Meme - WPL (subscribe on YouTube) @WomenPostingLs: "If you're white and cheat in a fishing contest, you go to prison for 10 years. If you're black and brutally kill someone, you go to prison for 6-18 months."
"Brothers who killed Ethan Liming, stomped on his chest, broke his neck and took his car at LeBron James' school sentenced, only 6 months and 18 months each"
"A Texas manis facing up to 10 years after he was caught cheating in a fishing competition. Curtis Lee Daniels was arrested for violating fishing tournament law after organizers found weights in his largemouth bass"
Meme - Shaniqua Posting Delusions: "Leftist women will quote this and be like "ugh I hate MEN""
New York Post @nypost: "Trench coat-wearing maniac randomly punches 4 women walking down NYC street: cops *black man*"
Of course, if it's a white man, left wingers will be like "ugh I hate white men" and blame them for all of the world's problems
Cynical Publius on X - "I get tired of Democrats claiming to be on the “right side of history” when both their past and their present are so utterly sordid and destructive. So, if you are a Democrat, let me tell you about MY side of history and YOUR side of history. My side of history is Cato the Elder, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Irving Babbitt and William F. Buckley. Your side of history is Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Mao’s Little Red Book and Noam Chomsky. My side of history is George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Your side of history is Tories who fled to Canada, Jefferson Davis, Woodrow Wilson, Bull Connor, George Wallace and Nancy Pelosi. My side of history is freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and spirited debate. Your side of history is ThoughtCrime, Speech Codes, religious persecution and Cancel Culture. My side of history is Brown v. Board of Ed., Loving v. VA, Gitlow v. NY, and Heller v. DC. Your side of history is Dred Scott, Korematsu and Roe v. Wade. My side of history is Jackie Robinson. Your side of history is Colin Kaepernick. My side of history is head held high, standing straight, hand over heart. Your side of history is sullen glances at the ground, kneeling. My side of history is the family as the foundation of society. Your side of history is mutilating confused children. My side of history is the rockets’ red glare. Your side of history is imagine no religion. My side of history is firefighters going up the stairs into the Twin Towers. Your side of history is 28-year-old men playing Call of Duty in their mothers’ basements. My side of history is smoked brisket. Your side of history is a no-foam, no-sugar, soy latte. My side of history is Lincoln freeing the slaves and General Patton liberating Buchenwald. Your side of history is Fort Sumter, the Gulag and Pol Pot’s killing fields. My side of history is Mel Brooks. Your side of history is Amy Schumer. My side of history is all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Your side of history is critical theory and only some lives matter. My side of history is 20-year-olds storming Omaha Beach. Your side of history is 20-year-olds in their safe spaces with adult coloring books. My side of history is American men and women disabled by an IED. Your side of history is American men and women disabled by anxiety. My side of history is the Kentucky Rifle, the Springfield 1861, the M1911, the M1 Garand, the M14 and the AR15. Your side of history is whimpering submission. My side of history is Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Apollo 11 and Jonas Salk. Your side of history is “global warming,” 100+ genders and porous cloth masks stopping viruses. My side is of history is laughing babies. Your side of history is selling aborted baby parts on the open market. My side of history is the Sistine Chapel and Monet’s water lilies. Your side of history is an inverted crucifix in a bottle of urine. My side of history is construction. Your side of history is deconstruction. My side of history is civilization. Your side of history is nihilism. And, MOST OF ALL: My side of history is liberty. Your side of history is tyranny. *finis*"
Coddled Affluent Professional on X - "A key pretense in academia is that the leftist ideological enthusiasm is organic. If you show that it’s astroturfed slop being produced at the behest of NGOs, that there’s nothing radical or even transgressive about it, that it’s just people predictably following incentives out of self interest, they lose their last scrap of legitimacy and authority. I think many of us paying attention have thought this way for a long time but a high profile and well reported piece in the Atlantic is going to result in a much broader audience starting to have the same suspicions and so it makes sense that they’re freaking out."
Donald Trump For President | Facebook - "🚔 POLICE STOP: Rep. Tlaib Calls Officers During Heated Exchange with Reporters. A tense encounter on Capitol Hill has gone viral after Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) reportedly called for police intervention during a confrontation with reporters from Frontlines. The exchange, which occurred roughly a week after the 2026 State of the Union, centered on Tlaib’s refusal to stand during a specific portion of President Trump’s address. The reporters pressed Tlaib on why she remained seated when President Trump asked lawmakers to stand if they agreed that the government's first duty is to "protect American citizens, not illegal aliens." Tlaib did not address the policy question directly, instead accusing the reporters of racism. "I’m an American. So because I’m Palestinian, I’m Muslim, I'm not an American? You're racist," Tlaib told the journalists. Reporters pushed back, noting their own diverse backgrounds (Cuban and Russian) and questioning how a question about national priority constitutes racism. "Being Muslim isn't a race," one reporter noted while filming. The situation escalated when Capitol Police arrived, reportedly summoned by Tlaib’s office over claims of "harassment." Officers informed the reporters that they were being subjected to a "police stop" to investigate allegations of impeding a member of Congress—a federal offense. The officers questioned the reporters' credentials, noting that their press passes were not House-issued. After a brief investigation, officers determined the reporters were not blocking the Congresswoman’s path and allowed them to stay in the area, though they were asked to stop filming the officers during the questioning. The incident follows a highly contentious State of the Union where Tlaib and other members of the "Squad" frequently heckled the President. Tlaib notably shouted "You're the most corrupt president!" during the speech, while Trump fired back that those who refused to stand for American citizens should "be ashamed of themselves.""
Surely left wingers will be condemning her attack on freedom of speech, since they claim calling the police on journalists violates the First Amendment?
A good reminder that to left wingers, questioning their claims is "harassment" and disagreeing with someone of a "minority" race is racism
J.ournal | Facebook - "“Toxic empathy! What an oxymoron. I don’t know if the phrase reflects moral blindness or moral bankruptcy, but either way it’s appalling,” muses Hillary Clinton in her recent article in The Atlantic called "MAGA's War on Empathy". One of the great failures of the modern left is its insistence that none of its supposed virtues can be taken too far. At issue here is empathy, and of course it can be toxic. ANYTHING can be toxic if you take it too far. Courage can be reckless. Honesty can be brutal candor. Mothering can be smothering. A strong work ethic is great but ignoring your family in pursuit of worldly riches is not the way. The left correctly points out that masculinity can be toxic but are completely befuddled and belligerent when it's suggested that empathy can be toxic too. It's simple, really. Empathy is toxic when it demands emotional compliance while forbidding moral evaluation, or when you feel so deeply for one person or group that it renders you incapable of seeing the harm done to others by implementing some social or legal policy in favor of the group you empathize with. Empathy is toxic when it's used to set up false binaries like "you're a white supremacist if you vote for the Republican candidate" or "you're committing trans genocide if you don't support puberty blockers, surgeries on kids, and men playing women's sports". Empathy is toxic when it's weaponized into slogans like "black lives matter", "abortion is healthcare", and "no human is illegal". All of these things coerce those gullible to them into surrendering truth for the sake of believing themselves compassionate (at best) or at least socially approved of (at worst), regardless of the actual issues at hand. Yes, black lives matter, but if a slogan makes you give money to or otherwise grovel at the feet of something that calls itself Black Lives Matter regardless of what they actually do or if you vote for policies or politicians who use the slogan to garner votes, your empathy is being manipulated. Calling something healthcare makes it sound nice and compassionate, which allows the slogan crafter to sneak in any barbarity before it. And of course every human is highly valuable, but merely shouting that "no human is illegal" obfuscates the critical thinking required to understand human history and why countries have borders in the first place. Clinton goes on to argue that empathy is synonymous with Christianity, a toxic correlation itself - again demanding emotional compliance with a few verses while forbidding the evaluation of the rest of Christ's words and the fulness of scripture. Suffice it to say that "love your neighbor" means a lot more than affirming sin and voting for progressive policies. The real war here is on discernment. The modern left preys on people's compassion, and prays that they can't discern slogans from reality. The pushback she's received as well as that received by celebrities in light of their pithy pontifications at recent award shows is encouraging. May we continue to shun slogans in favor of comprehensive truth, mindful not to let any virtue harden into toxic indoctrination."
memetic_sisyphus on X - "When haidt did his research showing liberals are unable to predict what conservatives morality is, it wasn’t just things like explaining the conservative case against abortion, it was also things like “would you randomly kick a dog in the head.” Or “would you stick a pin into a random kid.”"
When left wingers talk about "empathy" they really mean pushing the left wing agenda, not the ability to understand how other people think and feel
Lee Fang on X - "The left post-1960s manufactured racial groups to forge political blocs. “Asian American” is a fabrication: ie Cambodians and Japanese share virtually no culture or history. Now MAGA attempts the same w/ whites as if Italians, Russian Jews, and old stock WASPS are all identical"
Steve Sailer on X - "The federal government introduced affirmative action and the modern race/ethnicity classification system for who gets affirmative action privileges in 1969. Lumping Italians, Russian Jews, and WASPs together as whites was hardly made up by MAGAs in 2026."
Nightmare Vision on X - "this is one half of it. leftists spend every waking hour discussing whiteness from a critical perspective but then suddenly pretend not to know what it is when someone decides it's good. the other half is the groundless assumption that some overarching monolithic "white culture" has to exist in order for 'white' to be a legitimate racial category. it's one of those reflexive framing devices leftists deploy out of their despicable subversive nature. another bit of rhetorical smoke people get lost in because they didn't think to not even grant the initial premise of the discussion."
Is a Four-Year Degree Worth It? - WSJ - "American higher education has a trust problem. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise, and it won’t solve itself. In 2026 I’d like to see colleges and universities across the country take steps to restore trust. As president of Dartmouth College, I’m committed to this goal, and how to restore public confidence in higher education animates conversations among my presidential peers... First, make college affordable... Second, the return on investment matters... At Dartmouth, we’re moving toward a guarantee: a paid internship or comparable experiential opportunity for any student who wants one, supported by four-year career- and life-planning programs that begin during freshman year... Third, re-center higher education on learning rather than political posturing. Too often, colleges and universities have participated in the culture wars. The result is an environment in which students and faculty feel they must toe an ideological line rather than explore ideas that fall outside prevailing norms. Our institutions must reclaim a narrower, firmer sense of our role. That means embracing institutional neutrality—or restraint, as we call it at Dartmouth—on issues that don’t directly affect our mission or core functions. When we, as institutions, rush to issue statements every time there’s a national or global controversy, we signal there’s a “right” position and that opposing views are unwelcome. We must ensure that students can encounter the best arguments, assess evidence and reach their own conclusions. That requires a campus culture where controversial speakers are heard rather than canceled, where disagreement is expected rather than feared, and where people can explore ideas without being defined by them. The infrastructure for this already exists—it’s the classroom. Universities must double down on supporting faculty who provide structured opportunities for disagreement on complex issues and provide clear protections for faculty, staff and students who voice unpopular views. On my campus, Dartmouth Dialogues promotes discussion across differences. Promoting healthy debate isn’t a partisan project. It is the precondition for any serious education. Fourth, emphasize equal opportunity, not equal outcomes... Grade inflation—especially at elite universities—reduces a transcript’s significance. Employers notice; so do students. When an A is the default, it stops meaning “excellent.” It means “I showed up.” We must be willing to reintroduce differentiation. That could include policies like forced medians, distribution guidelines or being transparent about grades given. Recently our faculty voted to keep median grades on students’ transcripts because they believe that more information is better than less. Ours is the only Ivy League school that does this. At the same time, we must defend a genuine meritocracy of ideas. Research funding, faculty hiring and academic recognition should be grounded in scholarly excellence, not ideological litmus tests. Fifth, testing is important. Dartmouth was the first Ivy League university to reinstate an SAT/ACT requirement after a test-optional period during the Covid pandemic. We did so because a study conducted by our faculty showed that tests are a valuable tool for identifying high-performing students who might otherwise be overlooked."
What an ignorant bigot. He will regret not being on the Right Side of History(TM). Since he's not anti-racist, he's racist
Doesn't he know that an educated populace benefits the whole country, so the solution is to demand the middle class subsidise the rich by making college free (i.e. taxpayer supported)?!
Little Italy, Los Angeles | Episode 5: Not My Taco - YouTube
Marriage promotes 'White supremacy,' according to White university professor - "Professor Bethany Letiecq wrote in the Journal of Marriage and Family about her theory "that marriage fundamentalism, like structural racism, is a key structuring element of White heteropatriarchal supremacy."... Marriage scholar Brad Wilcox told the College Fix that he disagrees with Letiecq, explaining marriage as an institution that has advanced the common good in civilizations across the globe. "Marriage benefits children of all racial and ethnic backgrounds," the University of Virginia sociologist and director of the National Marriage Project said. American Principles Project leader, Terry Schilling, told the outlet that the article "suggests far-left academics are ramping up their attacks on the family, the most important institution in society.""
Left wingers want to destroy society after all. This is why feminists hate marriage too
Ryan Burge 📊 on X - "I've got brand new data about American religion that was collected in October of 2025. And, folks... The share of Americans who are non-religious has dropped for the third year in a row. Atheists and agnostics are down to 5% each. Those are 2014 levels."
Matthew Schmitz on X - "Two things killed the New Atheism. One was a book, one was a meme."
Matt Forney on X - "Wrong. This woman killed New Atheism. If you're not familiar with Rebecca Watson, she's a tenth-tier atheist blogger who kicked up a stink back in 2011 when she went to an atheist conference in Dublin and some dude hit on her in the elevator. She ranted endlessly about how "creepy" he was and how "unsafe" being asked out on a date made her feel and the incident was dubbed "Elevatorgate." Richard Dawkins waded into the fracas and suggested that being hit on in an elevator wasn't the end of the world. He asked you out, Becky, you weren't interested, end of. This caused everyone to FREAK OUT at Dawkins' "misogyny" and about the supposed problem with "misogyny" in atheism in general, leading large numbers of prominent atheists such as PZ Myers and Jen McCreight to split off into Atheism Plus. Atheism Plus was atheism with a rape whistle, its adherents more focused on fighting da patriarchy then with stuff that...actually has to do with atheism. That's why atheism collapsed in on itself as a sociopolitical force. The left, per usual, ate themselves alive."
Peter Hague on X - "Atheism Plus was dead on arrival, as it was mercilessly mocked from the start. The first Atheism Plus account on then Twitter was a ruthless parody of it, so someone has to start a "real" Atheism Plus account instead. That one, unfortunately, also turned out to be a parody just playing a longer game. I know this, because I was the one who ran the second account."
Samantha Smith on X - "This is an absolute scandal. Serbian football team Crvena Zvezda has been fined €95,500 after fans choreographed a motif of Jesus Christ! UEFA fined them for "displaying a message not fit for a sporting event and bringing the reputation of football and UEFA itself into disrepute". The image was a traditional Orthodox tifo of Jesus Christ or Saint Simeone the Myrrh-flowing, while the text underneath read: “May our faith lead you to victory". UEFA has stopped games for Ramadan and openly promoted BLM and LGBT campaigns during tournaments. But Christianity is ‘inappropriate’?! What an utter disgrace."
Ronai Chaker on X - "Tariq Ramadan, once celebrated in elite Western circles as a sophisticated voice of “moderate Islam,” has now been sentenced by a Paris criminal court to 18 years in prison for raping three women.
He had already been convicted in Switzerland in 2024 in a separate rape case. Ramadan is also the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. For years, Western institutions treated him as a moral authority, a bridge-builder, a refined intellectual who would explain Islam to Europe in a language polite enough for universities, conferences, and television studios. That image has collapsed. What remains is not a reformer, but the wreckage of a carefully marketed persona. And that is the deeper scandal: not only the man himself, but the eagerness with which so many were willing to believe in him. Ramadan was never just an isolated academic voice floating above ideology. He came out of a lineage inseparable from the Muslim Brotherhood, the movement founded by Hassan al-Banna and widely recognized as one of the central engines of modern political Islam. Yet in the West, this background was too often treated as a minor detail, something decorative, something academic, something to be relativized in the name of “dialogue.” The result was predictable: a man with Islamist pedigree, rhetorical skill, and institutional respectability was elevated into a symbol of enlightened coexistence. Too many preferred the performance to the substance. Ramadan’s real gift was never moral clarity. It was strategic ambiguity. He knew how to speak in a way that reassured Western audiences while retaining prestige in Islamist milieus. He knew how to package himself as a mediator, as a reformer, as the respectable face of an ideology that Western elites repeatedly fail to confront with the seriousness it deserves. Under the slogan of “European Islam,” he was sold as the answer to civilizational tension. In reality, he became a perfect illustration of Europe’s chronic weakness: the inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between genuine reform and ideologically polished self-presentation. He was not embraced despite his background, but in part because institutions convinced themselves that sophisticated language was proof of moral credibility. Now the mask is off. The man who lectured the public about ethics, spirituality, and coexistence stands disgraced by rape convictions and by accusations that destroyed the halo carefully built around him for decades. Several women accused him of sexual misconduct in France, and the courts in Switzerland and France have now issued serious criminal judgments against him. This is why the Ramadan case is bigger than one man. It is a case study in elite self-deception. It shows how readily academic titles, fluent rhetoric, and the vocabulary of “dialogue” can be used to sanitize figures who should have been examined far more critically from the start. It exposes the moral vanity of institutions that would rather be seen as tolerant than be rigorous. And it should be a warning: the Muslim Brotherhood does not become harmless because it learns better public relations. An Islamist project does not become enlightened because it is wrapped in university language. And a man does not become a moral authority because frightened Western elites need one. Tariq Ramadan’s downfall is not just a scandal. It is an indictment. Of him, yes. But also of the cultural and political class that promoted him, protected his image, and confused polished rhetoric with integrity. There must be no political bridges to the Muslim Brotherhood. None❗"
Syracuse lacrosse pulls ‘Burn the Boats’ shirts after complaint term ‘glorifies Indigenous genocide’ - " “The origins of ‘Burn the Boats’ trace far back to the 1500s and Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés, who famously ordered his men to burn their boats as a sign of no retreat in battle,” the outlet reported. The term is also the title of the 2023 book “Burn the Boats: Toss Plan B Overboard and Unleash Your Full Potential,” focused on how to eliminate any thoughts of retreat as a successful life strategy. “Burn the Boats is the definitive tome on the oldest life hack in history. From Sun Tzu to Tariq ibn Ziyad, the ancient Israelites to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—when leaders want to motivate their troops for success, they self-sabotage their own retreat so all energy is directed on a singular objective. They burn their metaphorical boats that sow doubt; it’s win or perish, and their unshakable resolve propels them to victory,” its online description reads. “Burn the Boats” was also the title of comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan’s 2024 stand-up comedy special after he had fallen out of grace with Hollywood and progressives. "
Watch the rapid decline of “white America” over three decades - The Washington Post (2015)
Opinion | The demise of the white majority is a myth - The Washington Post (2018)
Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin Celebrates Demographic Decline of White Americans as “Fabulous News” (2021)
Why engineers beat lawyers | The Spectator - "I once asked my friend, the engineer Guru Madhavan, why engineering faculties at most universities were outliers in containing more than a small minority of conservatives and political moderates. He explained it in a single sentence: ‘In engineering, you are peer-reviewed by reality.’ In any field where you are judged more by the quality of the outcome than the quality of your argument, there is a limit to the extent to which you can adhere to some all-encompassing ideological world view. If a bridge falls down, it is not a good bridge. The opposite is also true: in real life, if something works, you don’t always need a theory to explain why. (When the Swiss genius Robert Maillart designed bridges in the 1930s, little was known about the properties of reinforced concrete; Maillart was to some extent flying blind. Thankfully his intuition paid off, since his work is incomparably beautiful.) There is a huge difference between the mental processes we adopt when we want to solve a problem and those when we want to win an argument. Engineering is fundamentally a problem-solving process. Law is fundamentally about winning an argument. The first demands practical intelligence, the second reduces decisions to a kind of performative rationality... ‘legal’ thinking now precedes ‘engineering’ thinking, rather than the other way around. Law should largely be a corrective discipline; it has become a directive discipline instead. When you dig deeper, there are several fundamental differences between the two schools of thought. Problem solving is empirical, iterative and exploratory; argumentation is linear. Perhaps more important still, in argumentation, as in a school exam, it is seen as ‘cheating’ to rewrite the initial question. In problem-solving, changing the question is often the best way to win. (Most entrepreneurs and inventors owe their success not to answering an established question, but to asking a new question their competitors had entirely overlooked.) In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang contrasts the overly legalistic culture in the Anglosphere with the political culture in China which is dominated by engineers. He argues that the dominance of legal thinking in the West has created a self-serving ‘vetocracy’ – essentially people who prosper not from doing things, but from preventing them from happening at all."
