Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance 

When the Fischer-Price My First Mayor™ of New York Zohran Mamdani chose to film a “tax the rich” video in front of a Manhattan penthouse owned by Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, he wasn’t just celebrating “tax day”, he was making a policy argument.

Mamdani was making a choice about his tone (dickish), about targets (“people with more money than me are bad”), and about how the city signals to the very people it depends on to fund its ambitions (“go f*ck yourself and live somewhere else”).

In a city where a relatively small number of taxpayers account for an outsized share of revenue, that kind of signaling is not trivial theater. It’s reckless, petulant, counterintuitive, childish and has consequences. But what else would you expect from a thirtysomething who has zero private sector or real world experience?

Sure, Ken Griffin is an easy symbol. He has extraordinary wealth, a record-setting $238 million apartment at 220 Central Park South, and a business empire that spans global finance. But symbols have a way of flattening reality. The firms he built, Citadel and Citadel Securities, are not abstractions; they are employers, taxpayers, and investors.

Citadel’s principals and employees “have paid nearly $2.3 billion in city and state taxes over the past five years,” according to COO Gerald Beeson, Reuters wrote days ago. And Griffin himself has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable giving tied to New York institutions, according to various reports citing about $650 million in donations highlighted by Citadel executives.

And then there is the forward-looking piece…the part that tends to disappear in political messaging. A proposed $6 billion redevelopment at 350 Park Avenue, tied to Griffin’s firm, carries the promise of thousands of construction jobs and many more permanent positions. Those are the kinds of projects cities compete fiercely to attract. But now that project appears at risk now after Mamdani’s choice to act like the spoiled Upper East Side brats he claims to loathe, according to the Wall Street Journal.

So that’s pushing $10 billion in tax revenue and investment from Citadel and Griffin. That is a metric f*ck ton of money (NYC brings in about $80 billion a year total in tax revenue) that Mamdani desperately needs to fund his $30 million state owned grocery stores, among other communist sleight of hand tricks in his bottle of political snake oil.

Mamdani’s policy argument is not without precedent. The idea of taxing underused luxury property, often described as a pied-à-terre tax, is rooted in a broader push to capture revenue from assets that sit largely idle in a city with acute housing pressures. Supporters see it as a corrective, a way to align tax policy with inequality that is both visible and politically salient. But there is a difference between arguing for a policy and personalizing it. Once a debate becomes about individuals rather than structures, it slides easily from persuasion into provocation.

That distinction matters because New York’s fiscal reality is not ideological; it is mathematical. The city requires enormous revenue to sustain its services, infrastructure, and social programs. Much of that revenue ultimately traces back to high earners, large firms, and the ecosystem that supports them. At the same time, those taxpayers are unusually mobile. Griffin has already moved his primary residence to Miami, part of a broader pattern of high-income migration that policymakers across the country are grappling with.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

There is also a subtler risk in turning success into a kind of public spectacle. Cities thrive on ambition. They depend on people who are willing to build companies, take risks, and, yes, accumulate outsized rewards along the way. When political rhetoric begins to frame that success primarily as a problem to be highlighted, rather than a resource to be harnessed, it can send an unintended message. Not just to billionaires with penthouses, but to the broader class of entrepreneurs, investors, and professionals who decide where to build their careers.

The debate over fairness in taxation is both legitimate and necessary. But there is a difference between designing policy that asks more of those who have more, and staging moments that seem to cast them as villains by default. The former is governance. The latter is…well exactly how you’d expect a sociopath to govern.

New York does not have the luxury of shortcuts. It is a city that depends on scale of talent, of capital and of confidence. Undermining any one of those pillars, even rhetorically, carries risks that may not be immediately visible but are rarely insignificant. The challenge for leaders is not simply to raise revenue, but to do so in a way that keeps the engine of that revenue running. That requires precision, not performance, and an understanding that in a city built on success, how you talk about success matters almost as much as how you tax it.

If Mamdani wants to raise more revenue, he will eventually have to decide whether he is in the business of governing a fragile economic ecosystem or narrating one. This isn’t SimCity, or the lunch table with the drama club. Playtime in the sandbox is over. New York City is a global icon and the uncomfortable truth is this: the people Mamdani is turning into political props are the same ones writing the checks. And they have options. So, Mamdani, I mean this nicely but if you’re angry at the world, maybe start by looking inward…and at the very least just try to grow the f*ck up.

—

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance 

When the Fischer-Price My First Mayor™ of New York Zohran Mamdani chose to film a “tax the rich” video in front of a Manhattan penthouse owned by Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, he wasn’t just celebrating “tax day”, he was making a policy argument.

Mamdani was making a choice about his tone (dickish), about targets (“people with more money than me are bad”), and about how the city signals to the very people it depends on to fund its ambitions (“go f*ck yourself and live somewhere else”).

In a city where a relatively small number of taxpayers account for an outsized share of revenue, that kind of signaling is not trivial theater. It’s reckless, petulant, counterintuitive, childish and has consequences. But what else would you expect from a thirtysomething who has zero private sector or real world experience?

Sure, Ken Griffin is an easy symbol. He has extraordinary wealth, a record-setting $238 million apartment at 220 Central Park South, and a business empire that spans global finance. But symbols have a way of flattening reality. The firms he built, Citadel and Citadel Securities, are not abstractions; they are employers, taxpayers, and investors.

Citadel’s principals and employees “have paid nearly $2.3 billion in city and state taxes over the past five years,” according to COO Gerald Beeson, Reuters wrote days ago. And Griffin himself has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable giving tied to New York institutions, according to various reports citing about $650 million in donations highlighted by Citadel executives.

And then there is the forward-looking piece…the part that tends to disappear in political messaging. A proposed $6 billion redevelopment at 350 Park Avenue, tied to Griffin’s firm, carries the promise of thousands of construction jobs and many more permanent positions. Those are the kinds of projects cities compete fiercely to attract. But now that project appears at risk now after Mamdani’s choice to act like the spoiled Upper East Side brats he claims to loathe, according to the Wall Street Journal.

So that’s pushing $10 billion in tax revenue and investment from Citadel and Griffin. That is a metric f*ck ton of money (NYC brings in about $80 billion a year total in tax revenue) that Mamdani desperately needs to fund his $30 million state owned grocery stores, among other communist sleight of hand tricks in his bottle of political snake oil.

Mamdani’s policy argument is not without precedent. The idea of taxing underused luxury property, often described as a pied-à-terre tax, is rooted in a broader push to capture revenue from assets that sit largely idle in a city with acute housing pressures. Supporters see it as a corrective, a way to align tax policy with inequality that is both visible and politically salient. But there is a difference between arguing for a policy and personalizing it. Once a debate becomes about individuals rather than structures, it slides easily from persuasion into provocation.

That distinction matters because New York’s fiscal reality is not ideological; it is mathematical. The city requires enormous revenue to sustain its services, infrastructure, and social programs. Much of that revenue ultimately traces back to high earners, large firms, and the ecosystem that supports them. At the same time, those taxpayers are unusually mobile. Griffin has already moved his primary residence to Miami, part of a broader pattern of high-income migration that policymakers across the country are grappling with.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

There is also a subtler risk in turning success into a kind of public spectacle. Cities thrive on ambition. They depend on people who are willing to build companies, take risks, and, yes, accumulate outsized rewards along the way. When political rhetoric begins to frame that success primarily as a problem to be highlighted, rather than a resource to be harnessed, it can send an unintended message. Not just to billionaires with penthouses, but to the broader class of entrepreneurs, investors, and professionals who decide where to build their careers.

The debate over fairness in taxation is both legitimate and necessary. But there is a difference between designing policy that asks more of those who have more, and staging moments that seem to cast them as villains by default. The former is governance. The latter is…well exactly how you’d expect a sociopath to govern.

New York does not have the luxury of shortcuts. It is a city that depends on scale of talent, of capital and of confidence. Undermining any one of those pillars, even rhetorically, carries risks that may not be immediately visible but are rarely insignificant. The challenge for leaders is not simply to raise revenue, but to do so in a way that keeps the engine of that revenue running. That requires precision, not performance, and an understanding that in a city built on success, how you talk about success matters almost as much as how you tax it.

If Mamdani wants to raise more revenue, he will eventually have to decide whether he is in the business of governing a fragile economic ecosystem or narrating one. This isn’t SimCity, or the lunch table with the drama club. Playtime in the sandbox is over. New York City is a global icon and the uncomfortable truth is this: the people Mamdani is turning into political props are the same ones writing the checks. And they have options. So, Mamdani, I mean this nicely but if you’re angry at the world, maybe start by looking inward…and at the very least just try to grow the f*ck up.

—

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance 

When the Fischer-Price My First Mayor™ of New York Zohran Mamdani chose to film a “tax the rich” video in front of a Manhattan penthouse owned by Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, he wasn’t just celebrating “tax day”, he was making a policy argument.

Mamdani was making a choice about his tone (dickish), about targets (“people with more money than me are bad”), and about how the city signals to the very people it depends on to fund its ambitions (“go f*ck yourself and live somewhere else”).

In a city where a relatively small number of taxpayers account for an outsized share of revenue, that kind of signaling is not trivial theater. It’s reckless, petulant, counterintuitive, childish and has consequences. But what else would you expect from a thirtysomething who has zero private sector or real world experience?

Sure, Ken Griffin is an easy symbol. He has extraordinary wealth, a record-setting $238 million apartment at 220 Central Park South, and a business empire that spans global finance. But symbols have a way of flattening reality. The firms he built, Citadel and Citadel Securities, are not abstractions; they are employers, taxpayers, and investors.

Citadel’s principals and employees “have paid nearly $2.3 billion in city and state taxes over the past five years,” according to COO Gerald Beeson, Reuters wrote days ago. And Griffin himself has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable giving tied to New York institutions, according to various reports citing about $650 million in donations highlighted by Citadel executives.

And then there is the forward-looking piece…the part that tends to disappear in political messaging. A proposed $6 billion redevelopment at 350 Park Avenue, tied to Griffin’s firm, carries the promise of thousands of construction jobs and many more permanent positions. Those are the kinds of projects cities compete fiercely to attract. But now that project appears at risk now after Mamdani’s choice to act like the spoiled Upper East Side brats he claims to loathe, according to the Wall Street Journal.

So that’s pushing $10 billion in tax revenue and investment from Citadel and Griffin. That is a metric f*ck ton of money (NYC brings in about $80 billion a year total in tax revenue) that Mamdani desperately needs to fund his $30 million state owned grocery stores, among other communist sleight of hand tricks in his bottle of political snake oil.

Mamdani’s policy argument is not without precedent. The idea of taxing underused luxury property, often described as a pied-à-terre tax, is rooted in a broader push to capture revenue from assets that sit largely idle in a city with acute housing pressures. Supporters see it as a corrective, a way to align tax policy with inequality that is both visible and politically salient. But there is a difference between arguing for a policy and personalizing it. Once a debate becomes about individuals rather than structures, it slides easily from persuasion into provocation.

That distinction matters because New York’s fiscal reality is not ideological; it is mathematical. The city requires enormous revenue to sustain its services, infrastructure, and social programs. Much of that revenue ultimately traces back to high earners, large firms, and the ecosystem that supports them. At the same time, those taxpayers are unusually mobile. Griffin has already moved his primary residence to Miami, part of a broader pattern of high-income migration that policymakers across the country are grappling with.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

There is also a subtler risk in turning success into a kind of public spectacle. Cities thrive on ambition. They depend on people who are willing to build companies, take risks, and, yes, accumulate outsized rewards along the way. When political rhetoric begins to frame that success primarily as a problem to be highlighted, rather than a resource to be harnessed, it can send an unintended message. Not just to billionaires with penthouses, but to the broader class of entrepreneurs, investors, and professionals who decide where to build their careers.

The debate over fairness in taxation is both legitimate and necessary. But there is a difference between designing policy that asks more of those who have more, and staging moments that seem to cast them as villains by default. The former is governance. The latter is…well exactly how you’d expect a sociopath to govern.

New York does not have the luxury of shortcuts. It is a city that depends on scale of talent, of capital and of confidence. Undermining any one of those pillars, even rhetorically, carries risks that may not be immediately visible but are rarely insignificant. The challenge for leaders is not simply to raise revenue, but to do so in a way that keeps the engine of that revenue running. That requires precision, not performance, and an understanding that in a city built on success, how you talk about success matters almost as much as how you tax it.

If Mamdani wants to raise more revenue, he will eventually have to decide whether he is in the business of governing a fragile economic ecosystem or narrating one. This isn’t SimCity, or the lunch table with the drama club. Playtime in the sandbox is over. New York City is a global icon and the uncomfortable truth is this: the people Mamdani is turning into political props are the same ones writing the checks. And they have options. So, Mamdani, I mean this nicely but if you’re angry at the world, maybe start by looking inward…and at the very least just try to grow the f*ck up.

—

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Older men are being scammed and fooled left and right by a deluge of AI generated female influencers, according the NY Post.

What appears to be a growing wave of glamorous influencers online isn’t always what it seems. In some cases, these personalities are entirely artificial – carefully engineered digital figures designed to look, act, and interact like real people. One widely followed pro-MAGA persona, for example, was ultimately exposed as “nothing more than an algorithm run by a guy in India,” revealing just how convincingly these accounts can mimic authenticity.

Despite that, audiences continue to engage—often deeply. Many followers, particularly older men, are “falling for them left, right and center.” Experts suggest this isn’t just about deception, but about a deeper emotional gap. Some describe the phenomenon as a “pandemic of loneliness,” even pointing to a broader “societal loss of humanity” as people increasingly form attachments to digital illusions instead of real relationships.

What’s striking is that these accounts don’t always hide the truth. Some openly identify as AI and still attract admiration. Take Ana Zelu, a fictional influencer who clearly labels herself an “ai-influencer,” yet maintains a highly curated feed filled with aspirational imagery—luxury travel, fashionable outfits, and picturesque city scenes. Her posts draw enthusiastic responses, with followers commenting things like “Number one is my favourite…May God bless you,” and “You are genuinely in a class of your own.” The awareness that she isn’t real doesn’t seem to diminish the appeal.

The Post writes that a similar pattern appears with Milla Sofia, another digital creation presented as a pop singer. Her content includes stylized videos and performances, and although her profile identifies her as virtual, fans respond as if she were a real celebrity. Comments such as “my sweet love,” “Listening to the music of this woman I love,” and “I love you” reflect genuine emotional investment.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert explains why this happens: “people don’t actually need something to be real…they just need it to feel responsive.” When an account appears engaging, consistent, and attentive, “the brain starts to treat that interaction as meaningful.” In other words, emotional connection can form even without a real person on the other side.

Forensic psychologist Carole Lieberman ties this behavior to social isolation. Even when users suspect something isn’t real, “it seems better than nothing,” and many “convince ourselves that it is — or could be — a real person.” The illusion becomes a kind of emotional substitute—one that feels easier, safer, and more accessible than real-world interaction.

She said it is a “very sad state of affairs” and “a societal loss of humanity.” 

At the same time, the technology behind these personas is improving rapidly. AI-generated faces, voices, and videos have moved beyond the so-called “uncanny valley,” making them increasingly indistinguishable from reality. As AI expert Hany Farid notes, while some accounts disclose their artificial nature, “the vast majority of content is not.” This creates an environment where users are highly “vulnerable to being deceived,” often without realizing it.

The result is a digital landscape where the boundary between real and fake is fading. These AI influencers may not exist in the physical world, but the emotions they evoke are real—and for many people, that emotional connection is enough.

Older men are being scammed and fooled left and right by a deluge of AI generated female influencers, according the NY Post.

What appears to be a growing wave of glamorous influencers online isn’t always what it seems. In some cases, these personalities are entirely artificial – carefully engineered digital figures designed to look, act, and interact like real people. One widely followed pro-MAGA persona, for example, was ultimately exposed as “nothing more than an algorithm run by a guy in India,” revealing just how convincingly these accounts can mimic authenticity.

Despite that, audiences continue to engage—often deeply. Many followers, particularly older men, are “falling for them left, right and center.” Experts suggest this isn’t just about deception, but about a deeper emotional gap. Some describe the phenomenon as a “pandemic of loneliness,” even pointing to a broader “societal loss of humanity” as people increasingly form attachments to digital illusions instead of real relationships.

What’s striking is that these accounts don’t always hide the truth. Some openly identify as AI and still attract admiration. Take Ana Zelu, a fictional influencer who clearly labels herself an “ai-influencer,” yet maintains a highly curated feed filled with aspirational imagery—luxury travel, fashionable outfits, and picturesque city scenes. Her posts draw enthusiastic responses, with followers commenting things like “Number one is my favourite…May God bless you,” and “You are genuinely in a class of your own.” The awareness that she isn’t real doesn’t seem to diminish the appeal.

The Post writes that a similar pattern appears with Milla Sofia, another digital creation presented as a pop singer. Her content includes stylized videos and performances, and although her profile identifies her as virtual, fans respond as if she were a real celebrity. Comments such as “my sweet love,” “Listening to the music of this woman I love,” and “I love you” reflect genuine emotional investment.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert explains why this happens: “people don’t actually need something to be real…they just need it to feel responsive.” When an account appears engaging, consistent, and attentive, “the brain starts to treat that interaction as meaningful.” In other words, emotional connection can form even without a real person on the other side.

Forensic psychologist Carole Lieberman ties this behavior to social isolation. Even when users suspect something isn’t real, “it seems better than nothing,” and many “convince ourselves that it is — or could be — a real person.” The illusion becomes a kind of emotional substitute—one that feels easier, safer, and more accessible than real-world interaction.

She said it is a “very sad state of affairs” and “a societal loss of humanity.” 

At the same time, the technology behind these personas is improving rapidly. AI-generated faces, voices, and videos have moved beyond the so-called “uncanny valley,” making them increasingly indistinguishable from reality. As AI expert Hany Farid notes, while some accounts disclose their artificial nature, “the vast majority of content is not.” This creates an environment where users are highly “vulnerable to being deceived,” often without realizing it.

The result is a digital landscape where the boundary between real and fake is fading. These AI influencers may not exist in the physical world, but the emotions they evoke are real—and for many people, that emotional connection is enough.

Older men are being scammed and fooled left and right by a deluge of AI generated female influencers, according the NY Post.

What appears to be a growing wave of glamorous influencers online isn’t always what it seems. In some cases, these personalities are entirely artificial – carefully engineered digital figures designed to look, act, and interact like real people. One widely followed pro-MAGA persona, for example, was ultimately exposed as “nothing more than an algorithm run by a guy in India,” revealing just how convincingly these accounts can mimic authenticity.

Despite that, audiences continue to engage—often deeply. Many followers, particularly older men, are “falling for them left, right and center.” Experts suggest this isn’t just about deception, but about a deeper emotional gap. Some describe the phenomenon as a “pandemic of loneliness,” even pointing to a broader “societal loss of humanity” as people increasingly form attachments to digital illusions instead of real relationships.

What’s striking is that these accounts don’t always hide the truth. Some openly identify as AI and still attract admiration. Take Ana Zelu, a fictional influencer who clearly labels herself an “ai-influencer,” yet maintains a highly curated feed filled with aspirational imagery—luxury travel, fashionable outfits, and picturesque city scenes. Her posts draw enthusiastic responses, with followers commenting things like “Number one is my favourite…May God bless you,” and “You are genuinely in a class of your own.” The awareness that she isn’t real doesn’t seem to diminish the appeal.

The Post writes that a similar pattern appears with Milla Sofia, another digital creation presented as a pop singer. Her content includes stylized videos and performances, and although her profile identifies her as virtual, fans respond as if she were a real celebrity. Comments such as “my sweet love,” “Listening to the music of this woman I love,” and “I love you” reflect genuine emotional investment.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert explains why this happens: “people don’t actually need something to be real…they just need it to feel responsive.” When an account appears engaging, consistent, and attentive, “the brain starts to treat that interaction as meaningful.” In other words, emotional connection can form even without a real person on the other side.

Forensic psychologist Carole Lieberman ties this behavior to social isolation. Even when users suspect something isn’t real, “it seems better than nothing,” and many “convince ourselves that it is — or could be — a real person.” The illusion becomes a kind of emotional substitute—one that feels easier, safer, and more accessible than real-world interaction.

She said it is a “very sad state of affairs” and “a societal loss of humanity.” 

At the same time, the technology behind these personas is improving rapidly. AI-generated faces, voices, and videos have moved beyond the so-called “uncanny valley,” making them increasingly indistinguishable from reality. As AI expert Hany Farid notes, while some accounts disclose their artificial nature, “the vast majority of content is not.” This creates an environment where users are highly “vulnerable to being deceived,” often without realizing it.

The result is a digital landscape where the boundary between real and fake is fading. These AI influencers may not exist in the physical world, but the emotions they evoke are real—and for many people, that emotional connection is enough.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered a blunt warning to lawmakers this week: Canada’s rush to expand assisted suicide is turning a once-free nation into a cautionary tale the United States must reject outright.

Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee and Senate HELP Committee, Kennedy forcefully condemned the program known as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). “I think those laws are abhorrent,” he said. Pointing directly to the results north of the border, he added, “And we just see in Canada today, I think the number one cause of death is assisted suicide.”

Kennedy made clear the policy doesn’t stop at personal choice. “And as you say, it targets people with disabilities and people who are struggling in their lives,” he stated. He tied the issue to America’s broader standing in the world: “I don’t think we can be a moral society; we can’t be a moral authority around the globe if that becomes institutionalized throughout our society.”

🇺🇸🇨🇦 RFK Jr: Assisted suicide has become the leading cause of death in Canada…wait…what?!

Slamming it, he says it targets vulnerable people, including those with disabilities.pic.twitter.com/uRGUg0k3T9 https://t.co/hAw3m6pf9D

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 22, 2026

The comments come as Canada’s experiment spirals. The country is on track to surpass 100,000 assisted deaths before MAID’s 10th anniversary this summer, as noted in a recent New York Post report.

As of 2024, the total already stood at 76,475 — more Canadians killed through the program than died in World War II.

Government-assisted suicide is also spreading like wildfire across the West, often sold as compassion but delivering cost-cutting convenience for cash-strapped socialist healthcare systems.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia now accounts for 6 percent of all deaths and the share is rising every year.

In 2025 alone, 10,341 people died by euthanasia. While most were over 70 with physical illnesses like cancer or heart disease, the cases included 499 dementia patients and 278 listed under vague “other reasons.” One case involved a patient aged between 12-18. Dutch experts are now urging caution for anyone under 25, warning that young brains are still developing and highly susceptible to external pressure and online influence.

Canada’s program began in 2016 limited to terminal cases. Within a year, officials were openly discussing how it could save over $130 million annually in medical costs. Expansions followed: mental illness is scheduled to qualify starting in 2027, and discussions continue about “mature minors” as young as 12.

Belgium and the Netherlands already allow child euthanasia. England, Wales, and Scotland are now pushing similar legislation modeled on Canada’s original law.

The results speak for themselves. In Canada, one in every 20 deaths is now government-assisted suicide. Proponents promised rare, tightly controlled cases. Reality delivered a bureaucratic death machine that quietly expanded to the disabled, the depressed, and the financially burdensome.

Kennedy offered lawmakers a clear path forward. “I am happy to work with you in whatever way we can,” he said, signaling openness to bipartisan efforts to protect vulnerable Americans from the same slope.

Another recent case captured the human cost in Spain, where a 25-year-old woman paralyzed after a horrific gang rape was euthanized despite her parents’ desperate legal fight:

🇪🇸Within 24 hours, Noelia Castillo Ramos will be euthanized in Spain.

In 2022, Noelia suffered a gang rape in a supervised care center.

This completely shattered her life. She attempted suicide, jumping from a 5-story building, which left her a paraplegic.

Her father has… pic.twitter.com/hOIW1j8o2u

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) March 25, 2026

Spanish bishops called it what it is: “Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not medical acts, but deliberate interruptions of the bond of care, and represent a social defeat when presented as a response to human suffering.”

They stressed that “the dignity of the human person does not depend on their state of health… but rather is an intrinsic value that must be recognized, protected and helped in all circumstances.”

The message is simple: when life hurts, the answer is not state-sponsored death but real care, real treatment, and real hope.

Canada and Europe are showing the West what happens when governments treat citizens as budget line items rather than sacred individuals.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

On April 17, The Atlantic published an anonymously sourced hit piece against FBI Director Kash Patel – painting him as a blackout-drunk, paranoid, and erratic executive barely capable of running the nation’s premier law enforcement agency. Three days later, a federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. 

The question conservative circles are now asking is whether the hit piece was deliberately conceived and timed to discredit Patel and the SPLC investigation.

Democrats pounced on The Atlantic hit piece, launching an investigation into his behavior the same day that the SPLC indictment was announced.

And that was the point of the Atlantic story. See how that works. https://t.co/WRjlc4twIQ

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) April 22, 2026

According to the Department of Justice, between 2014 and 2023, the organization secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals associated with violent extremist groups – including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, American Nazi Party, and the National Socialist Party of America. 

“They use their donor network to raise money to purportedly dismantle violent extremist groups. However, the SPLC — the Southern Poverty Law Center — used the money they raised from their donor network to actually pay the leadership of these very groups,” Patel said at the announcement. “They used the fraudulently raised money by lying to their donor network, thousands of Americans, to go ahead and actually pay the leadership of these supposed violent extremist groups.”

Patel added, “They attempted to hide their criminal activity from our financial banking network. They set up shell companies and entities around America so that the financial institutions that we rely on as everyday Americans were deceived in believing that money was not coming from the Southern Poverty Law Center in the perpetration of this scheme and fraud, but rather fictitious entities they stood up to perpetuate this ongoing fraud.”

🚨BREAKING: DOJ charges the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The SPLC secretly funneled $3M+ in donor funds to violent racist extremist groups:

-Ku Klux Klan
-American Nazi Party
-Aryan Nation… pic.twitter.com/0hcf2sH9LZ

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) April 21, 2026

The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs through her Emerson Collective, which holds a majority stake in the magazine. And her connection to the SPLC goes back a long time. In a 2018 Washington Post profile, the paper described her very personal connection to the SPLC:

Laurene Powell made her first foray into philanthropy near the beginning of high school in West Milford. She learned of the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center and dipped into her savings to send a cashier’s check of about $20. She got a form thank-you letter back from civil rights crusader Morris Dees. “They would reliably write to me a couple of times a year,” she says. “I would read them over and over, and they told really beautiful stories. I was always animated by the notion of who gets the opportunity and who doesn’t.”

In 2019, Powell Jobs reportedly revealed that she’d been anonymously funding the SPLC for years. 

Lauren Powell Jobs, May 27, 2019:

“We do all of our philanthropic giving anonymously. But we had been funding SPLC and we decided that we wanted to do some teaching tolerance curriculum in partnership with them. And so one of our team members was actually talking to Morris Dees,… https://t.co/9vVsXCjO8V

— Erica Knight (@_EricaKnight) April 22, 2026

The SPLC wasn’t just a charity she supported. It was, by her own account, the organization that introduced her to philanthropy.

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino revealed earlier this week that he believes something larger is operating underneath the surface. “The hit on Kash Patel, the bullshit hit by The Atlantic, which I addressed yesterday, is gonna make a lot more sense in the coming weeks and months,” he said. “I can’t give you a definitive timeline. I’m on the outside now. However, I can tell you what I know is going on because I started a lot of it.”

He added, “I promise this thing is gonna make a whole lot of sense. You’re gonna find out, as they say in the South, right quick about why they need him out, like, now. It’s got nothing to do with that story being even remotely true. Remember this. Bookmark it.”

🚨🚨🚨 @dbongino: “I promise you this. Look at me. Everybody zoom in. Focker, look at me… The hit on Kash Patel is going to make a lot of sense very soon. There’s a reason the media and Democrats want him out NOW. Flag it.” 🚩 pic.twitter.com/oizQlLtq0I

— Bongino Report (@BonginoReport) April 21, 2026

Whether he was referring to the connection between The Atlantic and SPLC is not clear, but the hit piece dropped days before that indictment became public, and the SPLC would have had reason to anticipate charges were coming. The Atlantic hit piece bought time, diverted attention, and handed critics a ready-made narrative to undermine Patel’s credibility at exactly the moment it mattered most.