Trump’s Global War Room: Vance, Rubio, Middle East Update - Join us.

https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1905667728536658052

Gasp!

https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1904921141749440757

Trump’s Global War Room: Houtis, Signal Gate, Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon

Democrats have zero problem with political violence so long as it’s directed at their opponents.

https://m.primal.net/PtNR.mov

Europe’s War Cry: From Feminized Men to Cannon Fodder—Can They Beat Russia’s Toxic Masculinity?

For years, Europe’s cultural elite has waged a quiet war—not against an external enemy, but against its own men. Masculinity, once celebrated as the backbone of nations, was branded “toxic,” a relic of a patriarchal past to be dismantled. Boys were taught to suppress their instincts, to apologize for their strength, to embrace sensitivity over stoicism. Nationalism was sneered at, military service mocked as outdated, and the idea of fighting for anything beyond a hashtag was dismissed as barbaric. The result? A generation of European men raised to be soft, compliant, and—let’s just say it—feminized.

Now, with Russia’s shadow looming larger and NATO’s borders feeling the heat, Europe’s leaders are suddenly whistling a different tune. They’re calling for hundreds of thousands of troops—300,000 more, according to some analysts—to deter Moscow’s ambitions. The same men they’ve spent decades neutering are now expected to pick up rifles, march into the muck, and defend the very society that vilified them. But here’s the kicker: why should they? And more importantly, can they?

The Russian Contrast: Warrior Masculinity Unleashed

Across the border, Russia hasn’t been sipping the same progressive Kool-Aid. Vladimir Putin’s regime has leaned hard into what Europe recoils from: a rugged, unapologetic masculinity. Russian men are raised to see themselves as warriors, defenders of the Motherland. Military service isn’t just a duty—it’s a rite of passage, a badge of honor. Putin himself plays the part, shirtless on horseback or judo-flipping opponents, projecting an image of strength that resonates with a culture that still reveres the soldier. Sure, it’s performative, but it works. When Russia calls, its men answer—not out of fear, but pride.

Contrast that with Europe, where conscription’s been largely abandoned, militaries shrunk, and the idea of “fighting for your country” feels like a quaint history lesson. Posts on X highlight the irony: Europe’s spent years shaming masculinity and nationalism, only to scramble now that Putin’s breathing down NATO’s neck. Recruitment’s a mess—many EU countries can’t fill their ranks, let alone retain soldiers. Mandatory service? Good luck selling that to a generation raised on peace marches and gender studies.

Toxic Masculinity: The War-Winning X-Factor?

Here’s the brutal truth: wars aren’t won by sensitivity training. They’re won by men—and women, sure, but historically, mostly men—who are willing to charge into hell, take risks, and embrace the chaos. Call it “toxic masculinity” if you want: the aggression, the competitiveness, the refusal to back down. It’s the stuff that turns civilians into soldiers, soldiers into victors. Europe’s spent decades trying to sand those edges off its men, preaching that strength is oppressive and violence is never the answer. Noble? Maybe. Practical? Not when tanks are rolling.

Russia’s men, by contrast, haven’t been domesticated. Their culture still glorifies the fighter, the protector, the guy who doesn’t flinch. If it’s a cage match between a civilization that’s bred its men to be toxically masculine and one that’s turned them into “sissies” (harsh, but you get the point), who’s your money on? Mine’s on the Russians. Not because they’re inherently better, but because they’ve kept the raw, primal drive that wins wars—while Europe’s been busy neutering its own.

Why Now? And Will They Show Up?

So why’s Europe suddenly beating the war drum? It’s not hard to guess. Russia’s rattling sabers, Ukraine’s a bleeding wound, and the U.S.—Europe’s big brother with the big guns—is starting to look inward, questioning why it’s always footing the bill. NATO’s generals are war-gaming deployments, the UK’s navy is eyeing the Black Sea, and the EU’s waking up to a harsh reality: peace isn’t free, and someone’s got to pay the price. But after years of telling men their instincts are the problem, can Europe really expect them to flip a switch and storm the barricades?

The will to fight isn’t just about training or equipment—it’s about belief. Men fight for something they’re proud of, something they’d die for. Russia’s men have that: a narrative of glory, a sense of purpose. Europe’s men? They’ve been told their history’s shameful, their strength’s toxic, and their nations are just lines on a map to be erased by globalization. Why would they risk their lives for a society that’s spent decades kicking them in the teeth?

Can Europe Win?

Let’s be real: Europe’s not defenseless. It’s got tech, money, and a legacy of military know-how. But wars aren’t just logistics—they’re grit, guts, and a hunger to win. Russia’s got that in spades; Europe’s running on fumes. If it comes to blows, the feminized European man—raised to question rather than conquer—might hesitate where the Russian doesn’t. And in war, hesitation kills.

Could Europe toughen up? Sure, but it’d take a cultural U-turn—a rejection of the past 30 years of progressive dogma. Conscription might force bodies into uniforms, but you can’t mandate the fire in the belly. Russia’s men are forged in a crucible Europe’s spent decades dismantling. If I’m betting on who’d come out on top in a slugfest, it’s the side that still believes masculinity’s a virtue, not a vice. Europe’s got a hell of a hill to climb—and it’s not clear its men even want to.

So Inclusive, It Hurts: Disney’s Snow White Bans Dwarfs to Stay Woke

Call it progress, but with casualties. Disney’s upcoming live-action Snow White remake has become the latest example of how corporate inclusion efforts have twisted into exclusion—this time, by quietly eliminating roles for actors with dwarfism.

That’s right: in a move meant to modernize the beloved fairytale, Disney has replaced the iconic Seven Dwarfs with an eclectic group of average-height “magical creatures,” reimagining the classic as something more “inclusive”—but not for the community it once spotlighted.

Rather than update the characters with care or nuance, the studio opted for erasure. Ironically, this came after actor Peter Dinklage publicly criticized the idea of recreating the original dwarf characters without rethinking their portrayal. Instead of reworking the roles, Disney simply removed them—essentially swinging from stereotype to silence.

Actors with dwarfism, who rarely see prominent roles in Hollywood, now find themselves pushed further to the margins in the name of progress. It’s inclusion theater, and the stage just got a lot smaller.

Rachel Zegler, who stars as Snow White, has added fuel to the fire by calling the original story “weird” and “creepy,” suggesting that Snow White doesn’t need a prince and that beauty shouldn’t define her character. Admirable sentiments—but why retell a classic fairytale if you dislike everything about it?

Disney’s reimagining doesn’t feel like evolution. It feels like brand management. Inclusivity should open doors, not quietly shut them behind the scenes. What we’re left with is a Snow White where no one’s really white, dwarfs don’t exist, and the story’s core themes are scrubbed clean for modern sensibilities.

Fairytales are meant to be timeless—not soulless. And this one might need more than a magic mirror to find its way back to authenticity.

Trump’s Economic Vision: A Return to the Gilded Age?

By March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump’s second term is already leaving a distinct mark on the U.S. economy. His administration is steering the nation toward a manufacturing-centric, protectionist model, echoing a style of economic nationalism not fully seen since the late 19th century. With policies like steep tariffs, deregulation, and cuts to federal spending, Trump aims to shift the U.S. away from its current reliance on finance and services and back to its industrial roots. But when was the last time America operated this way, and can such a vision thrive in today’s globalized world?

The Blueprint: Tariffs, Manufacturing, and Less Government

Trump’s economic strategy is bold and unapologetic. Within months of taking office in January 2025, his administration has moved to impose tariffs—25% on imports from Canada and Mexico, with reciprocal tariffs set to hit global trade partners by April 2—designed to protect and resurrect American industry. The cancellation of programs like the Local Food for Schools initiative, which once funneled $660 million to connect farmers with schools, reflects a broader push to slash federal spending, a move overseen in part by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. At the same time, Trump has leaned into energy independence, issuing executive orders to boost fossil fuel production, and courted major industrial investments, like Hyundai Motor Group’s $21 billion commitment to U.S. manufacturing, announced on March 24.

This Hyundai deal—a $5.8 billion steel plant in Louisiana, $9 billion to expand auto production, and $6 billion for local supply chains—promises 14,000 direct jobs and over 100,000 total by 2028. It’s a poster child for Trump’s vision: reshoring production, reducing import reliance, and prioritizing tangible goods over financial services. Add tax cuts and deregulation to the mix, and the goal becomes clear: an economy where factories hum, not spreadsheets.

A Historical Parallel: McKinley’s America

Trump has name-checked President William McKinley (1897–1901) as inspiration, and the comparison holds weight. McKinley’s era was defined by high tariffs—like the Tariff Act of 1890—to shield U.S. manufacturers, a focus on industrial output over finance, and a federal government that played a minimal role in daily life. Back then, manufacturing drove the economy, peaking at around 30% of GDP by 1929 (versus 11% today), while services and finance were sidelined. Tariffs weren’t just protectionist; they were a primary revenue source, funding a lean government in a pre-income-tax age.

The U.S. last resembled this model during the Gilded Age, roughly spanning the 1870s to 1900. This was a time of steel barons, railroad tycoons, and factory towns—an America of production, not portfolios. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a late gasp of this approach, but its failure amid the Great Depression marked a turning point. After World War II, the U.S. pivoted to global trade, a service-based economy, and an expanded federal role. By the 1950s, manufacturing still mattered, but globalization was rising, and by 1980, finance had eclipsed industry in economic output.

The Modern Disconnect

Trump’s plan is a deliberate throwback, but the U.S. hasn’t fully operated this way in over a century. Critics, including voices on X and analyses from groups like the Center for American Progress, call it a “19th-century trade and economic agenda”—a fair label, given its rejection of the modern service-driven, interconnected economy. Since the 1930s, America has built wealth through finance, tech, and global supply chains, not just factories. Manufacturing’s decline—from 30% of GDP in the 1920s to 11% now—mirrors the rise of services, which today account for nearly 80% of economic activity.

Can Trump rewind the clock? The Hyundai investment and tariff threats suggest intent, but challenges loom. Today’s workforce is trained for services and tech, not assembly lines. Global supply chains, digital trade, and consumer reliance on cheap imports complicate a return to industrial dominance. The Gilded Age thrived in a pre-globalized world; 2025 is a different beast, with China, the EU, and multinational corporations as players McKinley never faced.

A Test of History

The last time the U.S. economy mirrored Trump’s vision—high tariffs, manufacturing at the core, and a small federal footprint—was before the progressive reforms of the early 20th century and the global shifts post-1930s. The Gilded Age, peaking around 1900, was its high watermark. Whether Trump can resurrect it remains uncharted territory. His policies might boost factories and jobs in states like Louisiana and Alabama, as Hyundai’s move suggests, but they could also spark trade wars and inflation, echoing Smoot-Hawley’s missteps.

For now, Trump is betting on a vision rooted in America’s industrial past. History offers lessons, not guarantees—whether this gamble pays off will define his legacy and the nation’s economic future.

Is Piers Morgan the Political Jerry Springer?

It’s a fair question: Has Piers Morgan become the Jerry Springer of political discourse? Swap DNA test reveals and chair-throwing brawls for gotcha questions and blustery monologues, and you might start to see it. While Springer gave us tabloid-style breakdowns of broken marriages and secret affairs, Morgan delivers theatrical confrontations dressed up as news.

Let’s break it down.

1. The Ringmaster Vibe

Jerry Springer didn’t just host a show—he orchestrated a circus. He provoked guests, stood just outside the chaos, and offered wry closing thoughts about the human condition. Piers Morgan, with his signature smugness and moral certainty, has a similar MO. Whether he's grilling a politician or walking off his own set (remember Good Morning Britain?), he's always positioning himself as the eye of the storm—above it all, while also being its architect.

Both men love the spectacle. Springer gave us guests who screamed, “You don’t know me!” while Morgan offers interviews where he screams, “You can’t be serious!” The dynamic is identical: stoke the fire, then feign surprise at the flames.

2. Morality Plays in Disguise

Springer’s show often posed as some kind of twisted morality tale: “This is what happens when people cheat, lie, and live in denial.” Morgan, likewise, performs moral outrage—especially when it comes to political correctness, free speech, or royal family drama. But like Springer, his concern often feels performative, a means to spark controversy rather than resolve anything.

When Jerry ended a segment with “Take care of yourselves—and each other,” it was a strange kind of parody of sincerity. Piers ends segments with some version of, “I’m just saying what everyone’s thinking,” which often means “I’m saying something inflammatory because I know it’ll trend.”

3. Platforming and Provoking

Springer gave airtime to fringe voices and wild personalities for entertainment. Morgan does something similar in political circles: he invites conspiracy theorists, firebrand politicians, culture warriors, and provocateurs—not to mediate a meaningful exchange, but to pit them against each other like fighters in a verbal cage match.

He plays the role of instigator and ringmaster, letting guests go at each other while he fans the flames—interrupting at strategic moments, stirring controversy, or egging someone on just enough to spark the next viral blow-up. It’s less journalism, more gladiatorial spectacle.

Morgan doesn’t just host conversations; he engineers collisions. And like Springer, he knows outrage is the currency of modern media. The more explosive the clash, the more likely it is to get clipped, memed, and argued over on X.

4. The Audience is the Show

What made Jerry Springer a cultural phenomenon wasn’t just the guests—it was the audience. They cheered, booed, and chanted “Jer-ry! Jer-ry!” They were in on the act. Likewise, Morgan plays to his crowd—whether it’s culture warriors, aggrieved centrists, or the British public tired of “woke nonsense.” His viewers aren’t passive observers—they’re participants in a shared emotional performance. It's tribal, it's reactive, and it's addictive.

And of course, much of that audience now lives on X (formerly Twitter), where Morgan’s clips get clipped, rage-shared, and endlessly debated—often divorced from context, always full of fire. Like Springer’s studio, X is the arena, and Morgan knows how to work a crowd.

5. The Cult of Personality

Both men turned their names into brands. The Jerry Springer Show and Piers Morgan Uncensored are more about the host than the content. They sit in judgment, proclaiming truth, calling out hypocrisy—often while ignoring their own.

Springer had the decency to lean into the absurdity. He knew it was ridiculous. Piers? Not so much. He takes himself seriously—which somehow makes the whole thing feel even more like performance art.

6. Platforming the Spectacle—No Matter the Cost

Jerry Springer was notorious for booking the wildest guests he could find. The more outrageous, the better. The show thrived on shock value—cheating scandals, violent confrontations, bizarre fetishes—anything to get people watching.

Piers Morgan, it seems, has taken the same formula and applied it to geopolitics and ideology. Only instead of “I married my cousin’s ex” confessions, we now get Kanye West spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories in prime-time interviews, Holocaust deniers getting treated like legitimate debate partners, and PR flaks from terrorist organizations given airtime under the guise of “hearing both sides.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t journalism—it’s spectacle. It’s the Springer Show with a British accent and better lighting. Morgan presents these guests as if he’s bravely exposing the public to “uncomfortable truths,” but in reality, he’s just throwing more gasoline on the fire for clicks and virality.

When Springer brought on outlandish characters, it was understood that the whole thing was a circus. With Morgan, there’s still the pretense of serious journalism—which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. Giving oxygen to extremists under the banner of “free speech” doesn’t make him a maverick—it makes him the ringmaster of a political freak show.

So, Is He?

If Jerry Springer was the king of lowbrow relationship drama, Piers Morgan might be its political heir—a showman cloaked in the seriousness of news, provoking outrage in the name of “free speech,” all while keeping the spectacle alive.

Why the Left Is Losing the Male Vote

A recent Intelligencer headline reads: “Masculinity Will Not Save Men – There is a crisis, but it’s being misdiagnosed.” It’s the kind of title that sums up exactly why so many men are walking away from the political left—and why they may never return.

The left isn’t misreading the crisis facing men—they’re the ones who created it. They’ve gutted fatherhood, mocked masculinity, and told young men they’re either oppressors or irrelevant. Then they wonder why men are angry, lost, and done listening. It’s not a misunderstanding—it’s a full-blown ideological assault on what makes men men.

What many progressives fail to grasp is that masculinity is not the illness—it’s often the cure. Structure, strength, resilience, leadership, self-mastery—these aren’t toxic; they’re essential. For many young men, these values offer a sense of meaning in a world that increasingly tells them they are unneeded or even unwanted.

That’s why we’re seeing young men, even those who don’t fit the old conservative mold, showing up in red hats and American flag gear. It’s not just about Trump. It’s about saying: “We see what you’ve done to men. We’re done apologizing for being who we are.”

If the left wants to talk about crises, they need to look at their own role in driving men away. The constant framing of men as privileged oppressors and masculinity as inherently violent leaves little room for empathy, let alone solutions. And until this changes, they’ll have to settle for the women's vote—because the men are no longer listening.

https://x.com/i/spaces/1gqxvjWqyWBxB

Trump's Global War Room: Security Threats Hearings - Tulsi, Kash, Ratcliffe

Masculinity Under Siege: The West’s Impossible Demands on Men

https://m.primal.net/PsER.webp

In Western society, boys are raised to be girls from the earliest stages of their education, conditioned in schools to sit still, behave obediently, and suppress their natural inclinations for roughhousing or assertiveness. This upbringing drills into them a dual mandate: to be more like women and to serve women. Men are feminized by society and women alike, stripped of the rugged, masculine traits that once defined manhood and—ironically—the very qualities that draw women to them.

You can see it all around society: men in dresses, men wearing makeup, men being told to sit down, shut up, and stop taking up space. At home, on the other side of the coin, they are expected to protect women, prioritizing their safety and well-being above their own. In times of crisis, such as a military draft, men are the ones called to lay down their lives—a duty rooted in traditional masculinity that society still clings to when convenient.

Day-to-day courtesies reinforce this expectation: men must open doors, speak kindly, and show deference and respect to women, all under the guise of chivalry that is not respected by women and is oftentimes scorned. There’s video all over the internet of women mocking and disrespecting traditionally masculine gestures, such as opening the door. There are videos all over YouTube of women disrespecting men and their roles in society. Men are expected to respect women—but men are not to expect any reciprocity of such respect from women.

Men are raised and taught how they should treat women. They are raised and told about their duties and responsibilities to women. There is no such training for women on what they need to reciprocate to men. Women are positioned as recipients of service from men, who are tasked with making them feel safe and attending to their emotional needs. The message is clear—masculinity is only acceptable when it benefits women.

This one-sided dynamic extends into the legal and social realms. Marriage and family courts often disproportionately favor women, with men expected to accept unequal outcomes as part of their societal burden. Men are told to suppress their frustrations, to "man up," while simultaneously being tone-policed into softening their voices and shedding tears like women.

Yet, this push for feminization comes with a catch—by shedding their masculinity to meet these demands, men lose the strength, confidence, and stoicism that women instinctively find attractive. There are countless videos on social media of women expressing their revulsion toward feminine men. That’s the complaint: men are too feminine nowadays. When men were masculine, that was called “toxic masculinity.” When men feminized and softened up, they were reviled by women once again.

Men can’t win. If they are masculine, they’re rebuked. If they are feminized, they’re rebuked again. The irony is stark: society and women demand that men become more feminine to fix their "toxic masculinity," yet when they comply, they are met with disdain from the very women who championed this change—left unappealing in the eyes of those they were taught to serve.

This feminization of men doesn’t just erode personal relationships—it places Western society at existential risk. While the West busies itself turning its men into softened, emotionally fragile "sissies" under the banner of feminism, its enemies—nations and tribes hardened by conflict—cultivate unapologetically masculine warriors. These are men raised in cultures where battle is a way of life, where strength, aggression, and resilience are not just valued but essential for survival.

Picture a war between these two worlds: on one side, feminized Western men, conditioned to cry and cater to feelings, their masculinity stripped away by decades of cultural reprogramming; on the other, fierce, battle-tested tribes who have spent generations fighting to kill or be killed. How well will that end for the women of Western society, who will watch helplessly as their sissified protectors fall in combat—men who were never built up to be strong, masculine defenders of their homes, families, and way of life?

By prioritizing the softening of men over their fortification, the West has left itself vulnerable, handing its adversaries a glaring advantage in any future clash of civilizations.

Imagine a world war breaking out tomorrow. Would society feel secure knowing its soldiers and marines are weeping endlessly on the battlefield? Would women, children, and the elderly feel safe entrusting their survival to men who have been conditioned to emulate the emotional expressiveness of a five-year-old girl?

The absurdity is glaring. A society facing an existential threat cannot afford to field an army of men trained to prioritize feelings over fortitude. Yet this is the contradiction Western culture has engineered—men must be masculine enough to fight and die, but feminine enough to cater to emotional whims in peacetime. They are expected to toggle seamlessly between these roles, always knowing precisely when to cry and when to stand firm, all while serving women without question.

This relentless focus on men's duties—to women, to society—stands in sharp contrast to the absence of reciprocal expectations. Men are taught to respect women as a fundamental obligation, yet women are rarely, if ever, taught to respect men in kind. The cultural narrative fixates on what men owe—never on what women might owe men or society.

Women are increasingly liberated from traditional gender roles, free to pursue independence and self-fulfillment, while men are shackled to theirs—expected to provide, protect, and sacrifice without complaint. Even as women push for men to shed "toxic" traits and embrace femininity, they balk when the result is a generation of softened men no longer fitting the masculine archetype they instinctively desire.

The fallout is predictable. Men are dropping out—of dating, of marriage, of societal participation altogether. Why wouldn’t they? The bargain is lopsided: endless obligations with no reward, a masculinity celebrated only when it serves others and vilified when it asserts itself. Society tells men to be both protector and nurturer, stoic and sensitive, masculine and feminine—all while offering nothing in return but criticism and contempt.

The push to feminize men has backfired, leaving women frustrated with the very outcomes they demanded, and men disillusioned with a culture that sees them as disposable tools.

The war on Western masculinity is not just a cultural trend—it’s a crisis with dire implications. By valuing men only for their service to women, society has stripped masculinity of its intrinsic worth, reducing it to a performance judged solely by its utility. Worse, by intentionally weakening its men while its enemies sharpen theirs, the West gambles with its survival.

When the sissified men of this society—products of a misguided ideology—fall to the masculine warriors of warring tribes, the women who cheered their emasculation will face the consequences of a society undefended. Until the conversation shifts to include mutual respect, shared duties, and a recognition of men’s value beyond their sacrifices, the casualties of this war will continue to mount—quietly, as men walk away from a system that demands everything and offers nothing, and catastrophically, when the West’s enemies exploit the weakness it has sown.

Women will ultimately face the consequences of weakening the very men meant to protect them—when those men fall to stronger, more brutal adversaries, and the task of facing the barbarians falls to them alone. Maybe then, after being folded up like lawn chairs, they’ll start to reconsider the choices that led them—and the culture they helped shape—to emasculate their own defenders, all while demanding those same men accept a rigged deal or risk being told they’re not “real men.” Society & Women demanded that men be both feminized sissies and protectors and providers. You can't have both. You can either have your men be sissies. Or you can have them be protectors and providers. Society will demand that men be both feminized and providers completely oblivious to this contradiction and that's why women and society continue to let men down.

Come listen. Trump Global War Room:

https://x.com/i/spaces/1yNGaLMRdQQKj

JD Vance/Witkoff Signal Group Chat OPSEC

If the Democrats Really Cared About Their Base, They’d Tell Them to Stop

https://m.primal.net/Pquq.webp

The recent wave of domestic terrorism targeting Tesla isn’t just criminal—it’s tragic. And what makes it worse is the silence from those who should be leading with moral clarity: the Democratic Party.

If the Democratic Party truly cared about its base—if it cared about the future of its voters, its movement, and the soul of this country—it would be loudly, publicly, and unequivocally telling its people to stop. Because the consequences that are coming for those involved in these acts will be severe. We're not talking about a slap on the wrist. We’re talking about 5, 10, even 20 years in federal prison depending on the charges.

President Donald J. Trump is currently serving his second term in office. This is the current political reality, and it’s one that all Americans—regardless of personal views—must engage with constructively.

That’s why it’s so important to understand the risks involved when emotions boil over into illegal actions. Those engaging in violent acts—not peaceful protest, but actual destruction or terrorism—aren’t just expressing dissent. They’re stepping into territory that carries serious legal consequences, and in many cases, those consequences range from five to twenty years in federal prison.

Presidents serve four-year terms, but felony convictions can last far longer. Some of these individuals may still be serving time well after this administration is over—no matter who is in power next.

No cause, no matter how passionately held, is worth throwing your future away when there are peaceful, lawful avenues to make your voice heard. Protest doesn’t have to be destructive to be powerful. History has shown us that civil disobedience rooted in discipline and nonviolence can shake the foundations of empires. Gandhi did it. Martin Luther King Jr. did it. They stood their ground—but they disavowed violence.

That’s the example we should be encouraging. Because the alternative isn’t just unjust—it’s deeply tragic.

To stay silent now is to be complicit. To treat this as acceptable “resistance” is to poison the political system and tell the next generation that violence is a legitimate tool for political change. That’s not the America any of us want to live in—left, right, or center.

If you believe your country needs change, fight for it. But fight smart. Fight peacefully. Use your voice, not your fists. Build movements, not bombs. Create coalitions, not chaos.

Because the moment we normalize domestic terrorism—no matter the cause—we lose something far greater than any election. We lose our ability to live together, disagree together, and still call ourselves a united country.

Tesla, Domestic Terrorism, and the Democratic Party’s Crisis of Direction

https://m.primal.net/Pqtz.webp

Recent acts of domestic terrorism targeting Tesla aren’t just isolated incidents of political extremism—they’re symptoms of a much deeper illness festering within the Democratic Party: a total lack of vision, direction, and relevance.

Instead of articulating a clear path forward, the Democratic Party has become like a rudderless ship, tossed in turbulent waters, its compass spinning with no destination in sight. Without a compelling message or concrete policies that resonate with the everyday lives of Americans, the party has lost its way. When a movement starts defining itself more by what it opposes than what it builds, it breeds frustration, desperation—and in some corners, dangerous radicalism.

The Democrats have options, but so far, they’re not choosing wisely.

They could look to competent, effective leaders like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro—Democrats who are actually delivering for their constituents. Or they could study popular Republican leaders and learn what they’re doing right. The most successful politicians—regardless of party—are speaking to the real, basic needs of Americans.

And what do most Americans want?

It’s simple:

Basic rights and personal freedoms

A chance at decent income and affordable living

Low crime and safe communities

Fewer regulations and lower taxes

Energy independence and affordable fuel

A government that doesn’t meddle in every aspect of their lives

No more endless foreign wars or shipping their children overseas to fight for unclear causes

The Democratic Party lost ground not because the country suddenly became bigoted or fascist, but because voters rejected its policies and its message. The leadership misread the room, blamed the people, and then doubled down.

Rather than doing a real listening tour across America, Democrats often end up echoing the loudest, most radical voices in their party—voices that do not represent the majority. If they want to recover, they must begin appealing to the centrists and moderates they’ve alienated. That means respecting dissent, not labeling it as hate; that means reaching out to independents and even moderate Republicans, many of whom want competent, honest governance, not culture wars and political purity tests.

Ironically, some of the GOP’s most successful coalition-building has come from embracing figures once considered Democrats themselves. Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr.—these are not hard-right figures. They are evidence of a shifting political landscape where the real action is in the middle.

Meanwhile, Democrats, under the guise of protecting democracy, misled the public about their candidate’s cognitive state, then changed horses midstream without a single vote being cast. That’s not democracy—it’s managerialism masquerading as virtue.

If the Democratic Party wants to survive and remain relevant, it must stop sprinting left and start walking back to the center. It needs to listen to the majority, not pander to the margins. It needs to offer real solutions, not slogans.

Ironically, Donald Trump today—on many policy points—is closer to a Democrat from 15 years ago than the Democratic Party is to its own past. That should be a wake-up call.

The choice for Democrats is clear: kick a dead donkey, or chart a new course back to sanity, pragmatism, and the people.

Is the “Tesla Takedown” Being Funded by Elon Musk’s Rivals? Laura Loomer Uncovers Troubling Connections

https://m.primal.net/PqsE.webp

Independent journalist Laura Loomer has uncovered what appears to be a coordinated effort to damage Tesla’s reputation—and potentially its stock price—raising serious questions about whether some so-called “Tesla Takedown” organizers are being backed by Elon Musk’s competitors or short-sellers.

According to Loomer’s original reporting, one key figure involved is Edward Niedermeyer, who was listed as the organizer for Event No. 67 in Portland, Oregon, on the “Tesla Takedown” list she compiled.

Loomer reports that Niedermeyer recently joined a “Tesla Takedown” call alongside Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS), a known critic of Musk. On the call, the two discussed their shared interest in bringing down Tesla—a move that Loomer suggests may be part of a broader campaign.

Edward Niedermeyer is no stranger to Tesla controversy. Loomer points out that his history of criticism dates back to 2008, when he launched the “Tesla Death Watch” on The Truth About Cars, predicting the company’s imminent failure during its early Roadster era. That prediction proved spectacularly wrong as Tesla went on to become a dominant force in the electric vehicle market.

Yet Niedermeyer’s negative coverage didn’t stop. As Loomer highlights, in 2016, he published a piece on DailyKanban.com titled “Tesla Suspension Breakage: It’s Not The Crime, It’s The Coverup”, accusing Tesla of hiding suspension issues in the Model S. That article caused a 3% drop in Tesla’s stock, after being widely echoed in the media.

However, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk discredited the claims, noting that 37 out of 40 NHTSA complaints referenced in the article were fake—tied to fabricated VINs and false locations. NHTSA itself found no safety concerns with the suspension.

Loomer’s reporting also exposes the questionable sources behind Niedermeyer’s work, including Keef Wivaneff, an Australian retiree known for uploading photos of wrecked Teslas and filing dubious safety complaints—many of which have been dismissed by regulators.

Given the pattern of misleading claims and negative press that directly impacts Tesla’s stock, Loomer raises a critical question: Is Niedermeyer acting independently, or is he part of a broader strategy by Tesla’s competitors or financial interests aiming to drive down the company’s valuation?

Further adding to the suspicion, Loomer notes Niedermeyer’s vague professional affiliations. After leaving The Truth About Cars in 2010, he moved to Daily Kanban and later founded Argot Industries LLC, an unclear entity linked to a basic WordPress blog. He also claims to lead a startup focused on “strategic communications,” though the specifics are murky at best.

While no hard evidence yet proves Niedermeyer is funded by Tesla’s rivals, the pattern of behavior, the use of questionable sources, and the financial impact of his stories—highlighted through Loomer’s investigation—paint a picture of someone with a persistent anti-Tesla agenda.

Based on Loomer’s findings, the question now being asked is:

Who is funding Edward Niedermeyer’s nearly 20-year crusade against Tesla—and why?

GPS Data Exposes Astroturfing at Denver Bernie-AOC Rally

“Grassroots” or Manufactured Momentum?

https://m.primal.net/Pqqi.webp

The headlines were glowing. Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rolled into Denver and drew what media outlets called a 34,000-strong crowd—framed as a grassroots uprising of everyday Americans.

But the data tells a different story.

An independent GPS-based analysis of mobile device data puts the real crowd closer to 20,000. Still sizable—but far from record-breaking. More revealing? The majority of attendees didn’t come for Bernie or AOC. They’re part of a traveling protest circuit.

84% of devices had attended 9+ previous demonstrations—ranging from BLM and Antifa protests to pro-Palestinian marches and Kamala Harris campaign stops. Over 30% had shown up at 20+ events, often across multiple states.

This wasn’t organic. It was organized.

Connected Groups:

Many attendees had GPS and digital ties to activist organizations including:

Disruption Project

Indivisible

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Rise & Resist

Troublemakers Collective

Several of these groups are funded via ActBlue and receive logistical or indirect support through NGOs linked to USAID—an agency with a long history of orchestrating “pro-democracy” events abroad.

A Familiar Playbook:

The method is clear: stage a high-optics event, inflate the numbers, flood social media, and spin a narrative. Drones, tight camera shots, pre-written press releases—it’s all standard now. But this isn’t grassroots energy. It’s a well-rehearsed performance.

Real local support gets overshadowed. Authentic movements get drowned out. This creates a false sense of national consensus—one that influences media coverage, campaign strategies, and ultimately, elections.

Why It Matters:

If nearly 9 out of 10 attendees at a “local” rally are seasoned, multi-state activists, what does that say about the authenticity of the moment? Who is driving these narratives? And how often are we being shown a crowd that doesn’t reflect the actual public?

This isn’t just about one rally. It’s about truth in representation—and whether we can still tell the difference between a movement and a media event.

Watch the crowd. But follow the footprints.

Correction. He is running for President rather than Prime Minister.

Is Conor McGregor the Irish Donald Trump?

https://m.primal.net/Pqpz.webp

A Populist Surge, Legal Targeting, and a Bid for Power

McGregor's Irish Presidency Bid Sparks Controversy

Conor McGregor, the world-famous MMA fighter and outspoken public figure, has officially thrown his hat into the political arena—announcing his candidacy for the Irish presidency in 2025. His platform? A bold, unapologetically anti-immigration stance that’s sent shockwaves through the Irish establishment and energized a frustrated, disenfranchised base of voters.

But with support rising, legal clouds are gathering.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is reportedly considering charges against McGregor for allegedly inciting hatred through his social media activity—specifically for statements critical of mass migration and government policies. The timing is… curious.

His campaign rails against the EU Migration Pact and what he calls a “mass illegal migration problem” that’s devastating Irish communities. Here's McGregor in his own words, via a recent viral X post:

“Ireland has a mass illegal migration problem that is eradicating our communities and exacerbating our housing, homelessness, healthcare crisis, all while we are governed by those who usher it in at a rapid rate.

In dead of the night at that!

Nothing strange to see here, Irish communities, look the other way.

Mass anything without the proper infrastructure, services and checks is doomed to implode.

We are seeing that now first hand.

An immediate stop and reverse must come into effect for the survival of Ireland as we know it.

I am the one to do it.

Vote McGregor 🇮🇪”

These are the kind of words that get a candidate noticed. And they’re also the kind that provoke institutional backlash.

Echoes of Trump?

It’s hard not to ask the obvious question:

Is Conor McGregor becoming Ireland’s version of Donald Trump?

Both are bombastic, wealthy, media-savvy populists who channel public anger at the political elite. Both have promised to "drain the swamp" in their own way. And both seem to terrify the establishments of their respective countries.

And now, McGregor may be facing the same pattern Trump has faced in the U.S.—an onslaught of legal attacks just as he launches a serious political bid.

Will the Irish government, media, and legal system attempt to destroy McGregor financially and criminally, weaponizing the state to interfere in a democratic election? Will they try to bankrupt and delegitimize him through charges conveniently timed to coincide with his campaign?

Or is this simply the cost of challenging entrenched power?

Could We Soon See a Prime Minister McGregor?

Though the Irish presidency is largely ceremonial, some are already speculating that McGregor's political ambitions may not stop there. Could this be the beginning of a broader populist movement in Ireland, one that eventually puts McGregor on a path to real executive power?

As public sentiment continues to shift—particularly around immigration, national identity, and sovereignty—the idea of a McGregor-led government no longer seems impossible. His critics call him dangerous and divisive. His supporters say he’s the only one willing to say what everyone else is thinking.

The question is no longer if McGregor can shake the system.

It’s how hard the system will hit back—and whether the Irish people will see that as justice, or sabotage.

Why Men Are Opting Out of Dating—and What It Means for Society

https://m.primal.net/Pqoq.webp

Across social media, a trend is emerging: women asking, "Where are all the men?" Video after video shows frustrated, confused, or even angry women wondering aloud why men no longer approach them, ask them out, or even show romantic interest. But for many men, the answer has been clear for years—they’re tired. Exhausted by a dating culture that feels more like a minefield than a connection, many men are choosing to walk away. We're living through a quiet collapse of the dating market, and it’s affecting both men and women more than we’d like to admit.

https://m.primal.net/Pqoz.webp

The Data: A Generation Tapping Out

The statistics speak volumes. 63% of men aged 18–29 are single, according to Pew Research Center. In contrast, only 34% of women in the same age group are unattached. By 2018, 27% of men under 30 had not had sex in the past year—a number that has only increased post-pandemic. Across Western countries, birth rates are falling below replacement levels, sparking long-term concerns about societal stability.

What’s driving this? It isn’t just social awkwardness or lack of ambition. It’s a growing sense that dating has become a game where the costs outweigh the rewards.

https://m.primal.net/PqpH.webp

The MeToo Chill

While the #MeToo movement rightly called out predators and empowered victims, it also left many ordinary men deeply unsure of the rules. A compliment at the wrong time. A misread signal. A relationship that ends badly. Men are more cautious than ever, not because they lack interest in women, but because they fear the consequences of being misunderstood—or worse, falsely accused.

In this new climate, many men would rather avoid dating altogether than risk legal, social, or reputational fallout.

Expectations: Always Too Much, Never Enough

Modern dating culture often expects men to initiate every interaction, plan and pay for dates, display emotional intelligence without vulnerability, and be strong but soft, confident but not cocky, driven but not controlling.

All the while, social media floods women with content about “high-value men,” $10,000 dates, and luxury lifestyles. It’s not that women are bad people—it’s that the average man feels like he’s constantly auditioning for affection while being told he isn’t enough. At some point, many just opt out. They focus on themselves, their hobbies, their careers, or simply on peace of mind.

The Social Media Mirage: Chasing the Top 5%

Social media has radically reshaped how people view relationships, status, and desirability—but nowhere has the impact been more toxic than in the modern dating market.

Apps like Instagram, TikTok, and dating platforms such as Tinder and Hinge have convinced millions of women that they all deserve the top 5% of men—the most attractive, wealthy, successful, charismatic alpha-male archetypes. With every viral video glamorizing "high-value men" and luxury lifestyles, expectations are rising faster than reality can deliver.

The result? Most women are chasing the same tiny pool of men, while the remaining 90–95% of decent, hardworking, normal men are ignored, overlooked, or outright dismissed.

Across the internet, countless videos feature women confidently saying things like: “All the men around me are ugly.” “I’d rather be single than settle.” “He needs to be six feet tall, make six figures, and have his life together—otherwise, no thanks.”

But this mindset didn’t appear out of nowhere. Modern culture tells women, constantly, that they can always do better. That they should “never settle.” That “raising your standards” is a form of self-respect.

So they do. And then they do it again. And again.

Eventually, many women raise their standards so high they price themselves out of the dating market altogether. The average man—not flashy, not rich, but decent, stable, and loyal—is no longer even considered. He becomes invisible.

But here’s the truth: it isn’t “settling” to date someone on your level. It’s healthy. It’s realistic. And for most people, it’s the only path to long-term happiness.

This culture of inflated expectations has created a distorted lens through which many women view dating—overvaluing themselves as partners and simultaneously devaluing the majority of men.

Meanwhile, men are watching. And they're leaving—not because they’re bitter, but because they’ve realized they’re not actually being chosen. They're being auditioned, tested, and usually disqualified. And when you're always treated as an option, eventually, you stop showing up.

https://m.primal.net/PqpF.webp

The Loneliness Crisis

The consequences of this disconnect are real—and devastating for both men and women.

Loneliness among men is reaching all-time highs. Many are struggling with isolation, depression, and a deep sense of purposelessness without love, family, or connection.

But women are hurting too. Despite having more romantic options on paper, many women feel dissatisfied, disillusioned, and emotionally unfulfilled. The “endless options” dating app illusion hasn’t led to stable relationships—it’s led to instability, ghosting, and confusion.

Women in their 30s and 40s—many of whom were told to prioritize education and career—are now struggling to find partners just as their biological clocks begin winding down.

Birth rates are plummeting, marriage is delayed or abandoned entirely, and social bonds are breaking down across the board. Governments across the West are now considering programs to subsidize IVF and fertility treatments just to keep population levels sustainable—not out of generosity, but out of growing desperation.

This isn’t just a personal problem. It’s not just a cultural issue. It’s an existential one. Both men and women are losing. And no one seems to know how to stop it.

https://m.primal.net/PqpN.webp

Biology Doesn’t Wait

Men have time. Women don’t. That’s not misogyny—it’s biology.

Men can have children into their 40s and even 50s. Women’s fertility declines significantly after 35, and steeply after 40.

Yet society encourages women to delay family formation: get the degree, get the job, travel the world—and then settle down. The problem? By the time they’re ready, many of the men they’re interested in are no longer trying.

The Juice Isn’t Worth the Squeeze

For a growing number of men, the conclusion is simple: the effort isn’t worth the outcome.

They don’t want to navigate a culture where masculinity is vilified. They don’t want to compete for women who seem to disdain them. They don’t want to risk false allegations or face courts that treat them as guilty until proven innocent. And they don’t want to sacrifice time, money, and emotional energy for relationships that offer little in return.

So they walk away—not out of hatred, but self-preservation.

https://m.primal.net/PqpI.webp

Women Abandoned Men First

Men are walking away from women, but the truth is—women walked away from men first.

They walked away when they told men they were “privileged oppressors.” They walked away when they stopped valuing traditional masculinity but kept demanding traditional male roles. They walked away when they said, “We don’t need men,” and then acted surprised when men stopped showing up. They walked away when they elevated careers, clout, and independence above connection, family, and partnership.

For years, men were told they were the problem—too aggressive, too emotional, too silent, too loud, too confident, too weak. And now that they’ve stepped back, the silence is deafening.

Many men aren't angry. They’re just done.

The dating market didn’t collapse because men failed women. It collapsed because men were taught to believe they didn’t matter, and eventually, they believed it.

Now, a generation of men is learning to live without love—not because they want to, but because they no longer believe it's available to them on fair terms.

https://m.primal.net/PqpQ.webp

The Shift: When Women Must Chase

The solution to this crisis isn’t complicated, but it does require honesty—especially from women.

For all of modern history, women have held the power in dating. They are the ones with options. They are the ones who say yes or no when a man asks for their number, their time, or their heart.

Men have always been expected to initiate—to approach, to pursue, to impress, to sell themselves as a “good bet.” Women, on the other hand, have presented themselves—advertising their availability and choosing from the options presented to them.

This is the dance of human courtship: men chase. Women allow themselves to be caught.

But here’s the problem: what happens when men stop chasing?

When the risk outweighs the reward? When women become so unreachable, ungrateful, or entitled that the chase feels humiliating instead of exciting? When being single feels safer and saner than being judged, ghosted, or discarded?

What happens… is the dynamic shifts.

And that shift is already happening.

Now, women who want relationships will have to do what men have done for generations: make the first move. Face rejection—again and again. Prove themselves worthy of attention. Compete for limited romantic resources.

It will be women who must now learn to approach. It will be women who feel invisible. It will be women who wonder why no one is texting back.

Because that’s the burden men have carried in silence for generations.

If women refuse to adapt—if they continue waiting passively while believing they are “too good” for everyone around them—they may end up alone. And childless. Not because they weren’t worthy of love, but because they expected love to arrive without effort.

And according to demographic projections, that’s exactly where things are headed. By some estimates, over 45% of women in their prime reproductive years will remain single and childless by 2030—the highest percentage in recorded history. Not by choice, but by outcome.

The dating market only functions when both sides play their part.

And now that men are done playing… it’s women’s move.