When active-duty U.S. Air Force member Aaron Bushnell‚ 25‚ died after setting himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington‚ D.C.‚ while hollering "free Palestine!" woke social media users flooded the X platform with tributes to Bushnell punctuated with the phrase "rest in power" as opposed to the traditional "rest in peace." For example‚ Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein posted the following message‚ which has received well over 1 million views since Monday: "Rest in power Aaron Bushnell. 'I will no longer be complicit in genocide. Free Palestine!' May his sacrifice deepen our commitment to stop genocide now." Uh-oh Well‚ it appear that leftists of a more rabid nature aren't too happy with the likes of Stein‚ and they're demanding that the phrase "rest in power" be reserved for black people only. The following X user created a video showing a whole bunch of social media posts from annoyed wokesters explaining the unwritten rules surrounding the proper usage of "rest in power." Content warning: Language‚ potentially disturbing images: — (@) Here comes the backlash In the wake of the pointed "rest in power" corrections from the militant left‚ let's just say not everyone is down with being ordered around over their speech. To wit: — (@) — (@) — (@) — (@) Some others: "I will now say #RestInPower every time a white person of notoriety dies‚" one X user wrote. "Not because it’s important to do so‚ but because we’ve been told we’re not supposed to by those who attempt to demean us with controlled-speech. I reject their hollow dictates." "Put the kids to bed. Told them all to rest in power‚" another commenter quipped. "What if someone was electrocuted? Technically wouldn’t they Rest in Power?" another user wondered with tongue fully in cheek. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. birth rate currently languishes at its lowest level in history‚ and a recent Pew Research Center report indicates that young women are less interested than ever in having children. For all the inquiry on the subject‚ sociologists and pundits across the political spectrum recognize that this fact exposes something broken at the heart of American society. In the era of “family planning‚” babies are an implicit signal of hope‚ an expression of confidence. What is it about American culture — and the global homogenized culture downstream from it — that has caused young people to lose their faith in the future? Boomers made marriage as frivolous as they made divorce and expected their children to emerge unscathed. Frequently‚ and fairly‚ young people’s reproductive fruitlessness is chalked up to downward mobility. Many Millennials entered the job market during the Great Recession‚ and that was only their first setback. Factoring in student debt‚ skyrocketing health care costs‚ the diminishing worth of wages‚ precarious gig employment‚ and the worst housing market in recent history‚ Millennials probably faced more economic headwinds in their childbearing years than any other generation. This is especially true for men‚ whose financial viability directly affects their eligibility as potential husbands and for whom automation and outsourcing have devastated several traditional modes of work. Conservatives are more likely to bring up cultural factors — casual sex‚ antinatalism‚ secularism‚ and the diversionary urban lifestyle‚ for example — as major contributors to the malaise. We have become lotus eaters‚ it is said‚ worshippers at the altar of the eternal present and the almighty dollar. Gone are the days when the word luxury held a negative connotation. Long gone are the days of public Christian culture and the “family values” it once entailed. What‚ lacking a common sense of the dignity in sacrifice‚ could compel a young woman to give up her unencumbered pleasure-seeking‚ looks-maxing‚ and sleep to give life to another person? It’s a hard sell. Pushing back marriage Even for those conservatively disposed young people who claim interest in domestic life‚ the cultural narrative around marriage suggests that it is a capstone event. In other words‚ several other benchmarks must be achieved first to pursue marriage legitimately. Having first faced economic setbacks‚ then having lost several critical years of potential achievement to pandemic restrictions means the leading indicator of fertility — marriage — is pushed ever farther into midlife for Millennials and Gen Z. Many things can be true at once. Though right and left may contest whose reasons are more legitimate or more primary‚ the fertility crisis is‚ above all‚ a conflagration. Rarely articulated in these debates‚ because it is essentially unquantifiable (though readily observable on social media)‚ is Millennials’ sense of being betrayed and abandoned by their own parents. Whether “child-free by choice” or “cycle-breaking‚” Millennial resentment of Boomers is a veritable theme online. Last week’s viral discourse on X was prompted by a woman in her early 20s who posted a TikTok asking her followers‚ “What childhood trauma do you have that’s actually kind of funny?” She then proceeded to share about her father‚ who abandoned his family to pursue competitive breakdancing in middle age and became a “D-list celebrity” through his pursuit. While the conditions of the man’s departure may be unique‚ and uniquely ridiculous‚ the departure itself‚ and its more fundamental impetus (what Inez Stepman called the “exhaustive spelunking into the abyss of [his] own psyche”) is all too common. Baby Boomers have the highest divorce rate in recorded U.S. history. Not only that‚ but Boomers are the only generation to increase their divorce rate as they age. The divorce rate has doubled for adults 50 and over and tripled for adults 65 and older since the 1990s. Some scholars all but guarantee that the divorce rate will decline as Boomers pass away. On the other hand‚ Millennials‚ despite their failure to launch‚ are far less likely to divorce when they do get married. Boomers made marriage as frivolous as they made divorce and expected their children to emerge unscathed. Reality bats last. Their children’s deepest wounds‚ inflicted by those entrusted with their care‚ have rendered those children fearful‚ suspicious‚ anxious‚ and avoidant. Anecdotal evidence from the trenches of the dating apps confirms it. The proliferation of explicitly misogynistic and misandrist content on the internet does‚ too. What if the behaviors that appear cynical‚ especially from the perspective of the religiously minded social conservative — including delaying marriage‚ avoiding exclusivity‚ and even promiscuity — are at least partially a matter of shielding oneself from a familiar heartache? What if Millennial malaise is as much a defense mechanism as it is a conscious rejection of traditional life scripts? The reverse grandmother effect For people who care about monogamous marriage as an effective‚ civilization-enhancing social technology‚ recognizing the vulnerability — and the fear — behind Millennials’ revealed preferences may highlight a new path for addressing the problem. Divorce wasn’t the only way Boomers abandoned their kids. For many‚ the abandonment has come later. Statistician “Postliberal Pete” consistently offers analysis on the low fertility problem. Recently‚ he identified the “grandmother effect" as a boon to fertility: Research has demonstrated that having a living maternal grandmother increases the number of offspring born by their daughters by about 20% whilst another study found that a grandparental death leads to a reduction of approximately 5 percentage points in the five-year probability of childbirth amongst their offspring. The grandmother effect gives us an insight into some of the cultural factors which underpin higher fertility rates in predominantly rural societies‚ given that in rural areas people are more likely‚ on average‚ to live near extended family and given that there is a positive and statistically significant association of parental support with adult daughters' entry into parenthood. For the Millennials who do have children‚ a troubling realization awaits: Their own mothers are not interested in helping. I call this the reverse grandmother effect. Mary Harrington has identified the phenomenon through “glammies‚” the Baby Boomers who seek to embrace “their ‘hot kooky unhinged grandma era.’” In this view‚ Harrington says‚ “the role of grandma is to be ‘unconventional’: challenging authority‚ flouting routines‚ giving your grandkids inappropriate things for breakfast‚ and doing ‘crazy things’ with them.” The glammies want to travel. They don’t want to change diapers. Harrington continues: Clare‚ 30‚ from South Carolina‚ tells me that her own mother has little interest in helping with Clare’s baby and young toddler‚ often “because she has a hair/Botox/facial appt‚ which she must travel cross-state to attend”. Ellie‚ 30‚ a New England mother of two under two‚ tells me “Our parents are just not interested in cultivating a deep relationship with us or our daughters.” Instead‚ her mother live-posts her “brief‚ rare” granny visits to social media for her friends — and never offers to wash up. And she scornfully rejected an offer to live rent-free closer by‚ in exchange for helping with childcare‚ as a hostile attempt to reduce her to “just a grandma.” For a young‚ conservative-leaning mum‚ with visions of an interconnected‚ resilient extended family‚ her own parents’ determinedly atomistic approach to grandparenthood has been profoundly disappointing‚ Ellie tells me. As she puts it: “Spiritually and emotionally‚ we feel robbed.” Adding insult to injury‚ the public institutions that Boomers once relied on to help raise their children have been ideologically and socially hollowed out in the meantime. Public transportation‚ the public library‚ and public school have become downright dangerous for young families in certain cases. What remains instead of a robust civic life are two options: extremely expensive‚ high-demand private education and extracurriculars or‚ as many have it‚ isolation. If Millennials want a village‚ they must build it themselves. The village into which they were born dissolved beneath their feet‚ at the behest of their elders. All that remains is a terribly thin and tattered social fabric. Rebuilding everything from scratch is a pretty overwhelming prospect for an unprecedentedly mentally ill and lonely generation. Ultimately‚ the generation must exercise radical acceptance and responsibility to move forward. But perhaps confronting their legitimate injuries — the first cause of their loneliness — would help things along.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's deeply unpopular regime rolled out new legislation Monday that threatens to radically transform the Canadian legal landscape and equip activists with new means of clamping down on speech they perceive to be hateful. On its face‚ Bill C-63‚ the so-called "Online Harms Act‚" contains various uncontroversial elements such as the promise to tackle child pornography online. While Justice Minister Arif Virani and other Liberal officials have emphasized these elements when promoting the bill‚ the child protections appear only to be the vehicle for the transformative substance of C-63. C-63 would enable Trudeau's leftist government to define "hate speech" online; create a stand-alone "hate crime"; set "strict penalties" for perceived offenses; and allow concern-mongers to file complaints without facing the accused. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre stressed the bill is an "attack on freedom of expression." 'Online Harms Act' According to the Trudeau government‚ the bill would "create stronger online protection for children and better safeguard everyone in Canada from online hate and other types of harmful content." To this end‚ C-63‚ would hold online platforms‚ including streaming sites and pornographic websites‚ "accountable for the design choices made that lead to the dissemination and amplification of harmful content on their platforms." Legislation has recently been enacted in the United Kingdom with a similar aim. Extra to holding organizations like Facebook‚ PornHub‚ and Twitch responsible for content on their platforms and threatening penalties of up to $25 million‚ C-63 would: establish an entirely new legislative and regulatory framework; create a brand-new "digital safety" czar; put a definition for "hatred" in the Criminal Code; provide increased penalties for existing "hate propaganda offenses"; and establish a "standalone hate crime offense and creating an additional set of remedies for online hate speech in the Canadian Human Rights Act." The legislation defines hatred thusly: "the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike." Content that foments hatred is defined as that which "expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination ... and that‚ given the context in which it is communicated‚ is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground." Hate crime offenses‚ including those related to "sexual orientation or gender identity or expression‚" would carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So-called "hate propaganda" offenses would land offenders anywhere from a few years in prison to life‚ the maximum sentence being reserved for those advocating for genocide against an identifiable group. C-63 would afford anybody including grievance groups the ability to file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against users who have supposedly posted hate speech online. According to the Trudeau government‚ the bill would also outline procedures to "protect the confidentiality of complainants and witnesses as appropriate." True North News indicated that those the CHRC finds guilty can be hit with fines up to $70‚000 — $20‚000 for so-called victims and $50‚000 for the government "if the member panel considers it appropriate" — as well as take-down orders for content. 'Woke authoritarian agenda' Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre‚ presently poised to defeat Trudeau in the next federal election‚ told Canadian state media ahead of the bill's reveal that he will not accept "Justin Trudeau's woke authoritarian agenda‚" adding that the Liberal regime should not be deciding what constitutes "hate speech." "Justin Trudeau said anyone who criticized him during the pandemic was engaging in hate speech‚" said Poilievre. Around the time in 2022 his Liberal cabinet members contemplated deploying tanks against peaceful protesters‚ Trudeau called the Freedom Convoy truckers a "small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa‚ who are holding unacceptable views that are expressing." "What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the words 'hate speech'? He means the speech he hates‚" continued Poilievre. "You can assume he will ban all of that." The Conservative leader stressed that Trudeau is the last person in Canada who ought to be defining hatred. "I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist‚ who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can't remember them all‚ should then be the arbiter of what constitutes hate‚" said Poilievre. "What he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist." When asked about the bill last week‚ Trudeau suggested that criticism of C-63 and the notion that it is censorious amounted to more "misinformation" from the right. Liberal Justice Minister Virani maintains that C-63 is not another effort by the Liberal regime to clamp down on free speech. "I want to be crystal clear about what the Online Harms Act does not do‚" said Virani. "It does not undermine freedom of speech. It enhances free expression by empowering all people to safely participate in online debate." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A new adaptation offers a fresh take on James Clavell's 1975 novel‚ which fictionalizes the stories of English sailor William Adams‚ shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu and Japanese noblewoman Hosokawa Gracia

After starring in "Deep Throat‚" Linda Lovelace became a household name — but ended up penniless after being exploited by both the adult film industry and her husband. The post Linda Lovelace And Her Tumultuous Life After “Deep Throat” appeared first on All That's Interesting.

In less than 100 days‚ Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä killed at least 500 enemy troops during the Winter War — earning him the nickname the "White Death." The post Simo Häyhä: The ‘White Death’ Sniper Of World War 2 Finland appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Her death is the result of United States policy enabling a criminally minded man who came here to press a bogus asylum claim.

A Capital Writing interview with the author of Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life.

We KNOW Pro-Aborts Aren't the Brightest Bulbs but HOLY LOL This Post Trolling Pro-Life With an Egg Is Bad

Women‚ Minorities‚ and Gays DROP Rachel Bitecofer for Claiming Republicans Are COMING FOR THEM and OOF