Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Ceb K. Profile picture
@CEBKCEBKCEBK
Sep 15, 2025 • 7 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
In 2023, SCOTUS considered whether independent artists offering their services for hire must agree to produce “acceptable” art for gay marriages upon request, bc of civil rights laws. All 3 libs voted for subordinating the 1st amendment to “non-discrimination” laws. They hate 1A. Image
If Hillary had won, SCOTUS would’ve upheld this literally incredible (as in almost nobody believes me when I tell them about it) assault on free speech, & gone farther. The key reason we still have any semblance of free speech rights is thanks to Donald Trump. Crush the left now!
Free speech caselaw is one of the most misunderstood pillars of mainstream propaganda. Citizens United is hated for giving RW nonprofits the rights to produce & screen political movies. Workplaces can’t allow un-PC jokes under CRA. But strip clubs etc are now protected from regs! Image
When the left says it supports “free speech,” it means the rights of degenerate lifestyles & progressive apparatchiks to state support, by restraining the superior from political power over them; the hard right (correctly) understands the 1st amendment as about empowering agentic
Just think how much disinfo you’ve been fed by lefties about Citizens United: they make it sound like da big business corporations were behind it man, but it was a nonprofit advocacy group for making political speech & its rights were upheld on *anti* corporate personhood grounds Image
They think “free speech” means govt protecting underhanded grasping by herds against anyone who seeks power, & protecting their weaknesses from judgments; that’s why they think it’s fine to murder us for expressing political views—rather than just lifestyles—ie for seeking power.
Free speech was originally—explicitly—a right of parliament: of successful elites to debate what & how to impose upon herd & tradition; of the visionary to plot (without even allowing the press in pre-1803 to witness debates), not of cowardly low mobs to bray & hoot for consensus

• • •

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

Keep Current with Ceb K.

Ceb K. 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 @CEBKCEBKCEBK

Ceb K. Profile picture
Dec 17, 2025
Good old post from @curtis_yarvin on the viral Compact Mag essay: the culture industry’s a MLM federal jobs program designed to produce people capable of noticing & replicating & teaching the preferred narrative, bc this comes with status benefits, & it’s what allows for capture- Image
Image
Image
Image
@curtis_yarvin The first creative writing program was only created in 1936—at Iowa, still the top of the pyramid & origin of every official fad. By 1980 there were over 250 in the US; now ~500. As writing becomes this kind of commissariat, ofc it’s vulnerable to dysfunctional campaigns & purges Image
Image
Image
Image
@curtis_yarvin Wokeness is worst in academia, journalism, publishing, etc—the culture industry—bc they all fit the same patterns Yarv noticed about MFAs: they’ve been “generously” institutionalized into MLM jobs programs which also teach laity how to “appreciate” their officially valid “craft.”
Read 6 tweets
Ceb K. Profile picture
Oct 28, 2025
In 1974 Congress was upset about Nixon having refused to spend appropriated money on programs he disliked, so they banned this discretion in a law that also formalized all the appropriations bills (usually 11-13 per year) into one standardized process. Huge constitutional change:
There’d only ever been one “omnibus” bill before this in our nation’s whole history (1950, as an efficiency experiment that nobody found interesting or fruitful then). The 2nd was in 1986. From 2012 to 2024, 147 of 149 budget bills were passed in omnibus form. Huge transformation
Those two exceptions were so minor they further prove the rule: in 2015 DHS was funded separately bc the rest of the budget could be agreed on before funding disputes about Obama’s DACA/DAPA were settled; & in 2017 VA/MilCon got funded before the rest of the budget bc bipartisan.
Read 26 tweets
Ceb K. Profile picture
Oct 21, 2025
Odd! Not sure what one could possibly make of this! Very surprising to anyone who’s ever interacted with male, female, & mixed groups! We must fund extra research ASAP to figure out what combination of carrots for women & sticks for men can help women come out as equally liberal! Image
Image
Image
Image
As teen was taught female orgasms require complex rube goldberg machinations. It’s actually quite simple, but getting any group which defers to its female members to eg actually consider any factual or logical assertion instead of status quo-ing requires comical game foreplay etc
Feminized groups may defer to judging propositional claims by whether they confirm ingroup status, & assuming that interlocutors are actually just asking for entry, but if you dance well & bring flowers & grovel for the hotties & pity their ugly friends… then they can be liberal
Read 5 tweets
Ceb K. Profile picture
Oct 12, 2025
He notes that starting around 1965, US college students began throwing shrill fits at their admins in ways that their admins began coddling instead of disciplining. He notes that this began at UC Berkeley (which “boast[ed] more women students than any other US coed institution”). Image
Image
Image
Image
The alum page on “150 years of women at Berkeley” notes that women were prominent in all these campaigns (& for once they’re not just making them up as “hidden figures”). 1960s was when all the “in loco parentis” rules evaporated—no more female curfews, bans on mixed sleepovers… Image
Image
Image
Image
Note that the graph is about graduations, so enrollments feminize ~4 years earlier (ie incoming students surpass the ~1940 feminization peak in just about exactly 1965). Note also that teen guys going off to uni act v differently if they can sleep over with girls w/out expulsions
Read 12 tweets
Ceb K. Profile picture
Sep 6, 2025
Men are more naturally monogamous bc we wanna just have our home life settled so we can use it as foundation for external pursuits. Women are the ones always working on their home life, introducing new projects to it, etc. If she’s in love, that means making his home better—but…
Polygamy’s only more common than polyandry bc a) it’s much more stable, & b) so many women so underhandedly pursue the few top men that sometimes they can’t focus enough to reject these additional distractions. Men who have their shit together never say “if only I had more wives”
Women’s desire is much more about being desired by someone desirable. ie romance is overwhelmingly about calling forth male effort (yes, women put in underhanded effort to call this forth but they want it to look like he’s just naturally choosing to sweep them off their feet etc)
Read 7 tweets
Ceb K. Profile picture
Sep 3, 2025
Men build civ best under monogamy: ie when we have to compete with each other over other things than extra wives; when that’s been successful & consensual, it’s thru neolocal nuclear families, thus not even about securing high-value mates for our kids. Opaque spergy men’s clubs >
ie perhaps the *removal of the desire to fuck women from public life* is what allows men to build civ: if we already have wives at home & can’t fruitfully seek extras, then we have no reason to let women into these clubs or cater their competitive outputs to women’s sensibilities
That way we can sperg out & focus on competing over status based on heterogenous expertise rather than social desirability. & so “weird intense antisocial nerds” like Newton can rise to the top. Can you imagine him being allowed more than conniving eunuch intrigue under polygamy?
Read 4 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!

Send Email!

:(