 1983 that if the shame mechanism collapsed, male productivity would follow. She was right. What she could not have anticipated was the other half of the equation — that the feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it. The yoke is off. The men have looked at what’s on offer. And many have, with considerable rationality, decided to go and play video games instead. dailysceptic.org/2026/05/19/no-…

@Giuliano_Mana Really good. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to put this together. I'm an avid reader and I was like: yep, true, yeah, right, correct...

The truth is, the French created Communism, and then German Idealists posing as Materialists turned it into Marxism.

💯 I get feature requests almost daily. Most of them could be implemented in an afternoon. If we released them all, we wouldn't have a "system," we'd have the most convoluted mess imaginable. Microsoft did a study showing that a majority of new features provide no value. Many of them actually decrease the value of the system. Look at how convoluted Slack and Spotify have become. There still needs to be gatekeeping. The best news is now we can start to deliver the features we always knew we needed, but were blocked by urgent requests.

@timyoung Building the feature was never the hard part though. Your custom field example - if it’s well defined, takes a day. But how does it fit into data model? Needs new integrations? Are 3 clients asking for the same thing? Saying yes to everything because code is cheap is a death trap

@miguelhzv Keep going. It's totally worth it.

Acabo de terminar la lectura de Historia de la civilización de Will Durant. Once tomos, más de trece mil páginas. Durant no es de mi palo ideológico, es un historiador liberal en el sentido clásico del término, no tiene agenda ideológica explícita. Y sin embargo, en el tomo sobre Roma, documenta algo que yo hubiera firmado sin cambiarle una coma. En César y Cristo, Durant describe la política económica de Diocleciano, siglo III, con una precisión que corta. Primero el Estado sustituyó el sistema de precios por una economía administrada. Después controló el grano, el aceite, el hierro, la sal. Después dictó precios máximos para todos los bienes y servicios del Imperio, el Edicto de Precios del 301 d.C. Resultado fue qu los bienes desaparecieron del mercado. Lo que no puede venderse a precio libre, no se produce ni se ofrece. El mecanismo es tan simple que da vergüenza tener que explicarlo, y sin embargo dos mil años después los gobiernos siguen aplicando la misma política con la misma cara de sorpresa cuando llegan los mismos resultados. Pero lo más demoledor no es el Edicto. Es lo que vino después. Para evitar que la gente huyera del campo y de las ciudades escapando de los impuestos y las regulaciones, el Estado romano ató literalmente a los campesinos a la tierra. Durant lo llama servidumbre de hecho. El feudalismo medieval, argumenta Durant, tiene su raíz principal en las restricciones que Diocleciano y sus sucesores impusieron para impedir que la gente se fugara. La servidumbre medieval fue la consecuencia lógica del intervencionismo romano. Y para financiar todo esto, los impuestos subieron a niveles que Durant describe como de continuidad ubicua sin precedentes. La burocracia, el ejército, las obras públicas y la dole tenían que financiarse con los ingresos del año en curso porque Roma aún no había descubierto el endeudamiento público para disimular el despilfarro y postergar la rendición de cuentas. Esto es clave y Durant no termina de verlo del todo, el endeudamiento público no resuelve el problema. Los modernos sí lo descubrieron, y por eso la deuda reemplazó al impuesto como mecanismo de extracción, con el plus de que el costo se le carga a generaciones que todavía no pueden votar en contra. Durant lo sintetiza así en el epílogo del tomo: el costo creciente de los ejércitos, las dádivas, las obras públicas, la burocracia en expansión y una corte parasitaria; la depreciación de la moneda; el desaliento de la capacidad productiva y la absorción del capital de inversión por parte de una tributación confiscatoria; todo eso conspiró para socavar las bases materiales de la vida italiana, hasta que el poder de Roma fue un fantasma político que sobrevivía a su propia muerte económica. Un fantasma político que sobrevivía a su propia muerte económica. Durant escribió eso en 1944. Lo que describe es exactamente el orden de operaciones, intervención de precios, fuga de capital, servidumbre regulatoria, debasement monetario, colapso de la estructura productiva. No hay ningún misterio en la caída de Roma y tampoco lo hay en ninguna de las que vinieron después. Aún me falta seguir leyendo mucho sobre la Historia de la civilización de Will Durant, son muchos tomos.

@DeanAbbott Saying you're "smart in a subject" isn't even good grammar. You can be knowledgeable in a subject or an expert in a subject, but to say you're smart in a subject would mean you're only smart when you're in the subject? Confusing.

I met many of the least thoughtful people I've ever known in my Ph.D. program. All these people were, however, convinced they were geniuses. The correlation between being good at school and being high IQ is so much lower than people, including many Ph.D. students, can imagine.

@ZarkFiles Not to mention, the concept of a "drag and drop" error isn't even a thing.

🧵 1/5 The NY Times reports FBI agents determined the Bexar voter file anomalies were most likely caused by a drag-and-drop error when county officials exported data from poll pad devices into Excel. I just published four mathematical proofs that no drag-and-drop error — at any stage, on any computer — could have produced this file. @WestonMartinez @ZoomWalter @Lorionafarm @PeterBernegger

@kane There's a difference between a mistake and a lie with plausible deniability.

This is the author who thrust AI water hysteria into the mainstream by overestimating data center water use by 100,000% in her book Empire of AI by mixing up units. She is a source of wild misinformation. Imagine writing an Econ book on the premise that minimum wage is $7,250/hr

@elonmusk The test article exploded after contact with water, but this was anticipated for an expendable prototype used to validate new hardware like upgraded engines and grid fins.

@TheShadowIntelX Been saying this since the 80s. The biggest thing I got out of business school was how to persevere through miles of red tape and bullshit.

Elon Musk just put the entire university system on trial. Not the curriculum. Not the professors. The premise. Musk: “You don’t need college to learn stuff. Everything is available basically for free. You can learn anything you want for free.” For a thousand years, universities held one monopoly. Access. You paid the toll or you stayed ignorant. The internet erased that in a decade. Every lecture. Every framework. Every textbook. Free. From any screen on Earth. The six-figure tuition is no longer buying knowledge. It is buying a signal. Musk: “There is a value that colleges have, which is seeing whether somebody can work hard at something, including a bunch of annoying homework assignments, and still do their homework assignments.” That is the product. Not intelligence. Not creativity. Not vision. Compliance. You are paying $200,000 to prove you can tolerate bureaucracy on a schedule. Musk: “Colleges are basically for fun and to prove you can do your chores. But they’re not for learning.” The entire system is a sorting machine for corporate HR. It does not measure what you can build. It measures whether you can sit still, follow directions, and deliver on command. Four years of obedience dressed as education. Musk: “If you’re trying to do something exceptional, you must have evidence of exceptional ability. I don’t consider going to college evidence of exceptional ability.” The system optimizes for average. It rewards the compliant. It certifies the patient. It quietly filters out everyone who refuses to wait for permission. The ones who reshaped the modern world never finished the test. Musk: “Gates is a pretty smart guy, he dropped out. Jobs is pretty smart, he dropped out. Larry Ellison, smart guy, he dropped out.” They did not drop out because it was too hard. They dropped out because the speed limit was too low. The most dangerous thing a university does is convince a generational talent that finishing the syllabus is the achievement. It is not. It is the floor. A degree is a receipt for compliance. The future has never belonged to people who finish their homework. It belongs to the on

@BasedDetails Yep. They did that to India when they invaded. Centuries of history and art.....gone.

saw this and had a random thought. if Italy were ever weakened to the point where they had no control of muslim mobs, the muslims would absolutely rage and smash every bit of classical and renaissance art still left. and we know this because it's what they have done in their own conquered regions and continue to do throughout the world to this very day. nearly every day you hear about some church or some shrine getting defaced or burned to the ground. yesterday i saw a bunch of muslims try to burn down a set of giant doors to some Italian estate or building with a hairspray and lighter improvised torch. we really have no respect for what muslims will do to our Western traditional history or people if they ever get the edge on power to do so. they will destroy everything, rape and kill in the most barbaric ways imaginable while the so called "moderate muslims" look onward.

@Arnie4USA @redwildcat Wait, when did the common era start? Oh, yea, when Christ was born. Got it.

Stop normalizing ‘Before Common Era’ (BCE) and ‘Common Era’ (CE). Our history is under the Gregorian Calendar by these two periods: 🔹 Before Christ (BC) 🗿 🔹 Anno Domini (AD) ✝️

@Vivek4real_ I've never seen people self-sabotage as hard as these insane nerds at the top of these AI companies.

SAM ALTMAN: ADVANCING AI MAY REQUIRE “CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.” “THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY WILL BE UP FOR DEBATE AND RECONFIGURATION.”

@ConceptualJames This episode let's you hear both sides from very intelligent Epstein experts: one thinks it's real, the other thinks it's a hoax. I really did not want to believe it was a hoax, but after hearing the pro-hoax arguments I had to change my position.

This is almost undeniable at this point.