Rob

[Rob @Draper_dude]

@freddiesayers So the lesson you learned is that low quality foreign scum from “certain” countries prey on vulnerable white girls, right?

[Rob @Draper_dude]

@ConceptualJames Why wouldn’t you be a fan of a guy who is advancing humanity’s tech so much and benefits us all?

[Tom Woods @ThomasEWoods]

After 7 decades of "civil rights" activism, we have a huge black population that believes murder ought to be legal if against a white person.

Black students ought to pretend to be white on college applications, since we are said to live in a "white supremacist" society. Strangely, they do not.

That's because the truth is this: white people, in the 7 decades since the civil rights movement, crippled their own children with preferential policies that favored much less qualified black applicants in schooling and employment.

Any qualification that blacks couldn't meet at the same rate as whites had to be thrown out (or you bankrupt yourself in court by trying to show, with a team of vulture lawyers after you, that the requirement was absolutely necessary).

Countless jurisdictions have had to throw out entry exams entirely after no amount of dumbing them down could get enough black students to pass them.

The campaign against "gifted and talented" programs, meanwhile, has been driven partly by the "disparate impact" doctrine.

You've heard some of the news items. Seattle phased out its "highly capable cohort" (separate accelerated classes/schools) starting around 2021-2022, and aimed for full phase-out by 2027-2028 (with some delays). The rationale? Addressing "historical inequity" and overrepresentation of white and Asian students.

Your student can't have those programs because we've decided there are too many people in them who look like him.

Rockville Centre, New York, has long moved away from gifted tracking toward mixed-ability classes. San Francisco Unified delayed Algebra I and eliminated honors/gifted math tracks for "equity" purposes. We could go on and on.

Even though some of America's most politically "progressive" people are in education, and despite repeated and aggressive (and expensive) efforts across the country, no school district anywhere in America, no matter how progressive, has ever managed to eliminate the black-white educational achievement gap, which by 12th grade is estimated as a four-year difference.

And vastly fewer black students percentage-wise choose to take advanced-placement classes even in school systems in which such classes are open to anyone.

Given that nobody anywhere has been able to solve this problem, why, apart from hatred and spite, should bright students be singled out to be deprived of a program that benefits them?

The disparities are evident even at the very beginning of the educational process. The National Center for Educational Statistics found that blacks entering kindergarten we're already disproportionately testing in the bottom, quarter of students in reading, math, and general knowledge.

Behavioral differences are also evident that early, and they persist to the future. On average, black students are much less likely than whites to be described by kindergarten teachers as a tentative, eager to learn, and persistent in carrying out assigned tasks, and they are more likely to be described as argumentative, quick tempered, and violent.

These discipline disparities persist over time. Later in life blacks are 2 1/2 times as likely to be suspended or expelled from school as whites.

Faced with statistics, like these, so-called civil rights groups, typically accuse white teachers of arbitrarily, singling out blacks for punishment. To the contrary, black teachers have been found to be even more critical of black students than white teachers are.

Moreover, Asian students are less than half as likely as whites to be suspended or expelled, and it is unreasonable to ask us to believe that an anti-white, pro-Asian bias permeates the American educational system.

And educational disparities between the races persist even when social class is taken into account, so that comfortable explanation doesn't work.

The crime statistics tell us everything: if you based your opinions on TV or the movies, you would think the big problem in America is white-on-black violence. In fact, the reality is so overwhelmingly the opposite that most people would be shocked to learn the real numbers.

Per 10,000 whites, 3.4 violent crimes are committed against blacks. Per 10,000 blacks, 153 violent crimes are committed against whites.

As time has gone on, special accommodations for blacks, and disabilities placed on whites, have only grown more intense.

In 2023 the percentage of white men in tenure-track faculty positions at Harvard declined from 39 percent in 2014 to 18 percent. That doesn't happen by accident.

Oh, who cares about Harvard faculty, some will say.

But it reflects a society-wide problem. Here are some other numbers we now know, that also incorporate the anti-male bias in hiring:

TV/Hollywood Writers: White men comprised roughly 48% of lower-level TV writers in 2011, dropping to 11.9% by 2024.

Medical school matriculants: White men accounted for 31% in 2014, declining to 20.5% in 2025.

The Atlantic staff: In 2013: 53% male / 89% white; by 2024: 36% male / 66% white.

University faculty hiring (tenure-track): At UC Berkeley, white men comprised 52.7% of new tenure-track faculty hires in 2015, dropping to 21.5% in 2023.

Humanities/social sciences faculty hires: UC Irvine hired 64 tenure-track assistant professors in humanities and social sciences since 2020 — only 3 (4.7%) were white men.

At UC Santa Cruz, of 59 assistant professors in Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (2020–2024), only 2 (3%) were white men.

Law school matriculants: White men accounted for 31.2% of law school matriculants in 2016, falling to 25.7% in 2024.

Corporate/tech entry- and mid-level (specifically Amazon): Entry-level “professionals” (college graduates) were 42.3% white male in 2014. By 2024, mid-level managers had fallen from 55.8% white male in 2014 to 33.8% (nearly 40% decline).

Tech workforce (specifically Google): White men represented nearly 50% of the workforce in 2014, dropping to less than one-third by 2024 (a roughly 34% relative decline).

Four years ago a survey of a thousand hiring managers in the United States came out that showed 16 percent of such managers had been expressly told to stop hiring white men.

Further, 48 percent of hiring managers say they have been instructed to prioritize "diversity" over merit, and 53% believe they will lose their jobs if they don’t hire accordingly.

All across the country there are special programs, of every shape and size, for minority applicants. If you had any idea of the scale of it, you would be shocked -- no matter how much you think you know about the subject.

Instead of the kind of gratitude you might expect from people who have benefited from the most systematic effort in any society to assist a minority group -- I haven't even mentioned the literal trillions in wealth redistribution -- it is never enough, and the recipients will scream "RACIST" in your face even for pointing any of this out.

We can hope that the Karmelo Anthony case accelerates the coming of the day when whites say: we have done everything humanly possible for you, and received only hatred and ingratitude in return. You are on your own now.

[Rob @Draper_dude]

@JohnCornyn Hey senator, securing our elections is hugely important to the people. Pass the SAVE Act!

[Fight With Memes @FightWithMemes]

This chart by the Data Boys pops somewhere every few months, and I think we all know why.

This chart is considered hate speech in half of Europe, and in California.

If this chart were considered carefully by the every day American, and by legislators, it could save lives.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Il faut avoir l'honnêteté de reconnaître le coup de génie de la gauche, parce que c'en est un. Le plus grand hold-up rhétorique du siècle tient en un seul mot : raciste.

Voici le mécanisme.

Après 1945, après les droits civiques, l'Occident a fait du racisme le mal absolu. À juste titre : c'est une de ses plus grandes conquêtes morales. « Raciste » est devenu le mot le plus radioactif de la langue, l'excommunication moderne, la mort sociale instantanée.

Le coup de génie a été de détourner ce capital moral. Pas pour protéger des personnes : pour protéger une idéologie.

L'égalitarisme des résultats ne gagne jamais un débat sur les faits. Il produit l'inverse de ce qu'il promet, partout, à chaque fois. Alors plutôt que de gagner le débat, on a rendu le débat impayable. Tu questionnes les résultats de l'immigration sans assimilation ? Raciste. Tu défends le mérite ? Raciste. Les maths avancées ? Racistes. Les frontières ? Racistes. Le mot a cessé de décrire un comportement pour décrire une position sur l'échiquier.

Et regardez la beauté technique du dispositif. Pas besoin d'arguments : l'accusation suffit. Pas besoin de procès : la dénégation aggrave le cas (votre défensivité prouve votre culpabilité). Pas besoin de police : la peur fait le travail, chacun se surveille lui-même et surveille son voisin gratuitement. Il suffit d'exécuter publiquement quelques exemples par an pour tenir des millions de gens. Une idéologie irréfutable, protégée par un mot imprononçable. Les deux pare-feux du même système : la French Theory avait aboli la vérité, l'accusation a aboli le débat.

Est-ce qu'un comité s'est réuni pour concevoir ça ? Pas besoin. Les idées subissent une sélection darwinienne : celles qui survivent sont celles qui se défendent le mieux. Marcuse avait quand même déposé le brevet dès 1965, noir sur blanc : tolérance pour les mouvements de gauche, intolérance pour ceux de droite. Le reste a évolué tout seul. Il faut l'avouer : c'était génial.

Mais ce dispositif génial avait un coût, et le coût a un bilan. À Rotherham, le rapport officiel Jay a établi que des fonctionnaires britanniques ont laissé plus de 1 400 gamines se faire exploiter pendant seize ans, en partie par peur d'être traités de racistes s'ils nommaient les faits. Relisez cette phrase. Des enfants ont été sacrifiées à un mot. Voilà ce que veut dire idéologie mortifère : pas une métaphore, un bilan.

Et maintenant, regardez ce qui s'effondre sous nos yeux.

Une insulte ne fonctionne que si elle fait peur, et une monnaie ne fonctionne que si elle est rare. Ils ont imprimé le mot comme Weimar imprimait le mark. Quand tout est raciste, plus rien ne l'est. Résultat : des tweets qui commencent par « traitez-moi de raciste si vous voulez » récoltent des dizaines de milliers de likes et l'approbation de l'homme le plus riche du monde. Il y a dix ans, cette phrase était un suicide professionnel. Aujourd'hui, c'est un haussement d'épaules. L'hyperinflation a tué la monnaie.

Et voilà la vraie tragédie, que les faussaires devront porter : en imprimant le mot sans limite, ils l'ont brûlé pour tout le monde. Y compris pour nommer le vrai racisme quand il existe, car il existe. Les faux-monnayeurs ne détruisent pas que leur arme. Ils détruisent le mot dont une société honnête a besoin.

Privée de son mot magique, l'idéologie va maintenant devoir faire ce qu'elle n'a jamais su faire : gagner un débat sur les faits.

Elle ne le gagnera pas. Au travail.

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

Last year DOJ published a report.

For every 10,000 blacks, 153 violent crimes are committed by a black person each year against a white person.

The same figure for violent crimes committed by whites against a black person: 3.4.

A black person is 50-times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person than for a white person to commit a violent crime against a black person.

This is an extraordinary difference in the rates of violence committed between these two groups.

We are told that whites are systemically racist.

We are told that whites are successful because they oppress others.

But the facts tell the opposite story.

Blacks are not the ones being victimized.

Whites are.

Western civilization has been successful not because it was oppressive.

It has been successful because whites created, starting thousands of years ago, systems that are impartial and fair.

Today these systems are being dismantled.

Criminals are being released because of their skin color.

Law-abiding citizens are punished because of theirs.

All in service of an ideology that is simply false.

This puts everyone in danger.

[Rob @Draper_dude]

@LeaderJohnThune Then pass the SAVE Act to keep our country safe! You have zero good reason for not doing it. Quit being a coward.

[James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII]

🚨Los Angeles Election Fraud Caught on Hidden Camera

LA election petitioners were caught on tape giving homeless individuals other voters' information, instructing them to forge voter names and signatures, and offering cash and drugs as incentives to register to vote.

[C3 @C_3C_3]

A statistical anomaly that always goes one direction is not a statistical anomaly.

It’s fraud.

[Andrew Branca Show @TheBrancaShow]

About that school shooting lie:

[Darth Powell @VladTheInflator]

So let me get this straight.

100% of the enslavement was done by Africans.

Only 4% of the TOTAL trans atlantic slaves ended up in America.

Where only 1.3% of Americans had a slave at the peak of slavery.

Some of those slave owners were BLACK

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

California has more ballots left to count now than on Wednesday morning

Seems legit

[JD Vance @JDVance]

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit. His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.

Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last. Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response—the only response—is righteous anger. One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership. Anything else is an excuse.

It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it. We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children. And nobody—nobody—should ever die the way that Henry Nowak died. May God comfort those who loved him, and may God rest his soul.

[Rob @Draper_dude]

@japan_nobunaga Endless your quest may be, but this foreign heart respects your humble endeavor. I aspire to understand the noble Japanese culture with just a fraction of your wisdom.

[Rob @Draper_dude]

Henry could be alive if those cops weren’t brainwashed psychopaths.

[Adam Gwiazda @delestoile]

🟥 Czy Henry Nowak mógł przeżyć?
Dr Krzysztof Magier @DrMagier , lekarz pediatra i były konsul honorowy RP w Cowes, przeanalizował nagrania z policyjnej kamery nasobnej pokazujące śmierć Henry'ego Nowaka.
Dr Magier jest lekarzem prowadzącym oddział intensywnej terapii dziecięcej, z doświadczeniem w szkoleniach z medycyny pola walki oraz po specjalistycznym kursie leczenia ciężkich urazów (w tym ran postrzałowych i kłutych).
Nie zgadza się z opinią patologa i sędziego, że Henry Nowak nie miał żadnych szans na przeżycie i ze skucie go w kajdanki nic w zasadzie nie zmieniło. Wręcz przeciwnie – istnieje duże prawdopodobieństwo, że to interwencja policji przyczyniła się do jego śmierci.
Przeanalizował on raport z sekcji, który wskazuje na uszkodzenie żyły podobojczykowej jako główne źródło krwawienia i tłumaczy, gdzie leży problem.
U zdrowej osoby krwawienie żylne odbywa się pod niskim ciśnieniem i często samoogranicza się dzięki powstającemu naturalnie skrzepowi, a samo zbliżenie krawędzi rany i ucisk otaczających tkanek domyka żyłę na tyle, że spowalnia albo nawet zatrzymuje krwawienie.
Z nagrania z policyjnej kamery nasobnej wynika, że gdy policja przybyła na miejsce (prawdopodobnie 5-10 minut po zranieniu), Henry był na tyle przytomny, że mówił dość głośno. Nie był zatem jeszcze w stanie terminalnym. Po wykręceniu rąk do tyłu i skuciu za plecami najprawdopodobniej doszło do rozciągnięcia żyły, rozerwania skrzepu i gwałtownego nasilenia krwawienia. W ciągu zaledwie ok. trzech minut stracił przytomność i zmarł.
Osoby z podejrzeniem urazów wewnętrznych nigdy nie powinny być gwałtownie przemieszczane ani szarpane – takie działanie może zniszczyć naturalny skrzep i doprowadzić do masywnego krwotoku wewnętrznego.
Zamiast natychmiastowego wezwania zespołu ratownictwa medycznego i przekazania pacjenta w ręce ratowników, policja go skuła. Gdyby na miejscu jako pierwsi pojawili się paramedycy, szanse Henry’ego na przeżycie byłyby znacznie większe. "50%" - pisze dr Magier.
Ratownicy mogliby szybko założyć kroplówkę, podać płyny zwiększające objętość krwi krążącej oraz kwas traneksamowy stabilizujący skrzep, a w razie potrzeby wykonać dekompresję igłową (wkłucie grubej i długiej igły w płuco), bo problemem nie był tyle brak funkcji płuca, ale ucisk zalanego krwią płuca na serce i śródpiersie, który blokuje krążenie.
Co gorsza, incydent miał miejsce zaledwie kilka minut jazdy samochodem (2–3 minuty karetką na sygnale) od Southampton University Hospital – regionalnego Major Trauma Centre dysponującego pełnym zapleczem specjalistów, procedur i sprzętu. "Jestem przekonany, że gdyby Henry dotarł tam żywy, lekarze nie pozwoliliby mu umrzeć" - pisze dr Magier.
Podsumowując: agresywna interwencja policji, zamiast ratować życie, doprowadziła do śmierci przez nieodpowiednie postępowanie z ciężko ranionym człowiekiem, mimo że najwyższej klasy opieka była w zasięgu kilku minut. "Obawiam się, że Sędzia i patolog byli zbyt łaskawi dla policji" - pisze dr Magier.

[mike bski @BskiMike22802]

Let me ruin your June for a second.

Every year when National Gun Violence Awareness Month rolls around, the same people who have not read a single page of John Lott's 13,312-regression peer-reviewed study start posting pictures of children and demanding you feel responsible for deaths you did not cause and had nothing to do with.

So. Let us talk about children. Since they brought it up.

In 2006, the CDC recorded 642 accidental firearm deaths in the entire United States. For children under the age of ten — the number was 31. Thirteen under age five. Eighteen between five and nine.

Tragic? Absolutely. Every single one.

But here is the number that will not appear on a single "Orange Friday" awareness post: 80.

Eighty children under the age of five drown in bathtubs every year. Every. Single. Year.

ALMOST THREE TIMES as many children drown in bathtubs annually as die from ALL firearm accidents combined — including adults. And forty more drown in five-gallon water buckets. The kind you buy at Home Depot for $4.99.

I have given this information at talks and watched jaws drop, because people genuinely believe the number is in the thousands. They have been so thoroughly marinated in "gun violence awareness" content that their perception of actual risk is completely detached from reality. That is not an accident. That is the point of the campaign.

Where is Bathtub Awareness Month? Where is the congressional hearing on five-gallon bucket control? Where is the hashtag? Where are the orange ribbons for the children who drowned while their parents were in the next room?

There are none. Because the campaign was never about children. It was never about safety. If it were about safety, they would be equally outraged about cars — which killed 1,305 children that same year. Or fire. Or drowning. But they are not. The selective fury lands exclusively on firearms. And if you are a scientist, which I happen to be, you do not get to cherry-pick your data based on which conclusion you prefer. Quinn's Law Number Six: facts are the enemy of liberalism.

Now let us talk about what the actual data says about guns and safety, because John Lott ran 13,000-plus statistical regressions across every county in America and the results are not ambiguous.

Fifty-six percent of convicted felons surveyed in a ten-state study said they would NOT attack a target they believed was armed. Fifty-six percent. The deterrence is real, it is documented, and it functions whether or not a shot is ever fired. The firearm you carry protects your neighbor whether your neighbor knows it or not.

When states passed right-to-carry laws, multiple-victim public shootings — what the media insists on calling "mass shootings" to maximize terror — dropped by 67 percent. Deaths in those events dropped by 75 percent. Injuries by 81 percent. States that adopted these laws virtually ELIMINATED mass public shootings within four to five years. The remaining events? They happened almost exclusively in the specific locations where guns remained banned. The gun-free zones. The places we hang the sign that only the law-abiding ever read.

There were between 760,000 and 3.6 million defensive gun uses in the United States last year alone, depending on which of fifteen national polls you consult. A JAMA Network Open study from March 2025 estimated 489,000 DGUs in which a firearm was actually discharged. The Department of Justice's own National Crime Victimization Survey puts the conservative floor at 65,000 defensive uses per year against assaults, robberies, and home invasions.

No dead body. No coverage. No awareness month.

Here is one more number for you: 74. Seventy-four percent of convicted felons in a National Institute of Justice survey said they actively avoided homes they believed were occupied by armed residents. Criminals respond to incentives. That is not ideology — that is basic deterrence theory, and it is confirmed by the people who actually commit the crimes.

I also want you to think carefully about something the Supreme Court already settled. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989). Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). Two separate rulings establishing that the government has NO legal obligation to protect you as an individual. None. You are your own first responder. That is not my opinion — that is settled constitutional law from the highest court in this country.

So the political class that just told you the government is not required to protect you... is also the one demanding you surrender the tool you use to protect yourself.

I want fewer people dead. That is why I know the data. That is why I read the book. That is why I am furious every June when emotion and fundraising replace science and evidence in a "debate" that has actual life-or-death consequences for real people.

You want to honor the children? Honor ALL of them. The ones who drowned. The ones who died in car crashes. And the ones who will never be born because a woman alone in her house at 2 a.m. had no way to stop what was coming through her door.

But what do I know — I am only a published textbook author, a science teacher, a father of four, and a combat medic who spent his career reducing human suffering and who actually read the peer-reviewed data before forming an opinion.

IF you agree:
LIKE this post so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it.
SHARE this.
COMMENT below — did you know the bathtub number? Or did the narrative keep that from you? Tell me.

And if you want MORE of this -- the data, the history, the science, the stories -- JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or YouTube.

#MAGA #Veterans #Trump
@JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je me suis longtemps passionné pour la psychologie, et une période m'obsède plus que toutes les autres.

L'après-guerre.

Le moment où des chercheurs se sont posé la question la plus dérangeante du siècle: comment l'Allemagne nazie avait-elle transformé des pères de famille ordinaires en bourreaux de camp?

La réponse, ils ne l'ont pas trouvée chez des monstres. Ils l'ont trouvée chez des hommes parfaitement banals.

Hannah Arendt a appelé ça la banalité du mal. L'historien Christopher Browning, en étudiant le bataillon de réserve 101 (des policiers d'âge mûr, des pères, des commerçants), a montré que ce ne sont pas des fanatiques qui ont fusillé des civils, mais des hommes normaux incapables de désobéir au cadre dominant.

Puis vint Milgram. À Yale, environ deux tiers de gens ordinaires ont infligé ce qu'ils croyaient être des décharges mortelles, simplement parce qu'une autorité en blouse blanche le leur ordonnait. L'expérience de la prison de Stanford a montré la même chose sous un autre angle: donnez à quelqu'un un rôle et un cadre, et il s'y conformera jusqu'à l'inhumain.

La leçon n'est pas allemande. Elle est humaine.

Le mécanisme s'active dès qu'un cadre moral dominant fait craindre la sanction sociale plus que ne compte le témoignage de ses propres yeux. L'individu cesse de voir ce qu'il voit. Il voit ce que le cadre l'autorise à voir.

Maintenant, regardez Southampton.

Henry Nowak, 18 ans, poignardé, allongé au sol, répète aux policiers « j'ai été poignardé », « je ne peux plus respirer ».

Réponse de l'officier: « I don't think you have, mate. »

Pendant ce temps, son meurtrier retourne la situation d'une phrase: il aurait été victime d'une agression raciste. Quatre mots ont suffi pour déplacer le soupçon de l'agresseur vers la victime.

Et l'officier a obéi. Pas à un ordre. À un cadre.

Un cadre qui lui a appris, pendant des années, qu'une plainte pour racisme est l'accusation la plus dangereuse de sa carrière. Plus dangereuse, dans son réflexe conditionné, qu'un corps qui se vide de son sang devant lui.

Exactement le mécanisme de Milgram, de Browning. Un homme normal qui cesse de croire ses propres yeux parce qu'un cadre moral lui a appris ce qu'il devait craindre.

C'est précisément ça qui me terrifie.

Souvenez-vous: le monde entier s'est agenouillé pour quatre mots, « I can't breathe ». Des entreprises, des gouvernements, des stades entiers.

Henry a prononcé les mêmes mots, en train de mourir. Il n'y aura ni genou à terre, ni hashtag, ni minute de silence.

Parce que sa mort ne sert pas le cadre. Elle le contredit.

Et un système qui apprend à une société entière à faire passer l'accusation de racisme avant les faits, avant le corps, avant la vie, n'est pas une posture morale inoffensive.

C'est une machine à fabriquer des hommes qui, face à un enfant en train de mourir, choisissent les menottes.

[Paul Weston @PWestoff]

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
@policeconduct - the @HantsPolice officers are using their shields as weapons, including the edges, as they mob beat lone individuals. Is this legal? Do you condone police officers shouting "I'm going to fuck you up" before they mob beat lone men?

You seem to have completely lost control of Hants Police who are operating well outside the law. I am a 63 year-old middle-class man. I admired and defended the British police for most of my life - up until Covid, actually.

But I fear you and hate you now. You have become something last seen in Ceausescu's Romania where his Securitate thugs gang-beat their victims. You have now lost the country and the consent of the British people. You are our enemy, and the enemy of decency, bravery, courage, and civilisation itself. God Damn all of you to hell you vicious sub-human scum. @elonmusk