Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
🚨 I spend an enormous amount of time trying to understand the chaos we're living through. Not the headlines. The machine behind them. 🚨
If you want to understand what Elon Musk is really fighting, and who is really fighting him, this is the clearest map I can give you.
Expensive houses. Expensive schools. Expensive healthcare. Taxes that rise every year while everything gets worse. Borders nobody voted to open. Speech rules nobody voted for.
Most people look at this and blame capitalism. The market failed, they say, so the state has to step in and fix it.
They have it exactly backwards. What they want to fix it with is what broke it. This isn't chaos, and it isn't capitalism. It has a direction, a method, and a hundred-year history. Let me reverse-engineer it.
In 1926, Mussolini's regime threw Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party, into prison. From his cell he asked the question that would shape the next century: why did the revolution win in Russia but fail in the West, where Marx said it was inevitable?
His answer: in Russia, the state was everything, so seizing it was enough. In the West, the state was only the outer wall. Behind it stood the real fortress: the church, the family, the school, the press, the culture. Western workers never revolted because the culture held them.
So the conclusion was simple. Don't storm the palace. Capture the culture. Win the institutions and you never have to win the argument, because you decide which arguments are allowed.
In 1967, the German student leader Rudi Dutschke gave it a slogan: the long march through the institutions. Paris supplied the intellectual software, and I've already apologized for my country's part in that.
Then came the most patient operation in modern history. The students of the 60s became the professors of the 80s. Their students became the journalists, judges, civil servants and HR directors of the 2000s. Their students now run the foundations, the NGOs and the agencies. No single step looked like a revolution. That's exactly why it worked.
The method was communist. The ambition became global. And it grew like a cancer. A cancer never attacks the body head-on. It hijacks the body's own cells and feeds on the body's own resources. This system never had to defeat the West. It just had to make the West pay for it.
In America, the machine found a political home: the Democratic Party. Not the millions of decent people who vote for it. The apparatus. The donor networks, the activist groups, the consultants, the captured agencies that keep moving in the same direction whoever wins.
In Europe, it found something even better. The EU's founders, Schuman, Adenauer, De Gasperi, were Catholic anti-communists who wanted to make war impossible. But they built exactly what the long march dreams of: power that never has to face a voter. A Commission nobody directly elects holds the right to propose laws for 450 million people. Chat Control. The digital euro. Speech rules written in Brussels. Nobody stormed anything. They just drafted it.
Add the World Economic Forum, the UN agencies and the global foundation circuit, and you have the full map. You don't need a secret meeting when everyone went to the same schools, reads the same papers, funds the same NGOs and flies to the same conference in Davos every January. It's not a conspiracy. It's a class with shared incentives. That's harder to fight, because there's no headquarters to raid.
And the billionaires? Most people who became the richest in the world got absorbed. They built something real, then traded it for an aura. Bill Gates is the perfect example: he built the software that ran the world, then became the bankroller of global health bureaucracies and the funder of newsrooms covering his own causes. Laurene Powell Jobs bought The Atlantic. Benioff bought Time. You're not buying a business. You're buying the right to be called good by the people who decide who is good. That's the corruption. Not suitcases of cash. Money for aura, grants for loyalty, NGOs for policy. All legal. All invisible.
Here's the proof it's one system and not a hundred separate problems. Look at what happened to prices over the last 25 years. Everything exposed to markets and technology got cheaper: TVs, software, phones, clothing. Everything controlled by institutions exploded: college, healthcare, childcare. And housing, where you need a committee's permission to build anything. Same country, same economy, same decades. The difference isn't the product. It's who controls it.
Taxes go up and services get worse, because the money doesn't reach the services. It feeds the layers. Immigration happens at a scale no electorate clearly chose, because for a system that lives on managing problems, more problems means more budget. And a two-income family today can't buy the house their parents bought on one salary. That's real poverty, manufactured by a machine that is rewarded for looking good, never for being good.
MAGA isn't the cause of the chaos. It's the immune response. Brexit, the farmers' revolts, the votes shaking every European capital: same thing. The body finally noticed the tumor.
So what we're living through is not a normal political cycle. It's a fight to the death between two models. One runs on the perception of goodness. The other runs on reality.
And it had to be the richest man in the world. Anyone smaller would have been bought, sued or cancelled. Every billionaire before him took the deal. Elon walked out of the club and turned the lights on.
He bought Twitter for $44 billion, opened the Twitter Files and gave the world back a public square where any narrative can be checked in real time. He went inside the government and helped shut down USAID. Now Politico announces that the Democrats' gavels are coming for him. His answer: he'll find out who is really pulling the strings and go after them, not just their puppets.
He has one line he keeps coming back to: he cares about the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. That sentence is the whole war.
Now the part that makes me certain of how it ends.
A lie is expensive to maintain. It needs gatekeepers, censors, fact-checkers, friendly journalists, a budget, and constant repairs every time reality contradicts it. The truth costs nothing to maintain. It just keeps being true.
AI is driving the cost of checking anything toward zero. Any budget, any study, any statistic, any promise, audited in seconds by anyone with a phone. Yes, AI can generate lies at scale too. But producing a lie is cheap. Defending it against a billion instant audits is impossible.
That's what acceleration really means. It doesn't pick sides. It speeds up feedback loops. Systems aligned with reality compound. Systems built on lies hit the wall faster. And you cannot build rockets, design chips or cure diseases with a false model of the world. Physics doesn't read op-eds. The more intelligence we pour into the world, the more expensive every lie becomes.
You cannot scale a lie. You can only scale what's true.
We are close to the collapse of the old order and the birth of a new one. Not the one from the WEF's own 2016 video, "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy." The opposite. An order built on truth-seeking, efficiency, science, private property and free markets. You will own things. You will build things. And you'll be happy, because it will be real.
Gramsci's long march took a century. Its collapse will take years.
History will remember this moment. A man walked into the most powerful machine ever built, refused the deal everyone else took, and chose reality over perception.
I have never been more optimistic.
🤖 Made with AI
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
I am not Jewish. But I am a proud Israeli citizen. I live in Tel Aviv. Despite the world having extremely opinionated views about the country I live in, few people I have come across on X (that don’t live here) know little of substance about Israel apart from their warped sense of history and reality. This is the first post of a series I will write entitled Everything You Think You Know About Israel is (Probably) Wrong. The points are not in any particular order. Spread the word.
Most Israelis (just over 50%) are not white. The devastating impact on European Jews of the Holocaust meant that the newly formed Israel in 1948 was largely populated by Jews fleeing persecution in Muslim-ruled countries predominantly in the Middle East and North Africa. These are known as Mizrahi Jews and when the State of Israel was formed they made up 80% of the Jewish population living here.
Jews have had a continuous presence in the land of Israel since around 1208 BCE, that’s 3,200 years — long before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The Muslim faith, in contrast, dates back 1,400 years (610 CE). Yes, when they lost majority rule in the 7th-century Muslim conquest they were not in the majority for centuries, but still lived in their ancestral homeland.
Arab terrorism against Jews existed before 1948. In 1929, for example, 67 Jews were killed in the Hebron massacre, attacked and slaughtered by the Arabs they lived and worked beside. My wife’s great-grandfather Ben-Zion Gershon (who was a local doctor that often treated the Arab community without accepting payment) was tortured, had both his eyes gouged out and was then murdered. This was after his daughter Esther was raped in front of him, and his wife Zahava had both arms chopped off and was left to die. This was just one of many similar massacres inflicted on Jews that day.
I will continue this series over the coming days.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
Replying to @FatEmperor
Learn from Covid. Immunise yourself against the inevitable and incessant psyops. Stand up for your kids, don’t join the academic thugs and spin doctors. Time to stand for something rather than fall for everything.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
Have you noticed the insane pressure to put your kids through college – almost like a blackmail?
It is as if it was recruitment into a sect…
Because it is.
The sect of leftism.
Look at how it works. Every sect uses the same toolkit.
First, the threat. Without us, you are nothing. Your child will flip burgers, marry badly, disappoint the family. Parents hear it from teachers, from neighbours, from other parents at dinner. Nobody says it outright. Everybody feels it.
Second, the price of entry. Years of the child’s life, and often a debt that follows him for decades. A sect that costs nothing is easy to leave. A sect that cost you everything you defend to the end, because the alternative is admitting you were fooled.
Third, separation from the family. The child leaves home at eighteen, the age when the mind is most open and the family most absent. He arrives where nobody knows his parents, and everybody knows what to think.
Fourth, a new language. He comes home at Christmas with words his parents don’t understand, and a moral vocabulary in which they are the problem. The father who paid for it all is now part of what must be overcome.
Fifth, the reward for loyalty. The diploma is not proof of knowledge. It is proof of membership. It opens the doors – jobs, marriages, social standing – that members keep for each other.
And the cleverest part: the parents pay for it. Conservative families raise the child, feed him, form him for eighteen years. Then they pay to have him converted. No sect in history has managed that.
Now the honest part, which makes the blackmail worse, not better: the threat is partly real. In many professions the diploma is still the gate. That is exactly why it works. Blackmail only works when the hostage is real.
The diploma was meant to certify that a young person can think. It now certifies that he thinks correctly.
A society that only hires on the second has already stopped needing the first.
So what do we do? Not refuse education. Refuse the monopoly. Learning is not the same as college. A young person can master mathematics, physics, history, a trade and three languages without four years of moral re-education. If he must go, prepare him before he goes. Build alternatives that don’t ask for his soul as tuition. Hire people for what they can do, not for which sect stamped their papers.
We can make flying cars without them!
Conservatism reproduces by birth. Leftism reproduces by conversion.
Look at almost any country. Conservatives have more children. Liberals have fewer. And yet the left does not die out. It grows. How?
It takes ours.
The left does not need children of its own. It needs schools, universities, big cities and screens. We raise our children for eighteen years. The university converts them in four. We do the work. They collect the harvest.
So conservatism has the children and keeps losing them. This has to stop, and ideally reverse.
First: stop giving them our children.
This doesn’t mean hiding them from the world. It means refusing to hand them over by default. The school is not neutral. The university is not neutral. The big city is not neutral. A family that sends a child into all three unprepared is not being open-minded. It is making a donation to its opponents.
Second: give the young something worth staying for.
A young person doesn’t leave because the left has better arguments. He leaves because the left offers belonging and a cause, and we offer him rules. The young are critical. Good. They will not swallow dogma. The Church asks them to believe first and understand later, and most of them walk away before later arrives.
We need an attractive ideological offering – ideally a religion, but one that doesn’t reject the critical minds of today’s young – not the Church with its dogma.
They need a faith that survives questioning. I suggest a Religion of Life (and Fertility).
The objection comes at once: invented religions fail. Comte tried a Religion of Humanity. Robespierre tried the Cult of the Supreme Being. The Soviets tried to worship the State. All dead.
But look at what they worshipped: abstractions. Nobody can love Humanity. Nobody can love Reason. You can love a child. Life is not an idea you must believe in. It is something you hold in your arms at three in the morning.
Fertility may or may not be in the name. Nobody has a child to improve a statistic. Fertility is the fruit, not the root… The root is a simple conviction: life is good, the future is worth inheriting, and what you received you owe forward. Believe that, and the children follow. Chase the birth rate without it, and you get Hungary: a bump, then a fall.
Such a religion asks for no miracles and fears no questions. It offers the one thing the left cannot: a reason to want tomorrow.
The left converts. We must convince. Better still, we must become something worth being born into. If we can’t, the children will keep leaving. And they will be right to.
Sad to see Geert go but it’s a lonely and arduous road…..this dissenting 😢
“Moreover, very little remains of the sense of solidarity that once united us in this struggle for science and solidarity.”
Dear followers, I have decided to withdraw from the public stage. I consider my task largely accomplished and feel called to give my life a new direction. I explain this further in this post, which is a kind of farewell letter. The Virus Stays. The Virologist Leaves. voiceforscienceandsolidarity…
Pity you had to delete these truths a few hours after posting RFKJr 😳 but thanks nevertheless for the sentiments 🙏🏻
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
(Warning: Long post about Israel. Possible slow-motion crash out. Might want to skip this one.)
This statement from @NYCMayor is evil.
There’s no other way to describe it. “Despicable” isn’t nearly strong enough; “lamentable” implies that it’s something over which we might feel sorrow, rather than the outrage it demands.
“Evil” is the only word for it. Deeply, profoundly evil. Perhaps the most vile statement a prominent US elected official has ever released.
On the third anniversary of the worst loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, Mayor Mamdani—leader of the city with the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv—has released a statement that minimizes the attacks, ignores the severity and depravity of Hamas’s crimes, and—in a manner with just enough skillful subtlety to provide necessary levels of plausible deniability—inverts the day’s attackers and victims, even obliquely blaming the victims themselves. A statement that references the attacks’ perpetrators, Hamas, but once, and the attacks’ target, the Jews of Israel, not at all.
Let me repeat that: The mayor of a city with nearly one million Jews spread across its five boroughs can’t find it within himself to use the word “Jew” on the anniversary of the worst loss of Jewish life since the genocide of Nazi Germany.
Mamdani dedicates one—and only one—paragraph in his statement to the attacks themselves. One perfunctory, halfhearted paragraph; a token gesture of mourning that conveniently omits the savagery of Hamas’s crimes, the widespread sexual violence of the day, the glee with which terrorists butchered young and old alike, and the deplorable conditions in which 251 innocent victims of kidnapping were kept in subterranean tunnels in Gaza.
One paragraph. That’s all. And, with that out of the way, with that box conveniently checked, Mamdani is able to get to his real aim: Condemning Israel.
And this he does with detail and gusto, without pause, reservation, or equivocation.
The entire second paragraph is worth reviewing line by line, for it is rich in subtle but deliberate manipulation.
Sentence 1: “The suffering did not begin or end that day.”
This is the classic Marxist rhetorical tactic of “contextualizing,” in which any actions that might reflect poorly on The Cause (e.g., the mass rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent Israeli civilians) are positioned in the context of information meant to mitigate their severity, deflect blame, and shift responsibility from the victim to the offender.
In this case, Mamdani wants the reader to subconsciously think that Hamas’s acts of terrorism can only be viewed in the context of Israel’s historical and ongoing oppression of Palestine (hence “did not begin…that day”). And, with that context established, how could anyone hold Hamas at fault? After all, they didn’t start this war; they were only responding to “suffering [that] did not begin…that day.” If anything, it’s Israel that’s at fault, right?
If this sounds like reversing the victim and the offender—the RVO in the DARVO acronym used to describe the gaslighting of domestic violence victims—it’s because it is. It’s subversive, it’s diabolical, and it’s only the first sentence of the paragraph.
Let’s keep going.
Sentence 2: “It instead continued through the Israeli government’s devastating, ongoing genocide in Gaza…”
Hamas’s terrorism was not a de novo act, occurring without cause or justification; rather, it was merely the “ongoing” continuation of a long chain of “suffering” whose origin and fault lie with the state of Israel.
Also, note the choice of the words “devastating” and “genocide” and compare them to Mamdani’s first paragraph. He is condemning Israel’s response to the attacks with language far more forceful than that used to decry the attacks themselves.
Sentence 2, continued: “…in which it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians—including more than 21,000 children.”
This is additional contextualization. The reader is directed to compare 74,000 dead Palestinians with the aforementioned 1,100 Israelis and come away with the interpretation that Israel is orders of magnitude more violent than Hamas. Note that Mamdani also includes a body count for Palestinian children but not for Israeli children.
Left unsaid, of course, is the proportion of those 74,000 dead Palestinians who were active Hamas fighters. Or whom Hamas was using as human shields. Or who were—unfortunately—collateral damage from being in the vicinity of the Israeli military’s justified airstrikes on Hamas fighters who deliberately intersperse themselves among the civilian populace of Gaza.
Sentence 3: “Even since the so-called ceasefire, more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed.”
This is more contextualizing. The implicit message is that Israel has killed more Palestinians “since the so-called ceasefire” than Hamas killed in total. Israel’s response must therefore clearly be disproportionate.
Sentence 4: “That suffering has intensified with every Israeli bomb dropped on ambulances waiting outside hospitals, every drone strike targeting a residential building or journalist, and every shipment of food aid turned away at a border crossing.”
Setting aside factual errors and omissions of relevant context (ironic, given all the false contextualizing elsewhere!), note the specificity with which Mamdani condemns Israel. Israel’s response to October 7 warrants vivid detail—its bombs fall on ambulances, its drone strikes target residential buildings and journalists, its soldiers turn away food shipments—while the details of Hamas’s attacks on October 7 are described with…
Nothing.
No mention of the murders. The rapes. The desecration of bodies. The smiles on the terrorists’ faces; their laughter while livestreaming the carnage on social media and while calling their own parents.
Not one word.
When Israel responds to terrorism, graphic details are called for; when Hamas commits the underlying acts of terrorism in the first place, though, it warrants only a cursory mention in the introduction to the statement, no details necessary.
Sentence 5: “Many New Yorkers are reckoning with this unbearable grief, and we mourn alongside them – all while knowing that our tax dollars fund these war crimes.”
Note the similarities in language between this sentence and the final sentence of the first paragraph. The reader is meant to draw parallels between Israel’s dead civilians and Hamas’s dead fighters. The parallel language is meant to convey a false moral equivalence between the two.
Also note the reference to “our tax dollars”: You paid for this. You are morally complicit. Therefore, if you object to the mayor’s statement, you are just trying to willfully ignore your own guilt. How dare you.
The last two paragraphs (yes, he keeps going) are more of the same. More moral equivocation, more inversion of responsibility, more criticism of Israel. The word “apartheid” is thrown in for good measure, of course, because no statement on the anniversary of the worst day in modern Israel’s history would be complete without undermining the nation’s very existence.
Every word of this is shameful, every sentence detestable, every paragraph overflowing with covert lies and overt moral cowardice.
But we should expect nothing less of Zohran Mamdani, a man whose only talent is the ongoing profanation of an office he doesn’t deserve, in a great city he will slowly—or maybe not so slowly—destroy.
This statement—and the man behind it—are worthy of nothing but our scorn and should warrant nothing but our contempt.
Our health ‘care’ service is way past broken …… Last night I brought my adult daughter to an out of hours clinic (South Doc). We were seen by a sympathetic female doctor. In the middle of our consultation and (luckily) just after she had finished examining my daughter a knock on the door was followed by the unbidden entrance of her male colleague (from somewhere in Asia I’m guessing). Might seem like a small thing but the invasion of privacy seemed to rattle our doctor and it definitely rattled us (he’d seen us come in). We complained to the service, they were apologetic but acted like it wasn’t the first time they’d received such a complaint 🙄. I’d advise that young girls/women don’t attend such services unaccompanied
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
It has been three years since the events of October 7. And on this third anniversary, there is one thing I want to reaffirm clearly.
There is not an ounce of me that regrets the decision I made to stand with Israel, with its people, and with Jews everywhere who, in the years since October 7, have faced the worst wave of antisemitic hatred since the Second World War.
Three years on, the fight continues. Against the smears, the lies, and the herd mentality of “Free Palestine” mobs who repeat slogans like sheep without ever stopping to question what they are actually supporting.
A narrative, spoon-fed to them and absorbed without thought because it gives purpose and meaning to otherwise pathetically miserable lives. No logic. No reason. No common sense.
But whatever arguments, lies and narratives have followed since, today should first and foremost be about the victims of October 7 and the families who have had to live with that loss every single day since.
Their names, their stories, and what was done to them must never be forgotten.
Never forget. Never forgive. Never again.
Are we going to ‘see’ the fall of another wall - the fall of the wall of ‘mental communism’?
Je ne sais pas à quel point les gens se rendent compte que tout est en train de basculer.
Ce matin, Pedro Sánchez a dissous les Cortes. Élections le 29 novembre. Ce n'est pas une info espagnole. C'est un signal.
Je le répète depuis longtemps : nous allons vivre un nouveau 1789. Ou plutôt un nouveau 1989. La chute d'un mur qu'on ne voit pas, celui du communisme mental. Cette social-démocratie progressiste qui gouverne nos vies depuis des décennies, qui ment, qui corrompt, qui escroque, et qui a fini par se prendre pour l'ordre naturel des choses.
Ça a commencé en Amérique du Sud. Argentine, Bolivie, Chili, Pérou… un pays après l'autre, des peuples qu'on disait condamnés au socialisme ont repris leur destin en main. Là-bas, le mouvement de libération est presque achevé. Il traversera l'Atlantique. Il est déjà en train de le faire.
Et quand le mur tombera, on verra enfin qui le tenait debout.
Les institutions supranationales : l'ONU, l'OMS, la Commission européenne, Davos. Toute cette technocratie que personne n'a élue et qui décide de tout.
Les médias subventionnés, qui ne vous informent plus, ils vous rééduquent.
La culture officielle : Hollywood, les cérémonies de récompenses devenues des tribunes politiques, les artistes qui vous font la morale depuis leur villa à Malibu.
Le sport, transformé en vitrine militante où l'on exige des athlètes qu'ils récitent le catéchisme avant le coup d'envoi.
Tout ça forme un seul et même système. Un empire du mensonge. Et les empires du mensonge finissent toujours de la même façon : d'un coup, après avoir semblé éternels pendant des décennies. Demandez à Berlin.
Ce qui vient après n'est pas le chaos. C'est une renaissance totale. Libérés de ce poids, nos pays vont retrouver ce qu'ils avaient oublié : l'envie de construire, de créer, de prendre des risques. Et ça arrive au moment exact où s'ouvre l'ère de la superintelligence. L'abondance, la science, l'espace. Ce ne sera plus de la science-fiction.
Et comme d'habitude, l'histoire prouvera une chose : il ne faut jamais parier contre Elon Musk.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
I was speaking with a Swede today about Ireland's presidency of the EU. It was not the topic of conversation but afterwards I was struck by how absurd it is that Ireland - a nation that is 'rich' on paper only because it's given tax breaks to US multinationals - now gets to lecture nations like France, Germany, Italy, Sweden - nations with long and proud histories of industry and self-sufficiency (whatever about present political mismanagement) about economic growth and prosperity.
It must be weird for people from these nations - if they stop to think about it and if they have any idea how Ireland have come by its fortune - to listen to Ireland talk about economic growth. The best FF/G can do is advise them to abandon their own domestic entrepreneurs, kick open their economies to unfettered FDI and with it, unfettered mass immigration, while endlessly expanding the public and NGO sectors to provide busywork to soft degree holders to mop up any excess unemployment figures.
It's funny really.
In work yesterday we had to attend a mandatory course on treating people with dignity and respect - basics most of us learned from our parents. Not only was it an affront to our intelligence (and upbringing) the trainer mentioned ‘sexism etc in America and Afghanistan’ as examples of social injustices we were not allowed to discuss 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
At the airport, watching a dad with his probably seven-month-old. He has her in the air, shifting her around mechanically, like a robot. She’s kicking her legs and squealing.
Mom comes back from the bathroom and immediately straps the baby to her chest. She leans in and snuggles.
Nobody tells Dad to engage in stimulating play with his child. Nobody tells Mom to pull her close and soothe her.
They interact with the same child differently because men and women are different.
Children don't need two adults tossing them in the air. They don't need two parents soothing and comforting them. All stimulation and no security leaves them unmoored; all comfort and no challenge leaves them afraid to venture out.
Children need one parent who promotes attachment and one parent who promotes independence.
Children need a mother and a father.
A culture that treats either one as optional asks children to go without so adults can feel affirmed.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
Chair de poule. Je viens de découvrir "Les poupées" cette vidéo réalisée par Mo. et @leditodemadar qui à travers rap et poésie raconte les horreurs du 7 octobre.
Puissante, émouvante, et si digne.
MERCI.
À partager sans modération.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
The Islamo-Left: two pro-gender ideologies that make women disappear. What a future for our daughters.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
A security camera captured two Belgian Malinois puppies playing while their owner wasn't home
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
A man tries to enter politics because he believes ordinary people are being crushed by the cost of living. He later loses his business, and one of Ireland’s biggest newspapers gloats about it.
They are not on your side.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Laura Boyle 🇮🇪 retweeted
Every time a mom claims that having kids made her way less liberal, it’s an admission that her politics are not and never have been grounded in reality. History and data didn’t change because you gave birth. If your entire worldview changes with your personal circumstances, that’s bc it was always just based on vibes.
It’s not about the age. It’s about the things women believe when we’re young and how our worldview tends to change with our first child. Mothers are more conservative than non-mothers. Non-mothers are in influential careers. My post asks: do women who change their mind about human nature once they become responsible for children regret putting in place (voting for, working on) policies that are, in hindsight, not always conducive to human flourishing? Your mileage (how idealistic you were as a young woman) may vary.






















