Aggregator

This sex toy's truly a glass act.

Contact tracing and quarantines should be enough to halt the spread of the deadly disease, a top epidemiologist said.

Vote Harder? Why Secession Is The Only Answer To The American Megastate

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

There are still some Trump supporters out there who continue to bill the Trump administration as some kind of great victory for the forces of populism against the “deep state.” A year into the second Trump administration, it is clear this is not a serious position. The populism of the Trump campaign has clearly failed and what we ended up with instead is a continuation and strengthening of the status quo. Over the next three years of this second Trump term, the welfare-warfare state will only get larger. Trump now actively pushes to strengthen the surveillance state, and to massively increase overall defense spending. He points to some miniscule trimming around the edges of the welfare state while overall spending continues to rise and federal deficits are near all-time highs. In turn, these huge deficits will require central-bank intervention to partly monetize the debt, pushing up price inflation. 

Far from being some sort of shock to the system in Washington, Trump is governing largely like a business-as-usual Republican. In other words, it should be abundantly obvious by now that there is not going to be anything coming out of this administration that will endanger the governing elites or their institutions which retain a firm grip on Washington institutions and the special interests that drive policy. 

This is apparently the best that the “militant” populists could come up with: yet another milquetoast republican administration that will ensure the gravy train continues for politically favored allies. This administration is basically just a Marco Rubio administration with some “mean tweets” thrown in for color. 

The populist “victory” of the Trump administration is perhaps the best evidence yet that a strategy of “vote harder” is simply not going to lead to any significant change of any kind. After all, the media, academia, and even the GOP’s old guard fought tooth and nail to keep Trump out of the White House. And in the end, it was much ado about nothing. Now, just imagine if someone ran for the presidency who actually opposed the regime’s power on principle. That person would simply not be allowed to get the nomination, let alone win. 

So, there won’t be any viable candidates who will actually tear down the federal state through legal or constitutional means. That will not be permitted via any federal election. The logic of the welfare state, moreover, ensures that no candidate can hope to get elected while also favoring significant cuts to defense spending, old-age pensions, or any of the beloved federal programs that support millions of Americans on the dole, such as pensioners and government contractors. 

The only way significant change comes to this tightly constructed system of patrons and clients will be via a significant crisis that disrupts standards of living. This must be severe enough that it shakes the population’s faith in the regime to the point that people actually begin to question the state’s legitimacy. Only when real economic pain is felt will there be any real change. So long as the most of the population feels comfortable enough with an ample supply of Doordash and pornography and reality TV, the system will be deemed to be working “well enough.” 

Eventually, however, the ruling elite, through either miscalculation or laziness or complacency, will no longer be able to deliver on its promises to guarantee ease, safety, and “free” goods and services for a growing population on the dole. Once the elites become unable to buy compliance from the population, the regime will turn to brute force. This, however, can only last as long as the ruling elites are able to draw upon loyal personnel in large enough numbers as to be able to force obedience from the general population. This is easier said than done, especially in a period of economic stagnation or decline. The Soviet Union is a key example. In 1989, when the Soviet Government was crumbling, the Soviet Regime still commanded six million personnel in military uniform. But when the regime tried to shore up control, that enormous military proved to be largely AWOL and of little use. 

But then what? Once the ruling elite and its regime cease to be seen as legitimate, and once the usual methods of control fail, what is the next step? Unfortunately, the next step is usually to simply replace the outgoing group of governing elites with a new group. This is the usual progression of events. Uprisings turn into civil wars and civil wars turn into contests over who will control the state’s enormous apparatus of coercion. The French revolution is perhaps the quintessential cautionary tale here. The revolutionaries won with lavish promises of freedom and “rule by the people.” Yet, there is no such thing as rule “by the people,” and there never has been. Any polity that is more complex than a tribal village ultimately ends up with the civil government in the hands of a relatively small elite.

What usually happens is this: the state and most of its powers endure, but under new management. As the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto put it: “The revolution at the end of the eighteenth century led merely to the bourgeoisie taking the place of the old elite.”  Pareto further notes that in the wake of a revolution, the population discovers “they have merely exchanged yokes.”

This will be the ultimate end game of every scheme hatched by those who imagine themselves to be anti-regime radicals, but who ultimately want nothing more than to keep the state fully in tact and use it to their own ends. And make no mistake, the power will be used to benefit the small new class of governing elites, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers. Whatever rhetoric may be used about serving “the people” will be nothing more than window dressing designed to trick unsophisticated non-elites into supporting the new regime. 

Whether from the Left or the Right, this type of centralist “revolutions” will provide no escape from the endless cycle of replacing one set of elites with another, and which characterizes much of human history which is, Pareto writes, “a graveyard of aristocracies.” Again and again, we find that the “liberators” are doing little more than replacing the people’s current yoke with a slightly different one.

Consequently, the only hope in providing any truly limiting factors on state power will be the dismemberment of the state into smaller and weaker pieces. It will be necessary to check power with power through true decentralization. This is why the Soviet state never re-emerged under a new name with similar prerogatives. Thanks largely to the centrifugal forces of latent nationalism within the various republics of the Soviet Union, the new Russian elite that replaced the old Soviet elite was unable to maintain the “union.” The result has been greatly beneficial to many of the former Soviet republics—especially the Baltic states—and to the old states of the Warsaw Pact which were informally under the boot of the Soviet regime.   In other words, the dismemberment of the Soviet State, through a variety of de jure and de facto secession movements, accomplished what would not have been through simply placing a new elite atop the Soviet state. 

Similarly, the American revolution, which was primarily a movement to secede from the British state, created a highly decentralized new “state” which possessed few of the powers of the old regime.

We can conclude that any American who actually values human freedom—and its necessary antecedent, the weakening of the central state—will desire a similar dismemberment of the United States. After all, as the French revolution showed us, it is not enough to simply transfer the regime from the hands of one elite to another. Rather, radical decentralization, via secession and other means, will have to take place in order to create new power centers and new elites that can push back against the established elites and power centers of the rump state. Only when power is allowed to check power will there be any meaningful institutional limits on state power. 

Yet, for the foreseeable future, we are likely to hear over and over again that the only acceptable “strategy” is to embrace elections and party politics. This is the “vote harder” argument. The usual “reformers” prefer this because voting, from the perspective of the regime, is harmless and quite ineffective in mounting any sort of meaningful opposition to the core powers and institutions of the state and its elites. Moreover, even in the highly unlikely event that elections were able to bring about any significant replacement of the current elite, this would only leave the current centralized state and its institutions intact, with only a change in those who control the means of exploitation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:40

Progressive City Council members are pushing ahead with a bill to automatically enroll New Yorkers in city benefit programs, even as neither the Council nor the Mamdani administration can say how much the mandate would cost.

Southern California is celebrating its golden girl Marilyn Monroe on what would have been her 100th birthday later this month.

Maybe cleaning doesn't have to be so scary...

A lot will have to change for the Lakers to be competitive with the Thunder in these playoffs.

The pair entered the discount store on Fifth Avenue near 53rd Street around 4:05 p.m. Monday and flew into a rage when the 34-year-old employee wanted to search their bags at the door, according to authorities and sources. 

The effort was spearheaded by Laura Friedman — representing California’s 30th Congressional District — whose office confirmed it had previously been in touch with Paramount about the merger.

The former couple announced their separation in May 2024.

The former couple announced their separation in May 2024.

This Week’s Tea is piping hot, and of course, our “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-host, Danny Murphy, has you covered! All eyes are on the “Summer House” kids as West Wilson comforts Amanda Batula after Kyle Cooke curses her out. Sunday nights, “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” left fans reminiscing of early seasons after Angela Oakley and...

This Week’s Tea is piping hot, and of course, our “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-host, Danny Murphy, has you covered! All eyes are on the “Summer House” kids as West Wilson comforts Amanda Batula after Kyle Cooke curses her out. Sunday nights, “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” left fans reminiscing of early seasons after Angela Oakley and...

“It’s completely life changing,” an anonymous source who invested in SpaceX nearly 20 years ago told NYNext.

Olivia Henderson, 23, sported a frumpy ensemble of boot-cut jeans, an oversized hoodie and white sneakers – with the shoelaces untied – while running errands.

The Yankees' No. 6 prospect on MLB Pipeline, who has collected 11 homers and a Triple-A leading 41 RBIs to start the season, has been called up.

The Maps Are Moving: How A Supreme Court Ruling Turned The 2026 House Race Into A Republican Offensive

A few short weeks ago House Democrats were riding high. They had spent tens of millions to win a Virginia referendum that promised up to four new seats. President Trump was struggling in the polls. The path to a House majority looked plausible.

Yet in the span of roughly two weeks, a combination of aggressive Republican redistricting and a pivotal Supreme Court decision has dramatically altered the battlefield. What was once a Democratic advantage has become a steep uphill climb. Republicans are now positioned to gain as many as 10 to 14 seats through map changes alone - enough to transform a narrow 217–212 majority into something much more durable.

Supreme Spark

The turning point was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The decision effectively curtailed the use of race in drawing congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For Democrats, who had long relied on VRA protections to create majority-minority districts in the South, the ruling was a gut punch. For Republicans, it was an opening.

Southern states with Republican trifectas moved with remarkable speed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a map that could eliminate four Democratic seats. Alabama called a special session to redraw its map with the goal of flipping two Democratic districts and giving the GOP all seven seats. Tennessee targeted the lone Democratic stronghold in Memphis. Louisiana, South Carolina, and even Mississippi began exploring ways to eliminate their remaining Democratic representatives.

Republican Redistricting Surge

Here’s a clear breakdown of the Republican-led redistricting efforts and their potential impact:

Here's the updated version with black text in the header (since the black background is being locked out):

State Current GOP Seats Potential Change Status / Notes Florida 20 of 28 +4 Map signed by Gov. DeSantis. Multiple lawsuits pending. Texas 24 of 37 +5 New map approved by Supreme Court. Most aggressive early move. Alabama 5 of 7 +2 (aiming for 7–0) Special session called. Targeting Reps. Figures and possibly Sewell. Tennessee 8 of 9 +1 (targeting Rep. Steve Cohen) Special session underway. Memphis seat in crosshairs. Louisiana 4 of 6 +2 (aiming for 6–0) Redrawing after SCOTUS ruling. Primary delayed. South Carolina 6 of 7 +1 (targeting Rep. Jim Clyburn) Considering new map to eliminate Clyburn’s deep-blue seat. North Carolina 7 of 14 +1 New map approved; flips one Democratic seat. Mississippi 3 of 4 +1 (targeting Rep. Bennie Thompson) Gov. Reeves considering it — most likely for 2028.

Total Potential Republican Gains: 10–14 seats

Democrats have tried to mount a counteroffensive in states where they still hold power, but their efforts have been more limited and face greater legal headwinds. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 last year, a Democratic-drawn map designed to net the party five additional seats - though the map is now under legal challenge following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. Virginia appeared to deliver one of Democrats’ biggest victories when voters approved a redistricting referendum on April 21 that could give the party as many as four new seats - potentially 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, that victory is now in serious jeopardy after a Virginia judge ruled the referendum invalid just one day later, nullifying the results. Efforts in New York to flip the state’s lone Republican seat were blocked by the Supreme Court, while proposed maps in Maryland and Illinois have either been rejected by Democratic lawmakers or paused over legal concerns. Utah remains a rare bright spot for Democrats, where a court-imposed map could add one seat. Overall, Democratic gains have proven far more fragile and uncertain than the aggressive Republican advances in the South.

Democratic Counter-Moves

Democrats have not been passive. They’ve pursued their own aggressive strategies where they hold power:

State Current Dem Seats Potential Change Status / Notes California 13 of 52 +5 Proposition 50 passed by voters. Now facing lawsuits after SCOTUS ruling. Virginia 6 of 11 +4 (could reach 10 of 11) Voter-approved referendum. Major uncertainty — Virginia Supreme Court may strike it down. Utah 1 of 4 +1 Court rejected GOP map and imposed a new one drawn by a centrist group. New York 15 of 26 Limited / blocked Attempt to flip Staten Island’s GOP seat blocked by SCOTUS. Now pushing to amend state constitution. Maryland 7 of 8 None Gov. Moore’s map rejected by Democratic legislature over legal concerns. Illinois 14 of 17 None (paused) Proposed race-based amendment paused after SCOTUS decision. Bottom Line

Republicans currently hold a clear structural advantage, especially across the South, where they control the process in multiple states, while Democratic gains are more limited and face greater legal uncertainty (particularly in Virginia and California). Virginia remains the single biggest near-term variable for Democrats. If the court overturns the referendum, their path to a House majority becomes significantly harder.

A potential 10-to-14 seat Republican gain would be significant. In a chamber this closely divided, it could mean the difference between a fragile majority and comfortable control heading into 2028.

Yet, the devil is in the details (including election-related malarkey). Even the most skillfully drawn maps can be overwhelmed by national political tides. If the economy weakens, if President Trump’s approval ratings remain low, or if a major scandal erupts, some of these newly Republican-leaning districts could still flip. Conversely, a strong Republican environment would amplify the advantages of these new maps.

So for now, the momentum belongs to Republicans, but the situation remains fluid. Multiple maps face lawsuits, Virginia’s fate is uncertain, and candidate recruitment and national conditions could still reshape the battlefield.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:20

Dana White Says Society Is Failing Young Men, And The Backlash Proves His Point

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Dana White touched some nerves this week when he mocked modern concerns over toxic masculinity and warned that society is increasingly pushing young men aside.

Cue the shrieks in 3...2...1...0

White's broader point, however, resonated with millions of Americans who see young men struggling socially, economically, and emotionally while much of modern culture (read: feminazis) treats masculinity itself like a behavior problem needing correction.

White appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, where the host and wife of Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, asked him about the state of young men and women in America today. 

DANA WHITE: “When you're a man, you are the provider. You are the one that that takes care of your family. You are the example for your kids when they grow up and your sons, and your daughters.

“You can't be that guy that I see posting on social media. Oh, I had a bad day, and… pic.twitter.com/3P1M8GsTZY

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) May 5, 2026

White went on to argue that young men are struggling with a wildly different set of circumstances than the ones he grew up with.

"Times are changing from when I was young," he said. "These young men, I think, you know, we went through COVID and the whole woke era and all the weird s--- that went on during that period. A lot of the young males felt displaced."

The UFC president noted that he often gets accused of outlandish things like "being the head of the manosphere, whatever that means" and of "toxic masculinity."

Around 12 years ago, I ran into such a proud feminist who started to rip me a new one because I held a door open for her. I let her go for about five seconds before laying some truth on her, saying, “You know who taught me to hold a door for women? My mother, the strongest person I've ever known.”

It stopped her cold. Maybe because of what I said, but I really think it's because of how I said it. My guess was that she was used to rolling over men trying to be polite.

For years, political activists, academics, and media commentators have used phrases like "toxic masculinity" to describe aggressive, destructive, or antisocial male behavior.

So when White opines on what manhood supposedly is or isn’t, it offers insight into the perspective of some men in the MAGA movement, which is deeply obsessed with performative masculinity. That’s why I found it pitiful to see him publicly berating men who openly discuss their mental health.

White delivered his commentary, fittingly, on the podcast of MAGA influencer Katie Miller, who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. White, after saying it’s a “man’s job” to make sure a woman feels “safe” and is “treated right,” admitted that his idea of masculinity is “toxic” and railed against men who talk about their feelings

And that's fair; real abuse, violence, and recklessness deserve criticism regardless of gender.

Problems start when the conversation expands so broadly that ordinary masculine traits begin falling under suspicion too. Competitiveness becomes dangerous, stoicism becomes unhealthy, physical toughness becomes outdated, and leadership becomes problematic.

Even fatherhood sometimes gets discussed less as a social necessity and more as an optional accessory.

Young men notice.

Many of them also notice who usually delivers the lectures. Discussions surrounding masculinity often happen in universities, activist circles, corporate HR departments, entertainment panels, and political spaces where traditional male culture receives little respect.

Blue-collar values, physical labor, risk-taking, hunting, mechanical trades, competitive sports, and military service were, for years, increasingly viewed through a skeptical culture lens instead of being treated as honorable parts of society.

White's comments gained traction partly because he works inside one of the few major industries where unapologetic masculinity still openly exists. The UFC built an audience around discipline, competition, toughness, accountability, and merit. Fighters either win or lose, and excuses carry little value once the cage door closes.

Many cultural leaders still respond by doubling down on criticism instead of asking why so many young men feel disconnected from institutions increasingly dominated by ideological messaging. 

Could it be that those institutions have been increasingly hostile in their ideological messaging?

Our entertainment industry has talked about empowering nearly every demographic group imaginable, while conversations involving boys and men frequently center around correction, privilege, or danger.

White argued that society risks creating a generation of displaced young men searching for identity and purpose. Recent political trends suggest he may have found something. President Donald Trump made major gains among younger male voters during the 2024 election cycle, especially among working-class men frustrated with cultural hostility toward traditional masculinity.

Not every criticism of masculinity is unfair; plenty of destructive male behavior exists. Every society needs standards involving responsibility, self-control, and respect. Yet healthy masculinity historically built families, defended nations, worked dangerous jobs, and carried enormous physical burdens most people preferred avoiding.

Society heavily depends on those traits today, even while portions of "elite" culture mock them.

White's critics often frame masculinity discussions as a battle between progress and backwardness.

If you’re considering looking to White for lessons on manhood or mental health, consider that this is a person who was recorded slapping his wife in public in 2023 (White said afterward, “I’ve been against this. I’ve owned this. I’m telling you that I’m wrong” but faced no repercussions) and said he had “almost no feelings about” the death of his parents, from whom he was estranged.

And yet, there he was on Miller’s podcast, lecturing American men on how they should ignore their feelings and make women feel “safe.” 

A man discussing his feelings or openly referencing his mental health issues obviously doesn’t preclude him from providing or being present for his loved ones. It’s suggestions to the contrary that contribute to the men’s mental health crisis, which people like White seem to want us all to ignore.

Many ordinary Americans instead see fathers coaching Little League, mechanics fixing engines, linemen restoring power after storms, soldiers serving overseas, and construction workers building homes. Most don't view those men as threats to society.

Fighter culture understands something modern politics often forgets: young men usually respond better to purpose than humiliation. They want challenge, respect, direction, and responsibility. Constantly framing masculinity itself as suspicious leaves many entirely tuning out.

Ironically, the furious backlash toward White helped reinforce his argument; a culture truly comfortable with masculinity probably wouldn't panic each time somebody yelled "Man!" in a crowded theater.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:00

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) blasted Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for sponsoring this year's Met Gala.

Authorities previously said that the area and the surrounding province of Tierra del Fuego had never recorded a case of the hantavirus.