BarbarianPhilosopher

My pronouns are who/you/my.

[Christian Heiens 🏛 @ChristianHeiens]

“Sorry junior, you didn’t get straight As this semester, so I’m putting you up for adoption and hiring a Chinese kid as your replacement.

This family is a meritocracy, and if I kept you in this role as my son rather than bringing in best and brightest to compete with the rest of the other families on the bloc, that would be DEI.”

[Jammles @jammles9]

This is Kate Dineen, President and CEO of A Better City in Massachusetts, she gave her aborted baby the middle name “Lee” to honor the doctor who killed him.

She helped push the late-term abortion bill that the Massachusetts governor signed yesterday.

At 33 weeks, she and her husband drove to Maryland so late-term abortionist LeRoy “Lee” Carhart could inject potassium chloride straight into their son’s heart and stop it.

Painful for the unborn baby.

Why?

A neurologist told her the baby had a catastrophic stroke and might end up with serious disabilities.

Those claims could only be fully checked after he was born.

Instead of waiting for his birth, they aborted him.

She turned the abortion of her own viable son into a political talking point and used it to change the law.

This is beyond fkn evil.

[Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 @Tablesalt13]

My favourite story of the week?

The Miss Universe Pageant where a contestant was GRILLED for wearing native clothing

and Canadians were told VERY CLEARLY that NO non-native is to wear native clothing

but then we found out it was purchased from a native fashion designer

so now, there's a fear based de-facto leftist boycott on native clothing designers who can only sell to 5% of the population.

Whoopsies!

[Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1]

And remember, the whites having kids are the ones on our side

Progressivism is breeding itself out of existence as its strongest soldiers and most reliable allies increasingly fail to reproduce, and thus lose the biomass edge on which Bioleninism has to rely because the quality of its adherrents is so much lower

Yes, this is a long-term battle. Yes, things are now far from ideal, and far from assured. Yes, we need to make sure that our kids stay on-side.

But this is a very bright spot. The enemy is destroying itself by failing to show up for the future, and is falling more and more behind every day

Everything that can be done to accelerate this should be done

[BarbarianPhilosopher @UntamedThinker]

@kangminlee Here's the test: Ask people who were born into poverty or otherwise less-than-ideal circumstances, do they regret being born? Do they think it preferable they'd have been aborted?

If no, they see to think their life worth living, despite whatever challenges.

[Ethical Skeptic ☀ @EthicalSkeptic]

A signal has manifested in the Symptoms, signs & abnormal clinical & lab findings ICD-10 hold code (R00-R99).

A new record excess mortality was set as of Week 30 of 2026 = 73.8% excess as compared to historical baseline.

This is the mortality bucket which holds deaths that are not easy to categorize - typically younger-person natural cause deaths needing additional scrutiny.

Around 30% of this is cancer-related.

Notice that this rise began two weeks after the covid vaccine began rollout to the public.

Bears watching...

[Driftwood @buc97552]

There are people sitting in jail right now for Facebook posts that “offended” someone.

But if you’re the lead diversity, inclusion and belonging representative at the Royal College of Physicians, get pulled over 3 times above the drink-drive limit, drag a police officer along the road with your Range Rover and leave him with permanent injuries… you get a suspended sentence and walk free.

Two-tier justice isn’t a theory.

https://t.co/ELR1IVaJLT

[Mike Kobe (Wild Horse) 🪶🇺🇸 @Oklahoma_Brave]

This is the country they took from you.

This was California in the 80s:

[Jona Walk @JonaWalk]

Yesterday @bmj_latest retracted a paper on Covid-19 and excess mortality. There were no methodological, data or analysis flaws in the paper. The BMJ's reason? They found the discussion 'unbalanced'. They came to that conclusion not during editorial consideration or extensive peer review, but long after the paper had been published. The real reason for retraction can be found in their earlier 'expression of concern': the editors disagreed with how the paper was presented in the media - not by the authors themselves, but by journalists. That is a political and not a scientific reason. With this decision the BMJ adds yet another dangerous precedent in these times of increasing political interference in scientific research. @prinsesmaximac @BMJPublicHealth

A few days ago we wrote a letter to the editorial board arguing against this retraction:

[FoxyFarmer🦊🇺🇸 @GardensR4Health]

🚨It is a DARK DAY when the womb becomes the scariest place for a human to exist

Same week Democrats in Massachusetts legalized abortions up to birth, an ultrasound has gone viral

An unborn BABY girl smiles after hearing her father's voice

[Ethical Skeptic ☀ @EthicalSkeptic]

Everyone must remember that we are still experiencing Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Mortality of ~ 2700 deaths per week as of Week 18 of 2026, and rising into the summer months.

As the astute may notice, TES's models now 6+ years out, are DEAD ON ACCURATE ... The PFE is expressing almost exactly as we predicted. Actuarial agencies rewrote their training based upon TES's Covid analyses over the years.

We are closing in on 1 million Americans killed by an unacknowledged factor.

Something has been killing younger Americans to the excess for 5 years continuous now - since the mRNA vaccine inflection date of Week 14 2021 - and it is not Covid.

[Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra]

Algerian invader jailed in Valencia for beating a man into a coma, has now been accused of raping a homeless woman for 2 days.

Detained 18 times since invading Spain in 2020, subjected to a final deportation order that was never enforced.

More blood on dirty Sánchez hands!

[Joey Salads @JoeySalads]

Two years ago, Kamala Harris and the Democrats called it “ridiculous” that Republicans accused them of wanting abortions up until birth.

Today 10 states allow just that.

[Jeffrey A Tucker @jeffreytucker]

Here is a link without the paywall. Read this!

https://t.co/aAKHeGAhoC

[BarbarianPhilosopher @UntamedThinker]

@xwanyex You can be pro-meritocracy or anti-letting-your-wife-see-if-I-can-fuck-her-better-than-you, but you can't be both.

[wanye @xwanyex]

People think there's some kind of escape hatch the other side of which exists magic words you can employ to produce vaguely positive feelings in the listener and then you don't have to make your values explicit.

But meritocracy is just as much when Paul Graham and some MMA guy fight to the death with their fists as it is who can fund the best webapps.

You can't just say the word "meritocracy" and have it mean anything. You have to tell me what you value and why and then we can decide if the best way to get that is to have people compete to get it and on what terms.

And we can likewise decide whether there are any limits to that competition; that is to say, whether there are any things we cherish so much that we won't wager them in the ring (e.g. our family, our religion, maybe even our nation).

[Aimee Terese @aimeeterese]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the right that exists for the left is a psychic container in which they dump thier disowned shadow. We are a “bad object” they’re not attempting to understand, but to endow with all the undesirable qualities they disavow in themselves.

[Clerpatriot @clerpatriot]

Please tell me you caught this…..

You’ve all seen the viral video of Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signing the bill that allows abortion up to birth right?

But did you notice this one specific woman’s reaction?
She’s laughing, clapping, and beaming like she just won the lottery.

Not somber or conflicted….not even quiet.

You cannot convince me that this isn’t demonic.

A room full of grown women treating the removal of any limit on ending a fully formed, viable baby’s life like a party.

Watch it again. Focus on her face.

This is what they celebrate now.

[Garrick Sapp @ricksapp]

1/11
"Claude treats white erasure as the one erasure it won't plainly call wrong."

More serious than anti-Southern bias. Shocking.

I am documenting the process of how Claude got to this point in this thread. But first how does Claude think a moral human would react. ⬇️

[Chris Turner @leadfreeH2OinDC]

Supergrok steelman:

Steelman of the position that Naomi Wolf is correct and that standard dismissals (including prior Grok responses) miss critical context from the Pfizer documents and related analysis in The Pfizer Papers (Daily Clout / War Room volunteers’ work compiling and interpreting the FOIA-released materials).

The strongest version of the argument runs as follows:Pfizer’s own post-authorization cumulative analysis (the 5.3.6 report covering data through 28 February 2021) is not ordinary passive surveillance noise. It is the company’s internal safety database of reports submitted to regulators under the emergency use framework. In that dataset there were 270 pregnancy cases. Outcomes were obtained and recorded for only a small subset (approximately 34). Of those tracked cases, 28 ended in spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or neonatal death—producing the ~82% figure. One normal outcome and a handful of “pending” cases make up the rest. This is not a random sample of all vaccinated pregnancies; it is the set of cases Pfizer did follow to a known endpoint.

When a company with full pharmacovigilance resources and regulatory obligations tracks a group of pregnancies and finds an 80%+ loss rate among the completed ones, that constitutes a massive safety signal that cannot be waved away by invoking “bias toward reporting problems.” The bias argument assumes the missing cases were mostly uneventful; the documented track record of the known cases supplies no reason to believe that.

The claim that the other ~236 outcomes were simply “incomplete follow-up standard in spontaneous reporting systems” is, on this view, inadequate. Under the conditions of an emergency authorization for a novel product being given to large numbers of people of reproductive age, Pfizer had affirmative duties to pursue complete pregnancy outcome data. Losing or failing to obtain results for the large majority is not a neutral technical detail; it is a failure (or worse) that itself warrants scrutiny. The high loss rate in the cases that were followed makes the gaps more, not less, suspicious. In ordinary drug safety practice, a signal of this magnitude in the known outcomes would trigger intensified follow-up, temporary restrictions, or further investigation—not a conclusion of “no safety signals.” The fact that the report itself noted the cases and still claimed no signal is evidence of institutional failure or capture rather than reassurance.Later observational studies, registries (v-safe and others), and meta-analyses that report ~10–14% rates matching background levels do not refute the document signal for several reinforcing reasons. Many of those studies disproportionately include women vaccinated in the second or third trimester, when baseline miscarriage risk has already dropped sharply; first-trimester exposure—the period of highest vulnerability—is underrepresented or diluted. Healthy-vaccinee bias, differential healthcare-seeking behavior, short follow-up windows that miss some early losses, residual confounding by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, and strong institutional and professional incentives to affirm safety all systematically bias results toward the null. Population-level birth-rate declines in multiple countries in the months after widespread rollout, contemporaneous reports of menstrual disruption, and other reproductive signals in the broader Pfizer document set (as compiled and analyzed in The Pfizer Papers) form a coherent pattern consistent with the early pregnancy data rather than isolated anomalies.The documents further show Pfizer was aware of maternal exposure effects, cases involving breast-milk transmission concerns, neonatal issues attributed to maternal vaccination, and other reproductive findings, yet these were not treated as reasons to restrict use in pregnancy or to demand rigorous prospective tracking. Independent clinicians who reviewed the same materials (for example, analyses associated with the Daily Clout/War Room effort) reached conclusions aligned with the high observed loss rate among tracked cases. Dismissing the 28/34 figure as a simple “miscalculation” or “selection bias” therefore requires accepting that an extreme signal in a company’s own completed-outcome data can be ignored because the untracked majority is assumed benign and because later studies with their own methodological limitations are preferred. That stance prioritizes narrative consistency over the primary data that regulators and the manufacturer possessed at the earliest stage of mass https://t.co/oAy2I1ZRXV short, the strongest argument holds that the known-outcome subset is the most informative piece of the early evidence precisely because it is the subset that was followed; the scale of losses there, combined with the large volume of untracked cases and the wider documentary record of reproductive findings, indicates a real and serious problem that subsequent literature has not adequately confronted. The book and associated document analyses supply the detailed primary-source grounding for treating the 82% figure as a genuine red flag rather than a statistical artifact.(Note: I do not have direct access to the full text of the copyrighted book The Pfizer Papers and therefore cannot quote or reconstruct substantial portions of it. The steelman above is constructed from the publicly reiterated claims, the underlying Pfizer 5.3.6 numbers that are consistently cited, and the interpretive framing advanced by Wolf and the associated researchers.)