YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #california #history #trafficsafety #assaultcar #carviolence #stopcars #notonemore #carextremism #endcarviolence #bancarsnow #blm #thinkofthechildren #fossil #paleontology #kansas
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Day mode
  • © 2026 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Night mode toggle
Featured Content
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2026 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 w News & Oppinion

rumbleBitchute
Tim Pool’s Terror Alert Just Escalated…
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 w

Suddenly it makes sense, see?
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Suddenly it makes sense, see?

Suddenly it makes sense, see? https://t.co/kRptygTyYy — HealthRanger (@HealthRanger) January 16, 2026
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 w

‘Rats Fleeing the Ship’: Tens of Millions of Dollars Being Wired Out of Iran by Leadership
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

‘Rats Fleeing the Ship’: Tens of Millions of Dollars Being Wired Out of Iran by Leadership

by Rick Moran, PJ Media: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Newsmax, as the Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, that the Iranian leadership was wiring tens of millions of dollars out of the country, “We are now seeing the rats fleeing the ship, because we can see millions, tens of millions of dollars being wired out […]
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 w

The Woke Billionaires and Democrat-Loving Corporations Are on Their Own
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

The Woke Billionaires and Democrat-Loving Corporations Are on Their Own

by Kurt Schlichter, Townhall: Here in California, billionaires are under attack as the Democrats are pushing a referendum that would levy a 5 percent wealth tax on unrealized gains and other assets of these very rich people in the Golden State. In Washington, DC, Donald Trump is telling big financial corporations that he’s going to […]
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 w

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. SMALL ARMS FOR IRAN STANDING BY!
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. SMALL ARMS FOR IRAN STANDING BY!

from The Prather Point: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Like
Comment
Share
Let's Get Cooking
Let's Get Cooking
1 w

I Dropped Everything to Make These Lemon Pepper Chicken Meatballs (They’re So Good)
Favicon 
www.thekitchn.com

I Dropped Everything to Make These Lemon Pepper Chicken Meatballs (They’re So Good)

Goodbye, traditional Italian meatballs. READ MORE...
Like
Comment
Share
Let's Get Cooking
Let's Get Cooking
1 w

These “Worth Every Penny” GreenPan Skillets Have Earned Nearly 1,800 Five-Star Reviews
Favicon 
www.thekitchn.com

These “Worth Every Penny” GreenPan Skillets Have Earned Nearly 1,800 Five-Star Reviews

These pans actually live up to the hype. READ MORE...
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
1 w

Did Marie Antoinette Really Say “Let Them Eat Cake?”
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

Did Marie Antoinette Really Say “Let Them Eat Cake?”

  “Let them eat cake” is the translation of the famous French phrase “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (brioche is a bread enriched with butter and eggs, considered a luxury food) thought to be the response of the 18th-century Queen consort of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, when informed about the starving peasants. Even though most historians believe the phrase was lost in translation and the queen never said it, it became a symbol of the privileged classes’ poor understanding of the plight of the lower classes on the eve of the French Revolution.   France During Queen Marie Antoinette Portrait of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, by Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, c. 1788. Source: New Orleans Museum of Art   Marie Antoinette Josefa Johanna (Vienna 1755–Paris 1793) was an Austrian princess born and raised in Vienna. She was a member of the first generation of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the last queen of pre-Revolutionary France from 1774 to 1792. At the age of 14, in May 1770, she became Dauphin of France by marrying Louis Auguste, grandson of King Louis XV of France. On May 10, 1774, her husband became king of France under the name of Louis XVI, making Marie Antoinette a queen.   As a queen, Marie Antoinette’s power and influence were limited. She was perceived as an outsider who never broke ties with her family in Vienna. For this reason, King Louis XVI did not discuss politics and foreign or internal affairs with her, nor did he ask for her opinion on these matters. Her role as a queen was confined to charitable activities, ceremonial duties, and producing heirs to the French throne to secure the Bourbon dynasty, at least during the initial period.   When she first arrived in France, Marie Antoinette was celebrated for her beauty and generosity. However, feeling constrained by her duties, she found her escape in a lavish lifestyle, including expensive and extravagant balls in Versailles and luxurious fashion items. This lifestyle was perceived as detached from the socio-economic struggles of ordinary citizens, especially when the first signs of the revolution appeared.   The French Revolution Scenes Under the French Revolution: Bread Shortage, Money Seller and Annuitants Selling Their Effects, by the Lesueur Brothers, c. 1789. Source: Meisterdrucke   The French Revolution erupted in 1789 and raged on until 1799, bringing a tumultuous decade of political and social upheaval. The revolution itself was a product of diverging factors, including the economic hardships the Frenchmen were experiencing. Poor economic conditions in France were caused by the following key factors:   -Bad harvest and famine caused by weather conditions, leading to food shortages; -Subsequent rising food prices; -Harsh and inequitable tax system; -France’s contribution to the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 that further strained the French economy, leaving the country in considerable debt;   Even though attempts were made to reform the financial system, noblemen often resisted, fearing they would lose their tax privileges.   Anger and discontent with the monarchy started accumulating among French peasants and the working class. The culmination of these events was the Storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, marking the start of the French Revolution, the people’s revolt against the monarchy. The revolutionaries sought to break up the old feudal order, abolish privileges, and establish a republic based on the principles of liberty and equality.   Marie Antoinette’s Reputation French Revolution of 1789: The Storming of the Bastille on July 14, by Tancredi Scarpelli. Source: Meisterdrucke   The situation became especially tense after the population, which was in dire straits, learned that Marie Antoinette had allegedly purchased a valuable diamond necklace. Although she had not worn it publicly, the incident, commonly known as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, seriously damaged her reputation as a queen. The revolutionaries directly accused her of bankrupting the country, and she became known in this circle as “Madame Deficit.”   During the revolt, Marie Antoinette was credited with many immoral acts and counter-revolutionary intrigues, which worked well in increasing the number of supporters of the revolution. In October 1789, starving Parisians stormed Versailles and captured the royal family, who were then taken to the Tuileries Palace. In June 1791, Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI attempted to flee to Great Britain but were recognized at the border.   The fact had disastrous results and greatly humiliated the monarchs in the eyes of the French people. On August 10, 1792, the Tuileries Palace was stormed, and the royal family was captured, separated, and imprisoned. On September 21, 1792, the monarchy was abolished in France. On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was executed. Marie Antoinette’s trial took place on October 14, 1793, when she was convicted of high treason by a revolutionary tribunal and sentenced to death. Two days later, on October 16, the 37-year-old Marie Antoinette was guillotined in front of the Palace of the Revolution.   Historical Context of Bread in France Marie Antoinette playing the harp at the Versailles, by Jean-Baptiste André Gautier-Dagoty. Source: GranPalais RmnPhoto/Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles   The French queen is alleged to have said, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” That’s French for “Let them eat brioche.” So, the reference wasn’t to the cake we know today but brioche, a rich bread made from eggs and butter.   Marie Antoinette reportedly said, “Let them eat cake,” in 1789, when France, under the rule of King Louis XVI, was experiencing bread shortages, which led to the subsequent starvation of the working class.   Lady Antonia Fraser, in her biographic work, Marie Antoinette: The Journey, outlines the word brioche held a particular power in this phase, as “the staple food of the French peasantry and the working class was bread, absorbing 50 percent of their income, as opposed to 5 percent on fuel; the whole topic of bread was therefore the result of obsessional national interest.”   Origins of “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” Portrait of Marie-Antoinette and her children, by Studio of Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun. Source: La Gazette Drout   The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau is regarded as the first person to come up with the phrase “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”   In book VI of his Confessions, written in 1767 and published in 1782, Rousseau recounts the phrase in a story in which he recalled an episode when he was in desperate need of finding some bread to accompany the wine he had stolen. Elegantly dressed, he hesitated to enter an ordinary bakery, recalling the words of a “great princess” without specifying which one:   “At length I remembered the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied, ‘Then let them eat brioches.’”   Marie Antoinette was indeed a princess at the time, though still a child, aged about nine years old. During this period, Marie Antoinette was living in Austria, and there is no historical evidence that the future queen and the French philosopher had ever met. Hence, it is unlikely that she was the princess Rousseau had in mind.   As Rousseau’s works inspired the French revolutionaries to galvanize more support, it is thought that some might have picked up the quote and accredited it to Marie Antoinette to fuel the opposition to monarchy.   Jean-Jacques Rousseau set a precedent by not naming “the great princess,” setting the stage for further manipulation of the phrase.   The earliest known official source associating the “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” quote with Marie Antoinette can be found in an 1843 issue of the journal Les Guêpes, almost 50 years after the French Revolution. The French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr declared that he came across “a book dated 1760” containing the phrase. Since Marie Antoinette was born in 1755 and only arrived in France in 1770, this timing proves that the rumor about Marie Antoinette was not true.   Why Was the Phrase Attributed to Marie Antoinette? Execution of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Place de la Revolution, Paris, 1793, French School. Source: Meisterdrucke   As the last queen of pre-revolutionary France, the opposition of the monarchy had successfully utilized the person of Marie Antoinette to galvanize public support. Besides accusations of ruining France’s finances for a lavish lifestyle, which worsened France’s dire financial straits, she was presented as a threat to the republicans. When the armed insurrections against the French monarchy intensified, Marie Antoinette turned to her brothers in Austria for help, asking for assistance to save the French monarchy.   Through propaganda, the image of Marie Antoinette was damaged. Stories and articles were printed and spread, exaggerating the queen’s and her Austrian family’s history and relationships with fictitious anecdotes and false information.   The Revolution abolished monarchy. Even so, the following centuries saw the alternation of monarchies and republics. Along with armed clashes, propaganda was actively and successfully utilized. In this context, the phrase “Let them eat brioche” was attributed to Marie Antoinette only during the Third French Republic in 1870. According to Professor Denise Maior-Barron:   “It did not come to be misattributed to Marie Antoinette during the 18th century, but during the Third French Republic starting in 1870, when a careful program of reconstructing the historical past took place. The masterminds of the French Revolution destroyed the French monarchy by continually attacking, and eventually destroying, its most important symbols: the king and the queen of France. For this reason, the ‘Let them eat cake’ type of clichés persists.”   The War of Flours: Pillage of bakeries in Paris, French School, c. 1775. Source: Meisterdrucke   Besides the Republican cause, Robert Gildea, a professor of modern history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, names sexism as another reason for demonizing the legacy of Marie Antoinette through the phrase, especially during the 19th-century French Revolution, which “tried to exclude women from political power,” as he outlined.   Women, and especially those women who could hold unofficial power over a king or other influential governors, were largely denounced. In fact, Marie Antoinette was not the only woman to have a tragic fate during the revolution. Olympe de Gouges, who wrote the “Declaration of the Rights of Women and of the Female Citizen,” was also guillotined on November 3, 1793.   Did Marie Antoinette Really Say, “Let Them Eat Cake?” French Revolution: the Awakening of the Third Estate, French School, 1789. Source: Meisterdrucke   According to British author Antonia Fraser, the notorious phrase “Let them eat cake” was used around 100 years before Marie Antoinette was born in reference to Maria Theresa, the wife of Louis XIV. Fraser uses the memoirs of Louis XVIII as a source. Louis XVIII did not directly name Marie Antoinette but attributed the phrase to Maria Theresa. Thus, the “great princess” in Rousseau’s book might have been Maria Theresa, not Marie Antoinette.   During the reign of Louis XVI, France experienced only two considerable famines and subsequent bread shortages. The first is known as the Flour War of April-May 1775, referring to the series of uprisings in different parts of France; the second occurred in 1788. According to the letters Marie Antoinette sent to her family in Austria, she felt concerned and sympathized with the peasants—an attitude contrary to the phrase “Let them eat brioche”:   “It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness. The King seems to understand this truth.”   British historian Antonia Fraser claims that contrary to anti-monarchist portrayals of Marie Antoinette, the queen of France was a “generous patron of charity and moved by the plight of the poor when it was brought to her attention, thus making the statement out of character for her.” The evidence, or the lack of it, proves that the phrase “Let them eat cake” might represent a notable example of historical misattribution to historical figures. In the words of Rose Bertin, Marie Antoinette’s fashion designer, “There is nothing new except what has been forgotten.”
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 w ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Can Ami Raise Money to M*rder ICE Agents? | Ami On The Loose | PragerU
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 w

The Minnesota Incident: A Case Study in Media Narrative Versus Reality 
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

The Minnesota Incident: A Case Study in Media Narrative Versus Reality 

A woman is dead in Minnesota. An ICE officer killed her. Those two facts are undisputed.  Everything else has become a Rorschach test for American politics.  Within hours of the incident, the narrative crystallized: federal agents had become death squads hunting immigrants.   Protests erupted. Politicians demanded accountability. Mainstream news ran wall-to-wall coverage of a deportation regime “gone too far.”  But here’s the question nobody’s asking: If the video evidence shows a woman repeatedly breaking the law before being shot, why hasn’t the story changed? Why did public perception form in minutes and calcify into certainty, impervious to new information?  The answer reveals something far more troubling than one tragic incident. It exposes the machinery of how Americans now form opinions and why we can no longer agree on basic facts.  The Numbers Don’t Match What They’re Telling You  Let me walk you through what Cygnal’s polling actually shows, because it contradicts nearly everything you’ve heard.  In July 2025, we found 61% of voters supported deportation efforts. But 48% opposed using ICE raids as the mechanism, with 50% in support. That’s a statistical tie, not a complete lopsided opposition like the mainstream narrative has been pumping.  Fast forward to last week. Our latest poll showed 50% believed Trump’s deportation efforts were going “too far.”  Headlines screamed about massive opposition to ICE tactics. Pundits proclaimed a turning point.  But look at the actual numbers: 48% opposition in July. 50% “too far” in January. That’s a two-point movement over six months, well within any poll’s margin of error. In polling terms, that’s noise, not a signal.  More importantly, this January poll was conducted immediately after an ICE officer killed a woman who had broken multiple laws and attempted to harm him. If there were ever a moment when opposition might spike dramatically, that was it. And the needle barely moved.  So, where’s all this “growing opposition” coming from?  The composition of who opposes tells the story: 91% of liberals say Trump’s deportation efforts go too far. Ninety-one percent.  Now ask yourself: What ideology dominates mainstream newsrooms? What worldview shapes editorial decisions at major networks and newspapers?  When 91% of one ideological group believes something, and that group overwhelmingly controls media institutions, their perspective becomes “the” perspective. Their concerns become national crises. Their interpretation becomes the default frame.  The numbers haven’t changed. The megaphone amplifying one side of those numbers has.  The Radicalization of ‘Resistance’  Here’s a statistic that should alarm everyone, regardless of where you stand on immigration: 61% of white liberal women ages 18-44 believe it’s acceptable to go “beyond peaceful protests in response to immigration raids.”  Cygnal asked this question in October. Nationally, 70% of Americans disagreed. Only 24% said yes, effectively endorsing lawbreaking when you disagree with enforcement.  But within that specific demographic, nearly two-thirds said yes.  Think about what “beyond peaceful protests” means. Blocking traffic. Interfering with law enforcement operations. Physical confrontation. These aren’t abstract concepts. They’re the exact sequence of events that led to a woman’s death in Minnesota.  I’ve spent my career studying how emotions drive political behavior.   What we’re seeing here goes beyond passionate disagreement. One demographic slice has convinced itself that laws become optional when enforcement conflicts with their values.   And the media ecosystem they consume reinforces this belief daily. They’re the “oppressed”, and they must rise up against the oppressor.  When two-thirds of any group believes lawbreaking is justified, that belief will eventually manifest in action. Minnesota wasn’t random. It was inevitable.  The woman who died wasn’t acting irrationally by her own moral framework.   Renee Good absorbed years of messaging that Trump is a dictator, ICE agents are villains, that resistance is heroic, that “by any means necessary” had become literal rather than rhetorical. She blocked traffic. She interfered with a federal operation. She assaulted an officer. At each step, she was doing what her political tribe had told her was not just acceptable but righteous.  She believed she was the hero of the story. That belief killed her.  What Actually Happened in Minnesota  Let’s talk about the incident itself, because the sequence mentioned above matters.  Multiple videos exist showing how things went down. They’ve been available for days. And they have changed precisely nothing about the dominant narrative.  Why?  Because most Americans never saw the full videos. Major networks showed the shooting. They did not show the preceding minutes of escalating confrontation. They did not provide context about the legal violations that preceded the fatal moment. The edit determined the story.  And this is the harder truth: even complete video evidence might not have mattered.  The Deeper Crisis: Truth in the Age of Confirmation  Cygnal found this month that 73% of voters say they “very often” or “somewhat often” encounter information they later discover is false or misleading.  Three-quarters of Americans believe they’re regularly being lied to. And they’re right.  But here’s the paradox: everyone thinks they’re the one sorting fact from fiction. Everyone believes their sources are reliable and the other side’s sources are propaganda. My truth is your misinformation and vice versa.  Once someone forms an initial opinion, contradicting evidence doesn’t change their mind. It hardens their position.   Studies on motivated reasoning show that partisans presented with facts that contradict their beliefs actually become more confident in their original view. The brain treats the contradicting information as an attack and the existing belief as identity to be defended.  By the time the full Minnesota videos emerged, millions had already decided what happened.   The officer was a murderer or the woman was a criminal. No footage would change that because the footage wasn’t being evaluated as evidence. It was being processed as ammunition for the conclusion already reached.  We’ve built information systems optimized for speed and engagement, not accuracy and deliberation. Hot takes within minutes. Viral clips within hours. Cemented narratives by the end of the day. And corrections, retractions, and context arrive weeks later to an audience that stopped listening.  The Real Consequences  Here’s what happens when media narratives diverge from reality and nobody can agree on basic facts.  ICE officers now work under a target. When major media outlets frame enforcement actions as atrocities and significant portions of the population believe “going beyond peaceful protests” is acceptable, every agent conducting a lawful operation faces elevated risk. The Minnesota incident will not be the last.  Rule of law becomes optional. If laws can be violated without consequence when the cause is deemed sufficiently righteous, law becomes merely a suggestion to be weighed against ideology. Today it’s immigration enforcement. Tomorrow it’s something else. The principle, once breached, has no natural stopping point.  Media credibility continues its collapse.   I’ve polled media trust for years. It’s cratered. Not because Americans reject journalism as a concept but because they’ve watched outlets function as political actors while claiming neutral observer status. Every misleading frame, every selective edit, every story that doesn’t match the available evidence accelerates institutional delegitimization.  We lose the ability to solve shared problems. Democracy requires some baseline agreement about facts. Not values, not policy preferences, but basic factual reality. When we cannot agree that a video shows what it shows, we cannot deliberate about what to do about it. We’re just two populations shouting past each other, each convinced the other is either evil or deluded.  Where This Leaves Us  I started with a question: If video evidence shows a woman repeatedly breaking the law before being shot, why hasn’t the story changed?  The answer is that stories don’t change anymore. They’re chosen.  Ninety-one percent of liberals were always going to oppose these deportation efforts. That opposition was always going to dominate media coverage because of who controls media institutions. And young liberal women were always going to be disproportionately represented in “resistance” narratives because they’re the demographic most likely to believe lawbreaking is justified.  Minnesota wasn’t a turning point. It was a preview.  The machinery that produced this incident, emotional polarization amplified by ideological media driving radicalized behavior, remains fully operational. Another confrontation will come. Another narrative will crystallize before facts emerge. Another set of Americans will conclude their countrymen are either fascists or anarchists.  The stakes extend far beyond immigration policy. We’re testing whether law enforcement can function when media narratives and activist movements collaborate to obstruct it. We’re testing whether shared truth is even possible anymore.  So far, we’re failing that test.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Minnesota Incident: A Case Study in Media Narrative Versus Reality  appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 1347 out of 107883
  • 1343
  • 1344
  • 1345
  • 1346
  • 1347
  • 1348
  • 1349
  • 1350
  • 1351
  • 1352
  • 1353
  • 1354
  • 1355
  • 1356
  • 1357
  • 1358
  • 1359
  • 1360
  • 1361
  • 1362
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund