Brief Summary

[Enes Kanter FREEDOM @EnesFreedom]

Careful what you wish for, @WNBA

Freedom of speech never looked this good. 💅🏽

Somehow controversial.🤷🏻‍♂️

[Hayek-Club Weimar @WeimarClub]

Sozialismus ist das perfekte Geschäftsmodell für Politiker: Er erzeugt Abhängigkeit, und Abhängigkeit erzeugt Wähler. Wer vom Staat lebt – durch Transferleistungen, Subventionen, „soziale“ Absicherung, planwirtschaftliche Privilegien – wählt denjenigen, der die Hähne aufdreht. Der Politiker wird zum Versorger, der Bürger zum Klienten. Je größer die Abhängigkeit, desto größer die Macht. Deshalb lieben sie ihn. Nicht aus Ideologie, sondern aus nacktem Eigeninteresse.

Kapitalismus hingegen ist für die politische Klasse eine existenzielle Bedrohung. Er belohnt Eigenverantwortung, Risiko, Innovation und private Initiative. Er macht Menschen unabhängig vom Staat – und damit unkontrollierbar. Wer seinen Lebensunterhalt selbst verdient, seine Entscheidungen selbst trifft und seinen Wohlstand selbst schafft, braucht keine Gönner in Berlin, Brüssel oder sonstwo.

Jede Regulierung, die „den Markt zähmen“ soll, ist in Wahrheit ein Instrument, um Wettbewerb zu ersticken und etablierte Interessen zu schützen. Der freie Markt braucht keinen Politiker als Mittler. Der Politiker braucht den freien Markt als Feindbild.

Deshalb die ewige Rhetorik: Kapitalismus wird als „gierig“, „ungerecht“, „unsozial“ gebrandmarkt – während der Staat, der mit Gewalt monopolisiert, umverteilt und kontrolliert, als moralische Instanz auftritt. Es ist die älteste Strategie der Macht: die Abhängigkeit als Tugend verkaufen und die Unabhängigkeit als Gefahr.

Der Staat hat kein Interesse an freien Menschen. Er hat Interesse an Untertanen, die ihm dankbar sind. Sozialismus liefert die Untertanen. Kapitalismus liefert die Freien.

#FreiheitstattKnechtschaft #SteuernsindRaub #Eigentum #Freiheit #ParasitenwegmitEuremZwang

[The Real Mike Rowe @mikeroweworks]

Not the way I planned on spending my afternoon, but 7,600 comments should not be ignored! Bots, trolls and personal attacks notwithstanding, the critics of yesterday’s post were dominated by a large and vocal contingent who rushed to remind me that there’s “a difference between socialism and communism,” an obvious indication that they didn’t actually read the post.

Shelley Armour writes… “Mike! You know there is a difference between democratic socialism and communism, right?”

Hi, Shelley. Yes, I know there’s a difference, and I understand what the difference is. The larger point, and the fundamental flaw with your comment, is that you seem to believe the candidates within the Democratic Socialist Party are both “democratic and socialist" simply because that’s the name of their club. Well, maybe some of them are. I really couldn’t say. What I can tell you for sure is that more than a few have called for the complete dismantling of capitalism, free markets, representative government, property rights, borders, police, prisons, and the Constitution in general. My post referred to them, as well as a number of elected Democrats who have agreed to campaign on their behalf – including Gavin Newsom, who said, "The Democratic Party must accept the DSA in order to take back the Congress.” His words, not mine.

Tracey Steele writes…“Wow! I cannot believe Mike Rowe said this. He has a huge reach, and he is actually spouting the word “communism” like it’s the 1950s! Wow Wow Wow!”

Wow indeed, Tracey, and thanks for noticing the size of my reach! (Contrary to popular belief, size does matter!) To say it again, I am not the one “spouting” communism or conflating socialists and communists. The word is being “spouted” by members of the DSA who are using it to describe themselves. I am not accusing them; I am quoting them.

John Engles… Hey Rowe, what’s the difference between the Communists who want to run the country and the Nazi/fascist who currently is?

Several differences, John, but the only one relevant to this conversation is the fact that the communists currently running for office have clearly identified themselves as such. They do not dispute or reject the label. They embrace it. It is who they are, who they claim to be, and who they want to be. The president, on the other hand, has never claimed to be a Nazi or a fascist. That doesn’t mean he isn't, but it is worth noting he has rejected the accusation outright. Obviously, you are entitled to that opinion and the right to share it publicly, thanks to our Constitution. Unlike in a fascist, Nazi, or communist regime. (Also worth noting, Nazis and fascists are not the same thing.)

Chris Tomaloff writes… “Kinda like how the political right didn’t shout down the extreme rhetoric coming from their candidates?”

No, Chris, not like that at all. In the video I shared, we saw examples of prominent Democrats saying things like, “We need to elect more communists!” (Cea Weaver, Director of the NYC Mayor’s Office.) Mamdani himself literally tweeted, "Each according to their need, each according to their ability." That’s a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto.

But what exactly is the corollary from the right? Are prominent Republicans tweeting, “We need to elect more Nazis! We need to elect more fascists! Eat the poor!” I don’t think so. John Engles may think Trump is fascist and a Nazi, but Trump disagrees, and so do a majority of voters. Communists, on the other hand, say it loud and say it proud. I’m inclined to take them at their word.

Beto Ojeda… “Mike has always leaned to the Trumpian view of things but never states it, so as not to alienate anyone, but we know how to read between the lines. This “communist” talk is McCarthyism 2.0.”

I wasn’t around in the 1950s, Beto, but from what I’ve read, it was indeed a very difficult time to be a communist in this country. Lots of private citizens were dragged before Congress, made to take “loyalty oaths," and blacklisted in their places of work. I can’t justify it or condone it, but I can explain it. We had just fought a hot war against fascism and Nazism and just begun a Cold War against a communist regime. The existence of an organized Communist Party in this country at such a time strained the limits of tolerance. But do you really think we’re less tolerant today than we were seventy-five years ago? Do you really believe my comments about communists who claim to be communists are synonymous with another Red Scare? If you haven’t noticed, Chris, no one in the DSA, including the communists, is being dragged before Congress and made to swear a loyalty oath to the Constitution. Today, a communist in America can run for office…with the endorsement of the governor of California! And the tacit approval of a major political party! Seems to me we’re about as far from McCarthyism as we can get.

As for my desire not to alienate anyone, I suppose I am guilty of that. I run a foundation that is open to people of all political beliefs, and we’ve assisted lots of Americans who lean to the left. I also know for a fact that many Democrats have supported mikeroweWORKS historically, and I have no desire to run them off. But do you really have to “read between the lines” to understand where I’m coming from?

True, I’ve never endorsed a candidate or publicly encouraged people to vote. But I’ve been very transparent about the fact that I’m a registered Independent who favors policies and programs that often align with conservative principles. Obviously, I would not characterize those conservative principles as “Trumpian,” because a) they were around long before him, b) Trump is not a conservative, and c) I do not agree with or support everything the President says and does. So, is it possible, Beto, that your accusation is rooted in the fact that I have never publicly denounced the president to your satisfaction? Is it possible you think I'm a Trumper, simply because I've never called him a fascist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a conman, or a traitor, or whatever else you believe him to be?

Gretchen Seipp… Mike, the fact that you still act as though you’re not political after all this time is a bit ridiculous. I still support your work and foundation because I believe in it, but the folksy act has worn thin.

Aw, shucks, Gretchen. Folksy? Lil' ole me?
Honestly, how am I acting as if I am “not political?” This entire conversation is the very definition of “political.”

Christopher Pugh… I would have voted for Mike Rowe and Freddie a few years ago before he went full-on MAGA, and I’m all in favor of his project, but it’s pretty clear the political direction that he’s moved in and the money trail that has influenced it.

It’s Freddy, not Freddie. (I don’t much care, but he’s a terrier and particular about such things.) As for the “full-on MAGA” moniker, is there something I did specifically to earn that designation? Is there some kind of general definition you can share? Or, are you coming from the same place as Beto? Is calling me “Full-On MAGA" your way of saying that I’ve failed to condemn Trump to your satisfaction?

For the record, MRW is supported by liberals and conservatives alike. I have no idea what “money trail” you are referring to. Also, regarding my personal politics, think about the implications of what I wrote. I said that the Democrats have been given a gift – an opportunity to appear reasonable by speaking the truth to their own party, just as Bill Maher has done. All they have to do is distance themselves from candidates who have called for the complete dismantlement of our Constitution. All they have to do is say, “Hold on, comrade. Our tent is not that big. We respect your right to hate America, but we don’t want you in our party, and we will not support your candidacy.”

If they say that, I think a lot of Independents would see them as they see John Fetterman, who has, in the eyes of many voters, become the most “rational” Democrat currently in office. If they don’t – if they actually welcome communist candidates into their party – then I’m afraid the Democrats, by default, will offer the American people a very simple choice in November – a party that disavows communism vs. a party that doesn’t. I think such a choice would be very positive for Republicans because I don’t think most Americans want to align themselves with a Democratic Party that welcomes communists. The question for you, Chris, is why would a “Full-On MAGA” like me encourage Democrats to act in a way that would disadvantage the Republican Party? And the answer is simple – it’s because I support the existence of a Democratic Party that believes America is still a fundamentally good place.

I think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our country, and I believe the best way to realize those improvements is for Democrats and Republicans to have continuous, robust and public debate about all the issues. But if one of those parties is affirmatively determined to transform our democratic republic into a communist state, then we’re no longer debating the various ways to make our country better; we’re debating the merits of destroying it. And really, what’s the point of tolerating that?

America is already a big tent, filled with hundreds of millions of people with wildly differing views and lots of political parties that represent those views. We’ve got the Green Party, the American Freedom Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Constitution Party, and of course, the Communist Party USA, as well as the Democratic Socialist Party. America’s tent is so big, we can even tolerate fringe parties like the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and so forth. Why then, does Gavin Newsom want to make room in the Democratic tent for socialists and communists? There’s only one reason, and he’s already spelled it out for us – he believes the Democrats need them to win back the Congress. I think it’s a bad bet for the Democrats and for America. And if a prominent Republican reached out to the KKK with the same “big tent” offer, you’d better believe my vote would be in play.

Michael Tillman… When are you going to throw your hat into the ring, Mr. Rowe?

Ha! When it no longer fits my head!

[Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi]

Anyone who characterizes having a half-white son as “my proximity to whiteness” is certifiable and should not hold public office.

[Ben Shapiro @benshapiro]

I don't think you're stupid at all. I think you know precisely what you're doing. You're promoting evil and dishonest conspiracism. And you're doing it precisely because it's popular.

[Ben Shapiro @benshapiro]

The population of Retarded Conspiracyville is increasing at a nearly exponential rate. Malthusian rationing will soon be necessary.

[Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital]

I’m sick to my stomach…

This is going to prevent so many women and people of color from getting cheap groceries.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

If you don’t think he’s a woman, you’re transphobic. When he claimed to be a woman, he became a woman. He now belongs in women’s changing rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards, prison cells and rape support centres.

If you try and differentiate between him and a trans woman who looks more convincing as a woman, you are promoting patriarchal beauty norms. If you admit to seeing an aggressive and possibly unbalanced man in this video, you’re saying all trans people are mentally ill predators. If you refuse to let him into female-only spaces, you’re removing his right to exist. If you suggest he could comfortably use male facilities, you secretly want him assaulted. If you refuse to call him ‘she’, you are guilty of unpardonable cruelty. If you’re a woman who wouldn’t want to share a locker room with him, or a man who wouldn’t want your daughter, sister or mother to get undressed in close proximity to him, you belong to the far-right. If you point out that there is no objective difference between his claim to be a woman and that of any other biological male claiming a trans identity, you are too stupid to understand the circular arguments explaining why he’s not really trans whereas other men who say they’re women are really trans.

If you’re righteous, you must argue that this man’s self-declared identity overrides any consideration of the safety and rights of females. To be godly, you must agree he’s as ‘valid’ as every other trans woman, because people are who they say they are. No matter what your eyes, ears and common sense are telling you, if you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history, you must pretend to believe that this angry, intimidating man is actually a vulnerable, oppressed woman.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

Thank you for being honest! I won't be urging you to kill yourself in return because I'm not a seriously disordered human being. Please do keep speaking out, though. Every little helps in highlighting trans activism's ever-present wish of death and violence on its opponents ♥️

[memetic_sisyphus @memeticsisyphus]

>Muslim shoots Jews enjoying the beach.
>Jews hold memorial for those shot.
>Muslim come to support shooters. >Internet calls the Muslim courageous.

What a beautiful microcosm of the Palestine issue.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Ahmad attacks people at a Pride Parade because Islam. White liberal woman with aposematic hair coloring concludes white men are to blame. Suicidal Empathy is a fatal disease of the human spirit.

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

@MarkRuffalo You are misinformed. On war, laws of armed conflict, the process of international law, what happened in Gaza. Who did what. Just about all of it and blindly using your platform to push misinformation is wrong. https://t.co/tM8UWXKyJz

[Brief Summary @AviB1]

The 🐐 has finally joined X! 🤴

[Jensen Huang @JensenHuang]

For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter.

AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country.

Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.

The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.

https://t.co/AUKzoQ5Ikb

[1/4 Black Garrett @QTRBlackGarrett]

Left wingers when they see an accurately adapted story

[Simon Wiesenthal Center @simonwiesenthal]

Mayor Mamdani did not simply express a personal political opinion. He used the authority, symbolism, and credibility of the mayor’s office to issue what amounted to an official public address declaring that the democratically elected leader of the world’s only Jewish state is a ‘war criminal’ who is ‘not welcome in New York City.’ That is a profound misuse of the office entrusted to him by all New Yorkers.

After acknowledging that New York City has no independent legal authority to execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant, the mayor nevertheless chose to transform that legal reality into a televised political spectacle. Respect for the separation of powers and the legal limits of public office is a bedrock of American democracy; those limits should not be treated as an inconvenience to be exploited for political theater.

Perhaps most telling was what the mayor chose to leave out. His address made no mention of Hamas or the October 7 massacre of innocent civilians. Instead, he delivered a sweeping moral indictment of Israel while erasing the terrorist atrocities that ignited this war. Appeals to universal humanity and justice ring hollow when they exclude the victims whose suffering does not fit a preferred political narrative.

This is no longer simply about Prime Minister Netanyahu. It reflects a broader pattern in which Mayor Mamdani repeatedly singles out Israel while using the prestige of his office to legitimize rhetoric that further isolates the Jewish state and deepens division here at home. At a time when Jewish New Yorkers are experiencing alarming levels of antisemitism, harassment and intimidation, they deserve a mayor who refrains from fomenting hatred against the world’s only Jewish country while maintaining the fiction that this is not anti-Jewish.

Throughout his campaign, Mayor Mamdani repeatedly insisted that his responsibility as mayor would be to focus on New York City and the issues affecting New Yorkers. New Yorkers elected him to make their neighborhoods safer, combat hate and unite a diverse city, not to conduct foreign policy or transform City Hall into a stage for ideological declarations about world leaders.

New Yorkers elected a mayor, not a prosecutor of foreign leaders. Mayor Mamdani should spend less time trying to demonize only one leader and one country from City Hall and more time protecting the New Yorkers he was elected to serve.

#Mamdani #MayorMamdani #Israel

[Brief Summary @AviB1]

@RobertKennedyJr No FDA-approved product exists for tapering off benzodiazepines or antidepressants.
Patients split pills with knives.

Extalvo is preparing an FDA submission for the first precision tapering platform, sub-milligram liquid dosing.
HHS is convening a Technical Expert Panel on tapering this month. Who at MAHA Action handles pharma policy?
Would value fifteen minutes.

[Ben Shapiro @benshapiro]

Mao Zedong is responsible for at least 40 million deaths. Hasan Piker loves him.

And The New York Times, Democratic candidates, Zohran Mamdani, Bernie Sanders, the Pod Save America bros and all the rest of these Left-wing cowards treat Piker as a vital voice.

This is nothing new.

Dostoevsky spoke about communist and anarchist radicals and the Left-wingers who supported them in The Demons.

"I could make them go through fire,” one of his terrorist leaders says. “One has only to din it into them that they are not advanced enough."

Human nature doesn't change. Only the means of informational distribution.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Perfectly stated. @MarkRuffalo is the worst kind of hypocritical champagne socialist whilst orgiastically stuffing himself at the table of capitalism.

[Aɴᴛ @AntSpeaks]

Hey Mark, you're worth around $35 million while continuing to land major Hollywood roles. You could donate $25-30 million tomorrow and still live an extremely comfortable life for the rest of your days.

At a conservative 4% safe withdrawal rate, even a remaining $5-10 million would generate roughly $200,000-$400,000 a year in passive income, several times what the average family earns. On top of that, you own multiple luxury properties, including a New York penthouse reportedly worth around $7 million, and you're still taking on film roles that pay millions.

Lecturing others while sitting on tens of millions yourself is peak Hollywood...

As for Elon, his charitable giving has far exceeded your entire net worth tenfold. And as for the idea that he can simply "solve world hunger" by writing one giant cheque only demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of how global hunger actually works. It's not a problem that disappears because one wealthy person transfers money into the system.

You need a basic economics lesson and a mirror, because your hypocrisy is matched only by your lack of self-awareness.