Timothy Nelms

antiwokeretireddoctorfatherathletetravlerhumamist

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois intellectuels qui, dans les années 60, pondent des livres illisibles au fond d'amphis parisiens. Aucun n'a jamais tenu une arme. Aucun n'a jamais entendu parler de Southampton.

Et pourtant, soixante ans plus tard, c'est leur idée qui tient la main qui menotte Henry Nowak, 18 ans, pendant qu'il se vide de son sang.

Comment passe-t-on de l'un à l'autre? Il n'y a pas de hasard. Il y a une ligne droite. Je vais vous la dérouler, maillon par maillon.

Premier maillon. Ces philosophes lâchent une idée d'apparence inoffensive: la vérité ne serait jamais neutre, ce serait toujours une construction du pouvoir. Donc on pourrait, et on devrait, se méfier des faits eux-mêmes. Ils n'ont pas voulu ce qui allait suivre. Mais ils ont armé un mécanisme: le soupçon généralisé envers le réel.

Deuxième maillon. Cette idée traverse l'Atlantique et mute dans les universités américaines. Elle rencontre une impulsion noble, la repentance, reconnaître des injustices historiques réelles. Et elle la transforme en tout autre chose: une hiérarchie morale permanente. Des groupes classés selon leur degré supposé de victimité. Oppresseurs d'un côté, opprimés de l'autre. Pour toujours.

Troisième maillon, et c'est là que tout bascule. Une fois qu'on classe les gens par groupe, on cesse de les juger par leurs actes. On les juge par leur catégorie. La crédibilité n'est plus méritée, elle est assignée d'avance.

Quatrième maillon. Black Lives Matter en fut l'apogée liturgique. « I can't breathe » devient une formule sacrée. La règle implicite: croire d'office la victime désignée, soupçonner d'office l'oppresseur désigné. Avant les faits. À la place des faits.

Comprenez bien ce qu'on installe là. Pas une opinion. Un réflexe. Un automatisme cognitif gravé dans des institutions entières: l'accusation venue de la « bonne » catégorie l'emporte sur ce que vous voyez de vos propres yeux.

Et un réflexe, on sait ce que ça fait à des hommes ordinaires.

Je me suis longtemps passionné pour la psychologie, et une période m'obsède: 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 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, rejouez la scène de Southampton au ralenti.

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, on lui aurait arraché son turban. L'officier n'a pas vu Henry. Il a vu deux catégories. D'un côté, un homme qui dégaine le script de l'agression raciste, crédible par défaut. De l'autre, un jeune homme blanc à terre, sans grief à brandir, sans formule sacrée à réciter, suspect par défaut.

Le cadre a choisi à sa place. Il n'a même pas eu à réfléchir. C'est ça, le conditionnement: la pensée a déjà eu lieu, avant 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.

René Girard avait tout décrit. Le coupable détourne sa faute en désignant un bouc émissaire, et le système l'accepte d'autant plus volontiers qu'il colle au rôle attendu. Henry n'a pas été cru parce qu'il ne pouvait pas jouer la victime. Sa catégorie le lui interdisait.

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 exactement 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.

Voilà l'inversion finale, et la plus monstrueuse. Une idéologie née en promettant de protéger les vulnérables a fini par apprendre à des hommes à ignorer la personne la plus vulnérable de la pièce, celle qui agonise, parce que sa catégorie n'était pas la bonne.

Et le vrai piège, c'est de croire que l'erreur aurait été de choisir le mauvais camp. Non. L'erreur, c'est de choisir des camps. De voir des catégories là où il y a un être humain qui saigne devant soi.

De Foucault à Southampton, voilà la ligne droite. Soixante ans pour qu'une idée abstraite apprenne à un homme à ne plus voir un enfant mourir sous ses yeux.

Henry Nowak n'avait rien demandé. Il demandait juste qu'on le voie.

Personne ne l'a vu.

[Karen Vaites @karenvaites]

“We are admitting a cohort that cannot read at a college level and are pretending otherwise.”

Another college professor adds to the chorus of concern about student capacity.

In @chronicle:

“Six weeks into the term, I assigned my rhetoric and writing students a 20-page article. It was the same length I had assigned for five years and the same length I had read without complaint as an undergraduate a decade ago. Not one student finished it.

When I asked why, a student answered honestly: It was too long, and she kept losing track of what the paper was about. This was not a remedial class: These were students who had cleared the admissions process and written essays good enough to get them here. Yet a routine academic reading assignment had defeated them.

Every generation of professors has complained that their students cannot read. The lament is usually overblown, but data have caught up to anecdote, and what I am seeing in my classroom is no longer a hunch. There is a measurable, generational collapse in sustained reading and writing, and the academy is responding to it with improvisation and exhaustion rather than the structural overhaul it requires.

In February 2024, Adam Kotsko, who teaches in the Shimer Great Books School at North Central College, wrote in Slate that students who once handled 30 pages of reading per class meeting now seem “intimidated by anything over 10 pages and seem to walk away from readings of as little as 20 pages with no real understanding.” Crucially, he added that this is “not a matter of laziness on the part of the students” but of underlying skills they were never given a chance to build.

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s 2024 investigation found the same pattern across institutions as different as the Stevens Institute of Technology and Wellesley College, where the average SAT exceeds 1400. Nicholaus Gutierrez, an assistant professor at Wellesley, told The Chronicle that the baseline for what students consider a reasonable amount of work has dropped so noticeably that he has cut his readings accordingly; a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long. At Stevens, the science and technology studies associate professor Theresa MacPhail described following the mantra of “meet your students where they are” for so long that she has begun to feel “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard.”

Worse, the national data tell the same story in colder language. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment, which is the most recent comprehensive writing benchmark, only 24 percent of 12th graders reached the Proficient level, and just 3 percent reached Advanced; another 21 percent scored below Basic. The reading side of the ledger is worse, and getting worse fast: The 2024 NAEP results released in September 2025 show 12th-grade reading scores at the lowest level recorded since the assessment began in 1992. Thirty-two percent of 12th graders now score below NAEP Basic in reading, meaning that, in the assessment’s own language, they likely “cannot draw general conclusions based on concepts presented explicitly in a text.” And yet more than half of these same seniors reported being accepted to a four-year college. That last sentence is the whole problem in one line: We are admitting a cohort that cannot read at a college level and are pretending otherwise.”

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I challenge every single person who believes minors should be enabled and even encouraged to transition to read this first person testimony to the end.

1/3

via @IWF https://t.co/3276o4tg8J

[Colin Wright @SwipeWright]

We're saving science from ideological capture!

I am thrilled to announce a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review” in the journal Theory and Society.

The journal's editor-in-chief, Kevin McCaffree, and I have been working on this for a while, and it was finally approved by @SpringerNature.

The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.

A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.

Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?

If yes, it gets published.

And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.

That’s how science is supposed to work!

Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.

That’s what we’ve done.

Now it’s time for academics to use it.
🔗https://t.co/gqkDE79CO4

[Timothy Nelms @timothynelms]

@JohnCleese absolutely YES

[Helen Joyce @HJoyceGender]

This judgment should send shockwaves through NHS and beyond. It is to my knowledge the 1st to decide that allowing trans identifying men into women's workplace facilities is in itself discrimination and harassment against women.

[Handre @Handre]

George Bernard Shaw stood in Stalin's USSR in 1931, watching millions starve to death, and declared there was no famine at all. The Nobel Prize-winning playwright didn't just stay silent about the horror unfolding around him. He actively promoted the lie that would help Stalin cover up one of history's greatest atrocities.

Shaw toured Ukraine during the height of the Holodomor, when Soviet grain requisitions had stripped peasants of every scrap of food. Conservative estimates put the death toll at 3.5 million Ukrainians. Shaw saw the empty villages, the skeletal survivors, the mass graves. Then he signed a public letter praising Stalin's "remarkable progress" and told Western journalists that reports of famine were capitalist propaganda.

Why would an intelligent man become Stalin's useful idiot? Shaw believed in central planning with religious fervor. He thought brilliant intellectuals like himself could design society better than millions of individuals making their own choices. When confronted with central planning's inevitable result (mass death), he chose to lie rather than admit his ideology killed people. Shaw preferred beautiful theory to ugly facts.

Shaw deliberately used his celebrity status to give Stalin cover while Ukrainian children died of starvation. He returned to Britain and spent years defending Soviet policies, even as refugee testimonies and photographic evidence exposed the genocide. The man who wrote about moral awakening in "Pygmalion" had abandoned his own moral compass entirely.

Free market economists warned that socialist calculation was impossible, that without prices and property rights, economies would collapse into chaos and death. Shaw dismissed these warnings as bourgeois nonsense while standing ankle-deep in their vindication.

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

I wonder if this list might be one of the causes of Islamphobia

[Enemy of the Leviathan @kirk_quotes]

@MichaelTheHenry https://t.co/EsPgkwJewb

[Edmund Gallus @EdmundGall23]

@MichaelTheHenry This man warned about these future men.

[Michael Henry @MichaelTheHenry]

The real systemic racism today isn’t about White people holding Black people down. It’s a self-sustaining system inside Black communities that’s actually run by Black leaders. It works like this: Black neighborhoods get packed into heavily Democratic districts through gerrymandering, creating guaranteed voting blocs. The political machine then needs those votes to stay in power.

To keep getting them, they promote a narrative that racism is everywhere and White people are the real enemy. The more you push this message, the higher you rise in the status hierarchy. In this culture, your status goes up the more loudly you complain about racism, Republicans, and systemic oppression. The loudest victims and professional activists sit at the top. They get book deals, TV appearances, speaking fees, and power. The school teachers, pastors, and influencers who enforce this narrative are next.

They get respect and influence by attacking anyone who steps out of line — especially Black conservatives. Regular Black folks who just want to work, raise their kids, and live normal lives get very little status in this system. Success through personal responsibility actually threatens the narrative, so it’s quietly discouraged. It’s self-bondage. Black people have the freedom to vote differently but rarely do, because their entire social hierarchy is built on staying in the grievance game.

The worse conditions get in their communities, the more it proves the narrative that they need more help and more Democratic policies. It’s a perfect system. The crop — the votes — gets harvested every election because the people running it have convinced everyone the chains are actually protection. And the people enforcing it most aggressively aren’t White racists.

They’re Black leaders who’ve built their entire identity and income around keeping their own people emotionally enslaved to this story.

[A Gene Robinson @AlBuffalo2nite]

I need every Black American…
every parent…
every patriot…
and every person still defending Democrat run cities…

…to share and watch this entire video carefully.

Because I’m about to say something the media will NEVER say out loud:

The poor Midwest family with less money…
less government help…
and none of the political theatrics…

…is often producing safer children and better outcomes than cities Democrats have controlled for 60 years.

Let that sink in.

While celebrities scream about race…
while politicians scream about oppression…
while activists scream about “equity”…

…the homicide charts keep filling up.

The overdoses keep climbing.

The schools keep collapsing.

The fathers keep disappearing.

And the neighborhoods keep deteriorating.

At some point…
we have to stop listening to what politicians SAY…

…and start looking at what their policies PRODUCE.

Because what I’m about to show you is not opinion.

It’s measurable reality.

And once you see it…
you cannot unsee it.

#SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

[Timothy Nelms @timothynelms]

@sowelleconomics have we not experienced famines directly attributed to policies of Stalin , Mao…??

[City Journal @CityJournal]

"Identity politics is about the glorification of the self based on the most trivial, irrelevant traits...you are teaching people to think of themselves as special, privileged, and self-sufficient based on a completely phony victim identity."

In this episode of the City Journal podcast, @Rafa_Mangual sits down with @HMDatMI for a frank conversation about affirmative action, diversity mandates, and what happens when institutions prioritize identity over ability.

Full episode: https://t.co/SO9CVBuqcF

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝟓𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐒 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘’𝐑𝐄 𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐄 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐄𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐋 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓’𝐒 𝐁𝐈𝐆𝐆𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌 𝐈𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐘.

𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 on Real Time delivered one of the most unflinching monologues of his career, breaking down the polling collapse of American patriotism inside the Democrat coalition.

“𝘓𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 30 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯. 54% 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯? 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵? 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨’𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦.”

“‘𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘢𝘥𝘢’ 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘖𝘊-𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘥𝘢𝘩𝘰, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘢 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘥 𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭.”

“𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘬𝘪𝘥𝘴 — 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘴’ 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥.”

“𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 [𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧] 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘳𝘶𝘣𝘩𝘶𝘣, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘬𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦.”

𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. A generation that gets food delivered to its front door, debates pronouns at $90,000-a-year colleges, and burns the American flag while wearing American-made shoes — then tells you America is the problem.

𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫’𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐭.

𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘓𝘴, 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦

[A Gene Robinson @AlBuffalo2nite]

Why do so many modern Black Democrats attack Thomas Sowell instead of debating him?

Is it because he is one of the most accomplished economists alive?

Because he dismantles emotional political narratives with data?

Because he focuses on outcomes instead of intentions?

Or because he shattered the idea that Black Americans must think collectively under one political ideology?

Professor Sowell spent decades asking democrats questions many politicians refuse to answer:

• Why do cities run by one party for generations keep declining?

• Why did family structure collapse accelerate under modern welfare expansion?

• Why do policies marketed as “help” often produce dependency and stagnation?

• Why are educational outcomes so poor in many heavily Democrat controlled districts despite enormous spending?

Instead of answering him…
many simply attempt to discredit him personally.

That alone says a lot.

Sowell’s greatest offense to the activist class is not his conservatism.

It is that he teaches people to analyze incentives, consequences, culture, economics, and statistical outcomes instead of reacting emotionally to slogans and Democrat grievance politics.

And once people start thinking that way…
the entire narrative structure begins collapsing.

#SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

[Ken LaCorte @KenLaCorte]

How did the transgender movement explode so quickly?

Here's why ...

[Sall Grover @salltweets]

It isn’t humiliating at all, it’s to be completely expected: testosterone is very powerful.

It doesn’t mean women are bad or less capable or unskilled. It just means that men & women’s sport is very different, based on biology, and so is played separately.

[Timothy Nelms @timothynelms]

predicting Woke: