Marco Foster on X<./a> - "Ta-Nehisi Coates: “I think Charlie Kirk was a hatemonger. I take no joy in the killing of anyone no matter what they said. But if you ask me what the truth of his life was I would have to tell you it’s hate”"
Greg Price on X - "This guy wrote an entire memoir— Between the World and Me— about how white people are inherently evil His experience that made him come to this conclusion was his black friend being killed by a black cop and a white woman once being rude to his son. I'm not kidding. That's entire premise of the book. That's how big of a hatemonger Ta-Nehisi Coates is."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "Every single moralizing argument the Left makes is nothing more than a cynical tool designed to disarm you and leave you defenseless. The only time these people care about morals or empathy is when they think they can weaponize these things against you. I'm old enough to remember one of the opening salvos of the Great Awokening, when Leftists formed a mob to destroy the life of an astrophysicist for wearing a T-shirt they didn't like. And now, a dozen years later, these same people are whining on the internet about the Right finally hitting back after more than a decade of them being the only ones who got to throw punches. No, these people do not believe in free speech. No, they don't believe in live-and-let-live. No, they do not believe in individual rights or liberty or the Constitution or any other bullshit excuse you currently see them shamelessly regurgitate in a pitiful attempt to spare themselves from the backlash they so justly deserve. These people believe in power, and they will use that power to destroy your life if ever given the chance."
Savvy ( ˶ˆ꒳ˆ˵ ) on X - "I still think about this. The man in the photo has gone on to have a very good career but i still think about this more often than id like to admit. The shirt was even designed by a woman. The left, for all its desire to “wear whatever” should have embraced this artistic shirt. But they chose to virtue signal over a nonissue and try to ruin this man’s life."
Lucas Lynch | Facebook - "In the middle of reading David Brooks’ final column at the New York Times. Before I can even finish, there is just one point that infuriates me beyond all others. The idea that the current cultural moment we are in is because increasingly people have abandoned an education in the humanities, and instead declare that education is for the purpose of making money. This really grinds my gears because I was in school a generation prior and saw which direction the departments were going in. The post truth Society we live in most certainly is not caused by the abandonment of the humanities. Indeed, it is the humanities themselves that created and promoted virtually all of the nonsense now tearing our society apart, limb from limb at its core. How do we no longer know what’s true? Why is it that any narrative can be just as good as another? How is it that the politics of personal grievance elevated personal experience over reason itself? The idea that this came from the science department and the business schools is preposterous. Indeed, speak to anyone steeped in that education and their points of view are entirely more reasonable. The poison destroying our society did not come from the departments, rejecting the humanities, and it is, indeed, in these departments that the last bastions of the enlightenment still exist. The people who still value individualism, meritocracy, the scientific enterprise, and understand the value and purpose of liberal institutions, and the rule of law can still be found there. It is the humanities from which almost all of the poison destroying our society originated. When given the chance to infect the society at large via social media and the Internet, this is when the world started to no longer makes sense, and a politics was delivered to us that would have been unimaginable only two decades prior. The science departments are not the ones promoting a level of antisemitism the klan could be proud of - it is the denizens of the humanities departments that have normalized this antisemitism to levels not seen since my ancestors still lived on the shtetl, giving it increasingly complex yet nonsensical intellectual justifications. But then again, as or well said, there are some idea ideas so preposterous, only “intellectuals” believe them. The humanities departments as have existed for the past several decades should be burned to the ground and begun anew. You won’t find the wide eyed radicals in the physics or chemistry departments, by and large. Reason still has refuge there. It is the promoters of fashionable nonsense that were granted the absurd rank of professor that will be remembered as the intellectual terrorists that dismembered the ability to think critically and humanistically. One does not banish the specter by invoking it."
Basically he has in mind the liberal arts from 50 years ago, which is when he was in college, which were not the liberal arts of today
‘That Book Is Dangerous!’ by Adam Szetela | Book Review - WSJ - "Barney Rosset risked violence and insolvency so that his Grove Press could print unexpurgated American editions of such forbidden works as “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” in 1959 and “Tropic of Cancer” in 1961. To publish “Ulysses” in 1934 without risking prosecution, Random House first had to orchestrate a court case to prove the book innocent of obscenity. Today’s publishers aren’t much constrained by obscenity laws. Instead, the pressure comes from staff members and social-media mobs wielding their “militant fragility,” in the words of Adam Szetela, to remake our book culture into an anodyne enterprise that puts “safety” first. Mr. Szetela lays bare this remarkable phenomenon in “That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing.”... The industry transformation the author chronicles here—much of it premised on the need to avoid feeling unsafe and the trauma attendant to not being a straight, white man—will be familiar to anyone who has followed the online purity crusades of the past few years. But even jaded readers will be startled by the scope of the self-organizing tyranny besetting the book world. Hardly anyone has the temerity to stand up to it. Courage, in the author’s account, is scarce in a literary culture circumscribed by sanctimonious bullies and in thrall to identitarian grievance mongers. Again and again his terrified sources, after bemoaning the Orwellian climate of the book business, beg him for reassurance that they will not be named in print. Mr. Szetela describes vicious (and semiliterate) pile-ons in response to imaginary transgressions, abject apologies akin to hostage statements and gleeful attacks on the apology until the victim has been shunned by publishers, editors and agents—and branded with a seemingly indelible digital scarlet letter. “Years later,” the author explains, “the first page of Google will continue to advertise their polluted moral status to the world.” The problem seems to begin on campus. The author notes that when he searched the Modern Language Association job list one day in 2022, 72 out of 74 positions in North America sought “applicants who specialize in race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability, indigeneity, and other identities.” The desired identities are often part of the job: “Assistant Professor of Latina/o/x Literatures and Cultures” or “Assistant Professor of Race, Diaspora, and Indigeneity.” The master-of-fine-arts programs that produce so many of today’s writers are part of this revolutionary higher-education landscape. Students in writing workshops are loath to honestly criticize each other’s work, especially if the writer belongs to a sacrosanct group. Professors are subject to obsessive student surveillance and called out for deviations from approved terminology. As one graduate student tells Mr. Szetela, there are “social points awarded for each identification of something problematic.” Graduates who embark upon a literary life will find the book industry policed by an army of sensitivity readers, members of identity groups paid to make sure their group isn’t misrepresented. As the author says of one such reader, “his job is to make literature inoffensive.” But this pursuit of authenticity can end up reinforcing stereotypes. The business of sensitivity readers is booming even as recreational reading wanes. Mr. Szetela notes that some agents demand that authors hire them before the agency tries to sell the manuscript. For writers, hiring such readers is a badge of good “literary citizenship” and a chance to flaunt their virtue as well as their success by boasting of how many they can afford. “As a straight white male who’s spent the past four years writing a queer love story,” says one preening author, “I’ve used nearly a dozen sensitivity readers so far, and I will no doubt use several more once my agent and I go on submission.” Obscure literary journals that might once have published new and transgressive writing now prioritize work that “avoids the risk of harm,” in the words of Hunger Mountain Review, which has vowed to combat “the cis-heteronormative white-supremacist ableist patriarchy.” Denver Quarterly evidently bars material that lays bare social evils, since “we do not tolerate submissions that contain hate speech, bigotry, discrimination, or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist language or violence of any kind.” Mr. Szetela also reports that, starting with children’s books but now more widely, publishers have begun including “morality clauses” in contracts with authors, clauses so vague that some of them could permit cancellation for nearly any behavior anyone finds objectionable. The Authors Guild, likening this trend to the McCarthyism that destroyed the careers of writers, filmmakers and others in the 1950s, asserted that “morals clauses chill free speech.” Mr. Szetela is a courageous and capable chronicler of the publishing industry’s nervous breakdown, highlighting the new intolerance that has replaced the old and using a class-based critique to expose the contradictions and hypocrisy of “woke” publishing. But he fails to situate publishing in the context of the larger network of liberal cultural institutions that in recent years have congealed into a single, neurotic political enterprise obsessed with gender, race and, lately, the vilification of Israel. The spread of this new orthodoxy shouldn’t be surprising, for as the author notes, “insatiability is a defining feature of moral crusades. As crusaders achieve victories, they expand the scope of their crusade.”"
🌘revenant⚡ on X - "People literally have no idea what things like the Civil Rights Act even do and if you explain it to them they don't believe you. It's like trying to explain that a product they can buy in the store is unsafe to use. They just think "oh, well that would never be allowed.""
Will Tanner on X - "Disparate impact is a great example of this The Trump DOJ has kinda limited it, but under the HW Bush-pushed Civil Rights Act of 1991, it was enshrined as law that whites can be discriminated against in everything from employment to justice under the law, in the name of equality Specifically, practices that are facially neutral but disproportionately adversely affect protected groups based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, are illegal, even if there was no evidence of discrimination, and run afoul of civil rights law. So employers can be sued if they hire the most competent person consistently if that person is typically a white man Given IQ differences between racial groups, differences that it is illegal to recognize, this means whites have been exhaustively deprived of opportunities they have earned, particularly in employment and college admissions. Importantly, disparate impact doesn't just come up in terms of employment. It's everything. As Jeremy Carl noted in The Unprotected Class, "disparate impact theory affects not just employment law, but housing policy, education, and criminal background and credit checks, discriminating against whites in almost every instance." Yet worse, it even comes up in terms of criminal justice. Because disparate impact law impacts everything, a disparity in punishment by racial group can be treated as unconstitutionally discriminatory...despite the fact that certain races commit far more crime than others. This comes up particularly often in school discipline, where schools actively discriminate against whites while allowing black "bullies" to do pretty much anything they want, no matter how illegal. Often the black "bullies" will be unpunished, but standing up to them will be punished, if the student who fights back is white. Again according to Carl in The Unprotected Class: "The Obama administration went out of its way to emphasize the importance of disparate impact in school discipline. Because they effectively threatened schools' funding if students were disciplined at substantially different rates than their race's share of the population (ignoring the fact that some groups have objectively worse behavior in schools), white and Asian students became victims of violence in schools at increasing rates. Just as in the adult world, not punishing students who engage in violent and even criminal behavior makes life more dangerous for everyone." Most people don't really believe this is possible, much less occuring, when you tell them about it. Hence why that Jacob Savage article shocked so many people, as they could see the data on employment and admissions. Yet still they don't believe that schools just let black students attack white kids because of it, despite that being exactly what is happening and the justice equivalent of the employment matter"
‘Anglo-Saxon’ Is What You Say When ‘Whites Only’ Is Too Inclusive - The Atlantic - "“By making the simple (and in fact traditional) assumption that northern European nationalities shared much of the Anglo-Saxon’s inherited traits, a racial nativist could now understand why immigration had just now become a problem,” the historian John Higham wrote in Strangers in the Land. “Also, the cultural remoteness of southern and eastern European ‘races’ suggested to him that the foreign danger involved much more than an inherited incapacity for self-government: the new immigration was racially impervious to the whole of American civilization!”"
White people are not allowed to have an ethnic heritage
Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students in effort to fight ‘nationalism’ - "Cambridge is teaching students that Anglo-Saxons did not exist as a distinct ethnic group as part of efforts to undermine “myths of nationalism”. Britain’s early medieval history is taught by the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, but the terms within its own title are being addressed as part of efforts to make teaching more “anti-racist”. Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department. The department’s approach also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots. The increased focus on anti-racism comes amid a broader debate over the continued use of terms like “Anglo-Saxon”, with some in academia alleging that the ethnonym is used to support “racist” ideas of a native English identity... In 2019, the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists voted to change its name to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England, “in recognition of the problematic connotations that are widely associated with the terms “Anglo-Saxon”. This was triggered by the resignation from the society of the Canadian academic Dr Mary Rambaran-Olm, who has since written that the field of Anglo-Saxon studies is one of “inherent whiteness” She later co-wrote with Dr Erik Wade in the Smithsonian magazine that: “The Anglo-Saxon myth perpetuates a false idea of what it means to be ‘native’ to Britain.” While some have argued that a single term like “Anglo-Saxon” is inaccurate as the Dark Ages were a period of population change, including the Viking invasions, others such as Prof Howard William at the university of Chester maintain that the term remains useful historically and archaeologically. A statement signed by more than 70 academics in 2020 argued that the furore over the term “Anglo-Saxon” was an American import, with an open letter stating: “The conditions in which the term is encountered, and how it is perceived, are very different in the USA from elsewhere. “In the UK the period has been carefully presented and discussed in popular and successful documentaries and exhibitions over many years. “The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is historically authentic in the sense that from the 8th century it was used externally to refer to a dominant population in southern Britain. Its earliest uses, therefore, embody exactly the significant issues we can expect any general ethnic or national label to represent.”"
But of course, if you challenge the idea of Black identity, you're a racist white supremacist
Meme - "How do you fumble a 400yr headstart & privilege?"
"If life originated in Africa how do you fumble a 10 million year head start and still eat with your hands?"
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "Western civilization, according to liberals, effectively begins sometime between the late 1940s and the 1960s. What’s so funny (and honestly nefarious) about this take is that liberalism dissolved Western civilization into a bunch of abstractions, and then has the gall to declare itself to be the West itself, despite the fact that it’s nothing more than the pure negation of things that make Western civilization possible in the first place. Everything in this guy’s argument is a total inversion of the truth. There is no such thing as a “liberal civilization”. Liberalism is an acid. What it represents is nothing more than the erasure of a prior, much older Western civilization that modern liberals regard with open hostility and barely concealed contempt. What Slazac calls “values predominant everywhere else” were predominant in the West until less than a hundred years ago. That’s the first lie. The second is his suggestion that liberalism isn’t tribalistic. Notice how the entire suggestion here is that if you reject his secular liberal universalism then you aren’t Western? This guy is literally saying “Agree with my ideology or you don’t belong here” at the same time he builds his entire argument off of rejecting tribalism. The irony is that liberalism has become a tribe even as it pretends it isn’t one. You just want to cloak your ideology, your tribe, in the language of universal humanitarianism while lying through your teeth that this isn’t exactly what you’re doing."
johnny maga on X - "DEI Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott accuses a reporter of racism for asking why his new SUV cost taxpayers $165k—the most expensive in the state and double what the governor’s cost. “Your station has this severe right-wing effort underway…and your racist slant is one thing.”"
Minecraft faces backlash for promoting left-wing ‘Lessons in Good Trouble’ protest DLC for Black History Month - "Popular video game Minecraft has promoted its DLC (downloadable content) titled "Lessons in Good Trouble," in which players can “learn how everyone has the power to stand up for what's right." This game launched the content at the beginning of February, recognized as Black History Month. In promoting the DLC, Minecraft wrote on social media, "Want to change the world IRL? Start in Minecraft. In the free Good Trouble DLC, explore global civil rights movements, meet changemakers, and learn how to stand up, speak out, and build a better world."... "I had to click on the profile and even still I can't fully believe this is real," wrote Chloe Cole. "Encouraging literal children to 'make good trouble' is mind-blowingly awful propaganda. There are very few places that kids can actually go to just be kids."... The lesson states that by the end, students should be able to "understand how to display a sense of empathy and understanding for others as they explore the reasons and causes of the BLM movement," "understand the terminology associated with racial injustice and discrimination," and other objectives. Per Inquisitr, gameplay also includes references to the Black Lives Matter movement and includes an external link to its website. An activist reportedly mentions in the game how BLM was created to "seek justice following the acquittal of the person who killed teenager Trayvon Martin.""
Empathy as a Weapon - "Watching today’s protests and media performances, I see anger and disgust, along with a striking lack of concern for consequences. But I also see something else in those faces: fear. Not rational fear—the kind you’d expect in war or when facing a wild animal—but fear of imagined conditions, abstract threats, and constructed enemies... much of this is sadistic, malevolent manipulation by political sociopaths in pursuit of power. That manipulation works because there are millions of people who have undergone arrested adulthood, and many more who, despite being chronologically adult, lack the ability to recognize or regulate their emotions well enough to engage in reasoned conversation. They retain adolescent emotional reactivity while being granted adult moral authority. This isn’t merely cultural, there is a neurological basis for it. I think that is why this excess empathy is especially rampant in Hollywood and the desperate housewife segment populated by AWFULs (Affluent White Female Urban Liberals). They spend their waking hours wanting to be someone else, so emotional displacement is already at work. Modern political persuasion increasingly bypasses deliberation by targeting the emotional circuitry of the brain directly. The strategy is simple: trigger empathic distress first, then insert policy while judgment is impaired. To understand how this works, we have to distinguish between empathy and compassion. They are not the same psychological state, and they do not activate the same neural systems. Empathy is emotional mirroring—internally reproducing another person’s pain. When it’s triggered, stress hormones rise, attention narrows, and executive control drops. The prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for proportional reasoning and long-term planning—loses influence. In plain terms, the nervous system enters threat-response mode. Compassion is different. Compassion recognizes suffering while maintaining psychological distance. Instead of activating distress circuits, it engages regulatory systems in the brain. The result is calm focus, preserved judgment, and sustained motivation to help. Empathy floods. Compassion steadies. Modern political messaging overwhelmingly aims for empathy, not compassion, because empathy creates urgency while compassion preserves clarity. This explains why political narratives are almost always personalized. Complex policy questions—immigration, policing, healthcare, war—are converted into emotionally vivid individual stories: a crying child, a grieving parent, a viral clip. Humans respond far more strongly to one visible person than to statistics involving millions. Our moral intuitions evolved for small tribal groups. They are not designed for civilization-scale problems. One face will always outweigh a spreadsheet. Once emotional identification occurs, attention shifts away from systems and toward symbolic individuals. Structural analysis gives way to protective instinct. Messaging then collapses emotional boundaries. The language moves from “they are suffering” to “imagine if this were your child.” The listener is no longer observing suffering; they are invited to inhabit it. Healthy empathy requires self–other separation. Political rhetoric deliberately removes that separation, producing emotional flooding. Flooded minds don’t ask about incentives, second-order effects, or long-term consequences. They ask a single question: how do we stop this feeling right now? That’s when urgency and moral absolutism enter. Action must be immediate. Hesitation becomes cruelty. Nuance becomes complicity. Disagreement is reframed as a character defect: if you don’t agree, you lack empathy. Deliberation is replaced by moral pressure. Here’s the critical point: empathy is inherently biased. It favors the visible over the invisible, the similar over the distant, and the immediate over the proportional. It feels virtuous, but when elevated to a governing principle it reliably produces distorted priorities, impulsive decisions, and punitive moralism. Empathy evolved to guide interpersonal care. It did not evolve to manage large societies. That’s why emotionally driven policy so often results in symbolic legislation and cascading unintended consequences. Emotional logic doesn’t scale. Policy does. What begins as a response to one compelling story becomes permanent structural change—usually without recalculating costs or downstream effects. This is where arrested adulthood becomes politically useful. People who never fully developed emotional regulation respond to distress the way children do: urgently, absolutely, and without proportional reasoning. Their feelings become their facts. When entire movements rest on this foundation, politics becomes emotional theater rather than governance. Compassion would lead somewhere else. Compassion preserves boundaries. It asks not merely who is suffering, but what actually helps. It allows concern without surrendering judgment. Empathy collapses self and other; compassion maintains separation. Only compassion supports rational action. The political consequences are profound. A society trained to maximize empathy becomes reactive, manipulable, morally theatrical, and cognitively exhausted. Emotional escalation becomes the currency of public discourse. Every issue is framed as an emergency. Every disagreement becomes a referendum on virtue. Modern politics favors this because emotionally flooded populations are easier to mobilize, easier to shame, and easier to steer. This isn’t about kindness. It is about control. It is always about control. Philosophically, the imbalance is clear. A lack of empathy reflects emotional underdevelopment. Excess empathy reflects emotional dysregulation. Civilization depends on something rarer than either: disciplined concern under reason. Empathy without regulation becomes hysteria and regulation without concern becomes cruelty. The narrow edge between them is where functional societies live. Modern political systems increasingly push people off that edge and toward emotional flooding while claiming moral superiority for doing so. That is the mechanism. It is cruel but it works. That is why they will keep using it."
Jason Whitlock on X - "'Sinners' was the most nakedly racist movie I’ve ever seen. The movie’s entire message is, “White people are the devil”. Where’s the anti-black movie? Hollywood only lets the narrative spin one way."
Meme - "We are witnessing the greatest act of cuckoldry in human history. An entire civilization willingly giving away its land, women, & children because the alternative is to being called racist"
