that he be evaluated for learning problems when he was in elementary school, that would have likely led to prescription medication.
He's an A student in high school taking a rigorous curriculum of AP & Honors courses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with him, he can
2/
can concentrate on difficult subject like Calculus & Physics for hours on end - unlike your average elementary school teacher.
But yet, they want the boys on drugs. Makes the classroom easier for them, reduces that toxic masculinity.
3/
And guess what? A nation that lets toxic women drug any boys that show signs of normal masculinity doesn't get to have future soldiers, among many other problems.
Actions have consequences. Letting these women remain in those position will continue to screw up this nation.
4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"What we are seeing today is the accelerating dissolution of the post-1945 world order."
An analysis by Walter Russell Mead in today's WSJ (link later) covers some of the points from my post of two days ago👇. The rate of change is accelerating internationally & domestically 1/
European elites are trying to strike both Russia & the populist portions of their own populations simultaneously. The US is polarizing domestically even as it faces its most powerful opposition since the Cold War.
2/
More from Mead today:
"There are many reasons for the West’s poor performance. The current tranche of leaders for the most part can neither defend their countries from foreign foes nor defend the political status quo from populists at home."
3/
Women calling for violence against men for political beliefs are a bizarre element of where we are. They've been everywhere since the Kirk assassination, talking their shit into their phones
Um, guys understand that when you call for shooting someone, you may get shot instead 1/
That's how violence & wars have worked since the beginning of time. You want to call for someone else to be shot in the throat. Alrighty then, the other side has a moral to put a bullet right through your brain instead. It gets settled with guns, one side succeeds.
2/
I don't think these women - who are often non-white - understand this at all. You want to kill white men? Ok, they have the absolute right to kill you first, instead.
I think that what they really want is executions. They get to kill, with no consequences for themselves.
3/
The Kirk assassination & aftermath has led to another turn of the ratchet of political polarization. The chances of wide-scale domestic violence rose again - not today, but within 10 years.
The chances of global wars are also building. These two sources of violence will merge
1/
The world is remilitarizing, as it splits into competing geopolitical blocs. Europe in particular is consumed by the 1-2 combination of harsh internal political repression, and a desire for military conflict with Russia. They don't have the power to do this on their own.
2/
However, even if the US was not being torn apart by internal pressures, it doesn't have the military to wage war on three fronts. The US can wage full on war against a near peer enemy on one front for about 3 weeks before running out of critical munitions.
3/
As I look at what continues to unfold, I believe we have to keep two key words in mind:
1. Rage 2. Celebration
The RW feels a justified Rage at this assassination. Too many on the Left are openly Celebrating the murder of Kirk. Historically, that is an explosive combination. 1/
First, rage is a basic, powerful human emotion. It is appropriate at times. When your side kills one of our leaders in cold blood in front of his wife & children, oh yeah - a period of rage should be expected.
What makes this not an isolated act of violence is the Celebration
2/
Very large numbers of Leftist began immediately celebrating the killing, saying that Kirk had it coming, and that it should happen to more fascists as well. These celebratory comments were popular on the Left.
That 1-2 combination has produced near instant wars before.
3/
In a reply to this post I was sent a link to the article "The Psychopath Ratio", by hollymathnerd. The article is by a woman, and she fundamentally misunderstands maleness.
Holly's concern is that the Left has the unrestrained psychopaths, and the nice family men of the RW 1/
would not have the necessary brutality to win the battle against psychopaths.
Men of all races, and even chimpanzee males, are the result of literally millions of years of brutal selection for organized violence. The vast majority of male DNA lines have ended over time.
2/
Those of us alive today have been highly selected over the millennia to be the descendants of males who are better at killing than being killed.
Now, living in civilized society, the intent is to really restrain that (except during warfare).
3/
The biggest lesson of the last 3 days is that there are many millions who think it is not just fine but moral to kill the many millions who think like me
Alrighty then. That's where we're at.
History is replete with examples of what usually comes next. We need to avoid this 1/
"Those evil bastards want to wipe out my tribe? How bout we kill every one of those f*ckers first!"
That's not extreme thinking, it is a natural human process. It's why history consists of almost continuous warfare, and why numerous wars are raging around the world today.
2/
If we're to avoid this - and I very much want to avoid open warfare - then we need to be honest about the process. Intensive propaganda via institutional capture has been used to create something that is naturally human - to identify "others", and kill them.
3/