The Vigilant Fox 🦊 Profile picture
May 31, 2025 9 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Five years ago, the world watched America erupt over the death of George Floyd.

The left called it the “summer of love.”

What followed was anything but.

It was chaos. It was violence. It was destruction.

And, according to Victor Davis Hanson, the entire movement was built on a lie—a psychological operation powerful enough to divide a nation and destabilize its foundation.

Only now, half a decade later, are we beginning to see it clearly and reckon with the wreckage it left behind.

🧵 THREADImage
Victor Davis Hanson opened with a sober reflection: it’s now been five years since the death of George Floyd—a moment that reshaped America’s conversations around race, crime, and justice.

“This week was the fifth anniversary, May 25th of 2020, of the tragic death of George Floyd,” he said.

It may feel recent, but a half-decade has passed. And according to Hanson, what followed in the wake of that tragedy wasn’t healing—it was devastation.

“Almost everything that has transpired after that in terms of racial relations has been disastrous,” he said.

Only now, he believes, are we beginning to look back with a clearer head and ask the questions no one dared ask at the time.

“Maybe at the end of five years, we can look back with a little bit more circumspection and see what actually happened.”
That reassessment begins with George Floyd himself—not the symbol, but the man.

Hanson challenged the media’s portrayal of Floyd as a saintly martyr, urging people to look at the full context of what happened.

“George Floyd was a career felon,” he said plainly.

At the time of his death, Floyd was attempting to use a counterfeit bill and was reportedly under the influence of powerful narcotics—possibly fentanyl.

He also had a heart condition and may have been suffering from complications related to COVID.

“One of his prior felonies was putting a gun to a woman’s belly in a home invasion,” Hanson noted.

The situation that escalated into tragedy began with a routine police response.

“When he tried to pass this counterfeit bill, the store owner called the Minneapolis police. They tried to arrest him. He resisted arrest. He was a very big man.”

Derek Chauvin, the officer who restrained Floyd, used a controversial tactic that had been authorized by the department—placing a knee on the neck to subdue a suspect.

“Officer Chauvin, who was supposedly an expert in techniques that were institutionalized by the Minneapolis Police Department, unfortunately put his knee on George Floyd’s neck.”

The autopsies offered conflicting views—one pointed to the knee as the cause of death, another suggested it wasn’t the only factor.

But the truth was quickly sidelined by the power of a single image.

“The expression on Officer Chauvin’s face was frozen into eternity,” Hanson said.

“And that sparked the idea that he was a white policeman conducting a typical murder of an unarmed black suspect.”
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates.

Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed.

→ @VigilantFox

Now, back to the story you came for. Image
That image, and the assumptions it carried, ignited months of chaos across the country.

“What followed was near mayhem,” Hanson recalled.

“Officer Chauvin… was sentenced to 20 years.”

But the fallout went far beyond a courtroom.

“This huge riot” wasn’t just a single event—it stretched across the entire summer.

From late May through September, American cities burned.

“Kamala Harris said it wasn’t going to stop, nor should it stop. It’s going to keep going to Election Day.”

Billions in damage followed.

A police precinct in Minneapolis was reduced to ash.

A federal courthouse was torched.

St. John’s Church, just across from the White House, was set on fire.

And at one point, a mob tried to breach the White House grounds.

But Hanson said the unrest wasn’t just physical—it was psychological.

With most of the country still under COVID lockdowns, people were glued to their screens, absorbing the narrative without real-world context.

“People had been in a lockdown… isolated in their own home with no human interaction,” he said.

“And this is their news was from the television.”
The most damaging part, Hanson argued, was the lie at the heart of the outrage—that unarmed black men were being systematically hunted by police.

“George Floyd was iconic or emblematic of young black men… being killed unarmed by the police,” Hanson said. “That was not true.”

Even The Washington Post acknowledged the numbers didn’t support the claim.

“That year there were only 18 black males who were stopped by the police in the entire population of 340 million people. This year, there were only 10!”

Considering that 11 to 12 million people are stopped by police each year, the data just didn’t line up with the narrative.

But that didn’t stop a new ideology from taking root—one that redefined racism itself.

“Professor Kendi and professor D’Angelo… created this idea of systemic racism, and you had to be racist in an anti-racist fashion,” he said.

“The only way to deal with systemic racism was to be pro-black.”

The results were devastating.

“What followed then was a defunding of the police,” Hanson said. “It caused a huge spike in crime—I think 20,000 murders in 2020.”

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter raised millions, only for the organization to collapse under the weight of scandal.

“The architects of that movement have ensconced with the money,” Hanson said. “They have nice homes, but it’s an inert group.”

Universities followed suit with their own brand of social justice performance—gutting merit-based admissions and enforcing loyalty to DEI initiatives.

“They dropped the SAT. They dropped the comparative ranking of high school GPAs. They dropped meritocracy.”

And if you didn’t actively prove your allegiance to DEI, you didn’t get hired.

“The universities went into something we could call repertory admissions.”
Five years later, Hanson said, the country is finally beginning to ask what it all really achieved.

“Looking back at all the damage of the downtowns in America—many of them were destroyed. Today, they have not recovered.”

Race relations are worse. Public trust is fractured. And the very institutions that rushed to virtue-signal have been discredited.

“Look at the universities who were chastised by the Supreme Court for using race in a racist fashion in admission. They've been discredited.”

“And the people who capitalized on the death of George Floyd are, for the most part, discredited.”

Now, Hanson believes, the country is starting to sober up.

“We're trying to come to a conclusion,” he said. “Why in the world did we go completely collectively insane?”

The lockdowns, he argued, did more harm than the virus itself.

The idea of defunding police has proven to be a dangerous fantasy.

And the so-called anti-racism movement squandered nearly all the goodwill it once had.

“Professor Kendi… went through $45 million [at] Boston University for an anti-racist center. And apparently the money was squandered.”

“So we’re getting back to the idea that when you use race in any fashion for bias or preference—it’s racist.”
Watch the full episode of The @DailySignal with @VDHanson here:
@DailySignal @VDHanson Thanks for reading. For more stories the mainstream won’t touch, follow me on 𝕏.

—> @VigilantFox

Looking for something else to read?

Elon Musk Declares 'DOGE Influence Will Only Grow Stronger' in White House Farewell

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @VigilantFox

Jun 4
Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.

Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.

But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.

This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.
This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-isnt-the…
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.

It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.

That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.

The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.Image
Read 27 tweets
May 28
Tucker Carlson admitted he used to make fun of people who believe vaccines cause autism.

He now describes his behavior as “unthinking, stupid, and reactionary.”

Tucker says people are noticing what Robert De Niro noticed about vaccines before he suddenly abandoned the issue: “There’s something there that people aren’t addressing” with vaccines and autism.

De Niro declared this on “The Today Show” back in 2016. Let the clip roll, and you’ll see it.

Fast forward to today, and it’s hard to believe De Niro actually said what he did on mainstream television.

What’s even harder to believe is just how most of the vaccines used today got approved in the first place.

“Placebo” doesn’t mean what most people think it means when it comes to vaccines.

Once you understand what a vaccine “placebo” is, the way evidence gets buried starts making a lot more sense. 🧵
Something strange happens when people first start looking seriously at vaccine safety data.

They do the research. They find the studies. They bring the evidence carefully into a conversation that feels safe and possible.

But nothing moves.

The other person doesn’t adjust. Doesn’t even get curious. They just double down harder.

Nothing about it feels like a normal disagreement. It feels like something else entirely.

Because it is.

And there’s actually a specific reason for that. A reason that goes much deeper than tribalism.Image
The reason vaccine orthodoxy functions differently from almost every other medical debate isn’t random.

It’s structural. It was designed and built this way.

To understand why the evidence lands differently here—why the same standards of proof that apply literally everywhere else somehow don’t apply to vaccines—you have to understand what vaccines actually represent in Western medicine.

And it’s probably not what you think.Image
Read 33 tweets
May 26
At the height of COVID, a “crazy” doctor was treating patients with a 99.96% survival rate.

Dr. Zelenko’s protocol was so effective, it sparked a war against HCQ.

They mocked his claims, but they kept coming true. Here’s what he said:

#1 - “Not everyone got the same thing.”
In an interview with Mel K, Dr. Zelenko said, “Some of the lots were 5,000% more lethal than others — or think of it as 50x. So, let’s say one vial killed one person. Another vial killed 50 people.”

“If everyone would have gotten the same thing, it would be a clear correlation that you’re being poisoned, and no one would take it,” Dr. Zelenko concluded. Thus, the answer to why some people took the shot and turned out okay is because “not everyone got the same thing.”
Dr. Zelenko’s bold claim was confirmed in March 2023, when a study performed by Schmeling and colleagues found that 4.2% of the batches accounted for a staggering 71% of adverse events. Image
Read 15 tweets
May 25
In 2015, Scott Adams made a “crazy” prediction that most people thought was impossible.

He said Trump had a 98% chance of becoming president, and he made that call on a single observation.

The winning attribute that made Scott confident in Trump’s victory was his one-of-a-kind persuasion skills.

While political betting markets dismissed Trump’s chances, Adams argued—using his background in persuasion and hypnosis—that Trump was the most psychologically effective candidate in the race and therefore favored to win. He built a massive following by showing how persuasion, not policy, drives political outcomes.

That insight proved correct. But it also revealed something darker. 🧵
After Trump’s victory, Adams pivoted to punditry—and during COVID, even he struggled to see the truth.

Scott strongly endorsed the vaccines, vaccinated himself, and publicly belittled followers who refused. Many later derisively called him “Clot Adams.”

In January 2023, Adams admitted—on video—that he’d been wrong and that the anti-vaxxers were correct. But he framed it as luck: the right people just happened to distrust the government, while “all the data” supposedly pointed intelligent analysts toward vaccination.

That framing matters. It reveals how even skilled observers of persuasion can mistake marketing consensus for truth—and how the same system that manufactures medical certainty also hides the limits of medicine, until reality forces a reckoning.
Last May, Scott told the world something most people never say out loud until it’s unavoidable: he had terminal, metastatic prostate cancer.

He openly stated he planned to use California’s medically assisted dying to reduce suffering.

He also shut down speculation—saying he had already tried fenbendazole and ivermectin and had no interest in continuing them.

The reaction was explosive.

People weren’t just debating treatment choices—they were watching, in real time, what a protracted, modern death actually looks like.

For many, it shattered comforting abstractions about both cancer and mortality.
Read 33 tweets
May 21
This 45-second clip with Dr. Peter Hotez is difficult to watch.

A mom from Texas desperately asks him why she keeps getting “really bad” COVID.

She got three COVID shots, took multiple rounds of Paxlovid, but she keeps “getting COVID often.”

Dr. Hotez tells the woman that her repeated COVID infections are basically her fault for skipping boosters.

WOMAN: “I’m getting COVID often. I took Paxlovid the third time, and then a few weeks later I got it again. COVID was really bad on me.”

HOTEZ: “After you had your first two immunizations way back in 2021, did you get boosters regularly?”

WOMAN: “I got one booster, and then after that I stopped getting them.”

HOTEZ: “Yeah. So that’s the reason why you keep up with the boosters.”

The saddest part about this interaction is that the woman was so convinced by Hotez that getting COVID was her fault that she was eager to get another booster shot after the show.

This is an extreme case of medical gaslighting that is easy to spot.

But what about when it’s not?

What about the times you did everything your doctor recommended—only to find yourself worse off than when you started? 🧵
Something seismic has happened to public health in America—and most people haven’t fully processed its scale.

A 2025 JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children found that only 37% fully trusted the CDC vaccine schedule and planned to follow it completely.

Five years ago, a number that low would have been unimaginable.

So what’s causing the drop? And what does it mean?Image
To understand the big picture and why it matters, you need the baseline.

In 2000, only 19% of parents had concerns about vaccines. By 2009, that number was 50%. And by 2013, 9% had declined all immunizations, while 32% had safety concerns.

The medical establishment found those numbers alarming. But what we’re looking at today is in a different category entirely.Image
Read 30 tweets
May 20
In the 1930s to the early 60s, Americans were convinced smoking was healthy.

Doctors proudly appeared in cigarette ads. “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

The public was given a clear message: If physicians smoked themselves, how dangerous could it possibly be?

At its peak, more than 42% of American adults smoked, with rates among men climbing as high as 57%.

Business was booming. But behind the scenes, tobacco companies already knew smoking was linked to deadly disease.

Internal research pointed to the dangers early, yet the industry spent years funding doubt, attacking critics, and delaying public awareness long enough to keep the machine running.

Then came January 11, 1964.

The U.S. Surgeon General released the report that changed everything: smoking causes lung cancer and other deadly illnesses.

Almost overnight, one of the most trusted health narratives in America began to collapse.

And it wasn’t the only one.

In the 1940s and 1950s, lobotomies were celebrated as a revolutionary treatment for mental illness. Walter Freeman traveled the country performing thousands of “ice-pick” procedures, sometimes in minutes, sometimes on children.

The technique even earned a Nobel Prize.

Years later, it was widely condemned as barbaric, after leaving countless patients permanently damaged.

Today, we look back at both eras with disbelief and wonder how entire generations came to trust ideas that later proved so catastrophically wrong.

But the more uncomfortable question is harder to escape:

How many medical “certainties” we trust today will future generations one day look back on the same way? 🧵
We hold thousands of assumptions we never question.

Most of them are fine. The dangerous ones are the unquestioned assumptions that aren’t.

This is about what it actually looks like to prioritize truth over being right.

Including when that means publicly correcting something you’ve believed for decades.

Let’s start with a story.

For decades, a widely repeated narrative has appeared in critiques of Western medicine:

That 19th century surgeon James Marion Sims performed experimental gynecological surgeries on enslaved black women without anesthesia—using them as test subjects before performing the same procedures on white women, with anesthesia.

It felt obviously, viscerally wrong. Most people never questioned it.

They just react to it.Image
As it turns out, what the historical record actually shows is considerably different.

The condition Sims treated—vesicovaginal fistula—was devastating and had no cure at the time. Suffering women were desperate for relief and willingly consented to the procedures.

Ether was brand new, highly controversial, and carried real risks. Sims and other surgeons of the era didn’t believe the pain of these specific operations justified those risks—and applied the same standard regardless of the patient’s race.

The women he worked with helped each other through their recoveries, assisted in surgeries, and pushed him to continue when he wanted to stop. He acknowledged his debt to them publicly. He operated at his own expense.

The narrative most people know about James Marion Sims had been assembled to support a political argument, not drawn from the historical record. And in 2018, after significant protest, his statue in New York City was removed.Image
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(