Si vis paceum para bellum U.S. Navy EM1/SS (H. discharged) BS Electrical Engineering AS Engineering Technology Novice guitarist, outdoor enthusiast.
United States
Joined August 2023
- Tweets4.2K
- Following214
- Followers228
- Likes33.9K
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
I used AI to create this short film.
America, you’ve been warned.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Ladies, if your man is about to get into a fight don't grab his arm. Don't pull his shirt. Your motherly instincts aren't helping. Get the fuck out of the way.
Note how the delusional family and "helpful" bystanders always grab the normal dude instead of the deranged schizophrenic hobo who is harassing people.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
I wrote this description/warning of what is happening in the West. Please watch it and share it with others. @idicenter
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TOLD
The IPCC has nothing.
Forty years of civilizational alarm. Trillions of dollars redirected. Energy systems dismantled. Farmers crushed. Children taught to fear the sky. Political freedom surrendered. Reproductive choices second-guessed. Entire economies rewired.
For nothing.
There is no empirical finding underneath any of it. None. Not one measurement, standing on its own, that would move a reasonable person to alarm.
The entire structure is manufactured.
Ask for one item. True without a model. Significant without a redefinition. Measured without extrapolation. Able to stand alone and matter to a parent, a farmer, a shipowner, an engineer, a legislator.
The honest inventory is three measurements. Not one of them means anything by itself.
COâ‚‚ rose from 315 to 425 ppm since 1958. Plants grew better. Nothing bad happened that follows from the number.
Humans emit about 10 GtC/yr from combustion. A flux figure. By itself it tells you nothing.
COâ‚‚ absorbs infrared on known bands. Water vapor absorbs far more. A spectroscopic line is not a consequence.
That is it. The entire empirical pile. Three measurements. Zero significance.
Everything else they have told you is one of three tricks.
Model output passed off as observation. Climate sensitivity. Airborne fraction read as retention. Revelle-limited uptake. Millennial persistence. Attribution of warming to forcing. Catastrophic projection. None of this is measured. All of it is what model code returns when they turn its crank. Model output is the model's assumptions integrated forward. It is not testimony from nature. It never was.
Definitional sleight-of-hand. Global mean surface temperature called a physical quantity. It is not. It is an area-weighted arithmetic mean of intensive readings with no thermodynamic referent. The 44 percent ratio of annual growth to annual emission relabeled as an airborne fraction and sold as retention. It carries zero information about retention. Fossil "dominance" quietly redefined from "nearly all" to "a bare majority" so the claim survives data that killed the real version.
Extrapolation sold as measurement. Tide gauges spliced to altimetry and projected as acceleration. Local pH drift at a handful of stations generalized to a planetary crisis. Arctic ice loss broadcast while Antarctic stability is dropped. Retreating glaciers paraded. Advancing ones hidden.
Strip the models. Strip the redefinitions. Strip the extrapolations. The pile is empty.
This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The civilizational emergency has no empirical content. It was built by running trivial measurements through model chains and definitional swaps until the output read as apocalypse. Then it was broadcast as settled science. Then dissent was criminalized. Then careers were destroyed. Then children were terrified. Then nations were restructured.
For nothing.
The emperor has no clothes.
The pile is empty.
The alarm is a fabrication.
The greatest lie ever told to the human species was told in the name of saving the planet from a trace gas that feeds every green thing that lives.
That is the headline.
That is the story.
That is what you were never supposed to notice.
Now you know.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
I’m so tired of these freaking losers, and my @townhallcom column is not kind to them…
“Twenty years ago, people would’ve thought you were crazy if you told them that Karl Rove would be welcomed onto the pages of the regime media to announce that his powerful principles require him to vote for a Democrat who believes you should carve up little boys and girls to conform to the trendy gender delusions of their Munchausen mommies. But in 2026, when he did that, nobody was surprised. Nobody was shocked. After all, betrayal is the old Republican establishment’s brand.”
The Last Stand of Rove, Cornyn, and the Establishment Frauds townhall.com/columnists/kurt…
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Today the Daily Wire published this piece I wrote about 9/11 to mark Infidel Awareness Month.
It is important that all Americans understand: it was Islam, the fourteen-century-old doctrine of jihad, behind 9/11, just as it was behind October 7, just as it was behind the massacre of millions across history and the erasure of civilizations.
The West is its next target.
Read and share.
dailywire.com/news/twenty-fi…
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
My new @townhallcom VIP column is unequivocal – deport them all, including the GOP squishes…
“The pro-amnesty Republicans are not just failing to read the room – they’re failing to read the entire house and most of the neighborhood. It’s insane that in 2026 we still have a substantial number of Republican Party politicians who still don’t understand that the GOP base is done tolerating the invasion of Third World foreigners in our country, uninvited intruders who are changing its culture, committing crimes, and taking our money. We don’t want a reasonable solution. We’re not looking for an immigration compromise. We want them gone. Out. Adios.
What’s so hard about that to understand?”
Get It Through Your Thick Heads, GOP: No Amnesty Ever townhall.com/columnists/kurt…
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
So much of American political discourse these days consists purely of the logical error of a false dichotomy.
The "post-liberal," "common good conservatism" crowd seems particularly prone to this.
They present an illusory, binary choice:
1. A society in which a large, powerful central government virtuously imposes Christianity on the masses at the reasonable cost of a diminution of personal liberty.
-or-
2. Personal liberty is held paramount and as a result the society is overrun by illegal immigrants, rabid jihadists, capitalistic excess and a complete abdication of traditional morality.
Those are NOT the only two choices.
One of many other choices is to reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government to its original Constitutional limits, deport all of the illegal aliens, end the guaranteed student loan and home mortgage scams, cease DEI policies that create the immorality that plagues society, end social welfare programs that destroy the family, cease importing jihadists and enforce personal liberty as the paramount goal of government (as the Founders intended).
And "personal liberty" is not unlimited. When one person's actions trample on the personal liberty of another, that is not allowable liberty. Liberty itself is a social compact. For example, allowing minarets to be built in an American town where the call to Muslim prayer drowns out the lives of non-Muslims is not "religious freedom." It's not "liberty." It's tyranny. Same with forcing stores to sell Halal.
So, yes, it's possible to preserve liberty while at the same time undoing the errors of the past thirty years that have made young people feel like debt slaves by implementing the measures I mention above (deportation, ending the loan scams, cease importing and stop accommodating jihadists, etc.).
"Common good conservatives" think they must seize the levers of power to achieve this, rather than eliminating or reducing the existence of those unconstitutional levers of power.
Well intentioned tyrannical government is still tyranny.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Since the religion of peace struck on four continents this week, I must repost this piece:
Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi and one of the architects of the Holocaust, fled to South America after World War II.
In 1962, he was captured and brought to Israel for trial.
During the proceedings, the prosecution brought in survivors from Nazi death camps to testify against him.
One of them, Yehiel Dinur, entered the courtroom and came face to face with Eichmann, who was seated in a glass box. The moment Dinur saw him, he collapsed to the ground, shaking and sobbing uncontrollably.
Years later, in an interview with 60 Minutes, journalist Mike Wallace asked Dinur if his reaction had been caused by traumatic memories from the concentration camps.
"No," Dinur replied. "It was not the memories that made me collapse. It was the realization that Eichmann was not a demon. He was an ordinary man.
Hannah Arendt, a journalist for The New Yorker, attended Eichmann’s trial and later wrote about it.
She noted that Eichmann was not a psychopath, not a man burning with sadistic hatred. He was ordinary.
That is what made him so terrifying. He was a man who followed orders, who did his job, who justified the horrors he participated in without ever questioning them.
All humans have the capacity for evil. We all have within us the ability to justify unspeakable horrors if the conditions are right.
The question is not whether we are capable of evil, but what prevents us from committing it?
Most religions restrain human evil. They set moral boundaries, condemning acts of violence, injustice, and cruelty.
Christianity commands its followers to love their enemies, forgive those who harm them, and refuse vengeance. Judaism, despite its history of persecution, never formed a doctrine commanding global conquest or the extermination of non-Jews.
Islam, however, does the opposite.
When an ISIS fighter beheads a captive, he is not acting outside the teachings of his faith. He is following the example of Muhammad, who personally oversaw the beheading of hundreds of Jewish men in Medina.
When Hamas terrorists slaughter Israeli families, they are not betraying Islam, they are fulfilling the doctrine of jihad, which commands war against non-Muslims until Islam dominates the world.
Unlike Christianity, which calls for self-sacrifice, Islam calls for sacrificing others. Unlike Judaism, which focuses on preserving its own people, Islam commands the subjugation or destruction of all who reject it.
We all have the potential for evil. But the difference between a person who commits atrocities and one who does not is the belief system that shapes them.
A Christian who commits murder is violating his faith. A Muslim who kills an apostate is fulfilling his.
A Buddhist who wages war is going against the teachings of his religion. A jihadist who slaughters unbelievers is doing exactly what his religion commands.
The Nazis did not commit genocide because they were born different from us. They did it because they were indoctrinated into an ideology that justified mass murder.
The same is true for every Hamas terrorist, every suicide bomber, every ISIS militant.
Their faith tells them that their victims are not innocent, not human, not worthy of mercy. And so, they kill without hesitation.
The reality is, Islam is the only major religion that actively commands the atrocities we fear. It is the only faith where genocide, subjugation, and violence are not historical accidents, but divine commandments.
It is a mistake to think Islam is just another religion, rather than the most dangerous ideology the world has ever known.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Here’s What I’m Looking For:
▪️Trade reciprocally
▪️Secure our borders
▪️Balance the budget
▪️Deport illegal aliens
▪️Secure our elections
▪️Repeal the death tax
▪️Provide school choice
▪️Abolish property taxes
▪️Make DOGE permanent
▪️Dominate oil/natural gas
▪️Pass the SAVE America Act
▪️Permanently defund USAID
▪️Eliminate sovereign immunity
▪️Criminalize aiding illegal aliens
▪️Open more clean nuclear plants
▪️Build data centers in Antarctica
▪️Impeach unconstitutional judges
▪️Establish an Internet Bill of Rights
▪️Ban foreign countries from buying US land
▪️Right to Buy cheaper prescription drugs from other countries
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
The Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment – the real antidote to Rousseau and Voltaire
The French Enlightenment and the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment happened simultaneously, in the same century, reading the same books, arguing about the same questions. They reached completely opposite conclusions. One produced the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. The other produced the guillotine. This is the most important civilizational fork in modern history.
1. The French Enlightenment begins with the assumption that human beings can be improved by reason – that if you strip away the corrupting institutions of Church, tradition, and inherited authority, the natural goodness underneath will organize itself into a just society. This sounds like progress. It is a fantasy with a body count. Every attempt to implement it has required, at some point, a Committee of Public Safety to handle the people who turned out not to be naturally good enough.
2. The Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment begins with the opposite assumption: human beings are what they are, not what they could be if properly enlightened. Hume grounds morality in human nature as it actually operates – sympathy, habit, sentiment, the slow accumulation of social trust. Smith shows that self-interest, properly channeled, produces collective benefit without a planner. Neither man is building a utopia. Both are building with the actual material available.
3. Burke is the direct refutation, written in real time. He published Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790 – before the Terror, predicting it precisely – because he understood that institutions are not obstacles to human flourishing, they are its precondition. They contain accumulated wisdom — the knowledge of the dead — that cannot be recovered once destroyed. Pull society apart to improve it and you don’t get the General Will. You get Robespierre.
4. The American founders read Burke, Hume, Smith, and Montesquieu – the Frenchman who looked at England and understood what France was missing. They built a system that takes human nature as given — self-interested, power-hungry, tribal — and constructs institutions to contain those tendencies rather than assume they disappear once the right people are in charge. Checks and balances are not a design flaw. They are what you build when you don’t believe in philosopher-kings.
5. 1776 versus 1789. Same Enlightenment, same century, same vocabulary of liberty and reason. One produces a constitutional republic that has survived two and a half centuries of stress, civil war, and upheaval. The other produces, in sequence: the Terror, Napoleon, 1848, the Commune, and eventually — via Marx, who was a Frenchman in spirit if not in birth — the entire catastrophe of the twentieth century. The difference was not intelligence or intention. It was the starting assumption about human nature. Get that wrong and everything that follows is wrong with it.
6. The guillotine is not the Revolution’s failure. It is its logical conclusion. If man is naturally good and the system is corrupt, then whoever seizes the system in the name of natural goodness is licensed to do anything. The General Will cannot be wrong. Those who resist it are not opponents – they are enemies of nature itself.
7. The real antidote to Rousseau and Voltaire was never a better French philosopher. It was a different civilizational tradition – one that builds with human beings as they are; that treats inherited institutions as repositories of wisdom rather than obstacles to progress; that distributes power rather than concentrating it in whoever currently claims to know the General Will. That tradition was built in Edinburgh, London, and Philadelphia. It is currently under sustained assault — from exactly the same ideas, in exactly the same form, with exactly the same confidence — that Burke watched demolish France in 1789. He was right then. He is right now.
Voltaire – the fake antidote to Rousseau
He is the most entertaining man of the eighteenth century and the most seductive trap in Western intellectual history. He seems like the cure for Rousseau. He is the other half of the disease.
1. Where Rousseau is emotional, Voltaire is rational. Where Rousseau weeps over the noble savage, Voltaire mocks. He is the master of devastating wit, precise irony, surgical ridicule. Candide dismantles every naive optimism in ninety pages with the efficiency of a guillotine – which is fitting, since the guillotine is partly what his work made possible.
2. His great weapon is mockery. Écrasez l’infâme – crush the infamous, meaning the Church, tradition, inherited authority. He crushed it. With wit, elegance, and devastating precision. He was right that the Church was corrupt, that the aristocracy was parasitic, that the old order was indefensible in many of its particulars. Being right about what to demolish is not the same as knowing what to build.
3. Voltaire is the demolition crew without an architecture firm. He tears down, magnificently. He offers no replacement – only rubble, and the advice to cultivate your garden. Private. Disengaged. The conclusion of Candide: after every horror, every injustice, every system failure – grow vegetables. This is not wisdom. This is elegant surrender dressed as philosophy.
4. His irony is a solvent. It dissolves corruption, yes – but it dissolves everything, including the things worth keeping. A civilization marinated in Voltairean irony learns to mock every claim to authority, every appeal to tradition, every invocation of duty. This feels like freedom. It is actually vulnerability – a society that has learned to be ironic about everything is defenseless against the person who believes something earnestly enough to act on it. Robespierre was not ironic. He was a true believer. He won.
5. Rousseau gave the revolutionary the emotional fuel: the pure victim, the corrupt oppressor, the righteous rage of nature against civilization. Voltaire provided the intellectual solvent: he dissolved the legitimacy of every institution that might have contained that rage. Together they cleared the ground completely. Robespierre arrived and found no Church, no tradition, no inherited authority with enough credibility to resist him. He simply moved into the vacuum and filled it with the General Will and the guillotine.
6. And when he wasn’t playing "champion of liberty", he was on the payroll of kings, literally. He spent years at Frederick the Great’s court and corresponded adoringly with Catherine the Great, flattering both in print as enlightened monarchs of the age. While he was writing these letters, Frederick and Catherine were carving up Poland – dismembering a European nation, erasing it from the map and subjugating an entire people in one of the great crimes of the eighteenth century. Voltaire knew. He didn’t care. Écrasez l’infâme — crush the infamous — unless the infamous is paying well and lives in a palace in Berlin or St. Petersburg.
7. The contemporary Voltaire is everywhere: the late night host who dismantles everything with devastating wit and proposes nothing. The enlightened cynic who sees through every institution, trusts nothing, builds nothing, and considers this sophistication – while cashing checks from the very system he mocks. The fake antidote doesn’t kill you. It leaves you without defenses when the real disease arrives. Rousseau is the fire. Voltaire is the man who dismantled your fireplace and called it progress – and then went to warm himself at the tsar’s.
Together they produced the French Revolution, with the Terror, and the template for every ideological catastrophe that followed. The most dangerous intellectual partnership in Western history wasn’t a conspiracy. It was two men who despised each other and destroyed the same thing from opposite ends, leaving the ground perfectly prepared for those who came after them with a plan.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Yea, you know what Europe, I don’t care about your criticisms.
> You flood your countries with unvetted migrants who rape your daughters in grooming gangs and turn your cities into no go zones. Then you call us racists for noticing.
> You let those same migrants behead people in your streets yet you still import more and call it enrichment.
> You ban air conditioning and force your people to roast alive in heatwaves for your retarded net zero death cult while your green energy suicide causes blackouts, freezing winters, and bills so insane families live in the dark. Then you mock Americans for living normally.
> You jail grandmas for tweets criticizing the migrant invasion destroying your nations. Then you wonder why your citizens despise their own institutions.
> You mooch off American defense for generations, surrender every decision to unelected Brussels bureaucrats, and fail to convince your own people to have kids or defend your dying civilization. Then you call us the sheep.
The easiest way to spot someone who has surrendered their own liberty is how eager they are to lecture everyone else about theirs.
I treat people how I want to be treated. And I damn sure would want my “allies” to wake me the fuck up when I’m asleep at the wheel while civilization careens off a cliff.
Don’t @ me. You’ve got serious work to do. Chop chop. 👏 👏
Europe is so cooked. Literally and figuratively.
Joking aside, I have a theory.
That continent has fought itself stupid.
Napoleon, WWI, WWII, etc.
Since 1800, 120+ million people have died on that continent due to war.
Usually the finest stock of a country goes to war, so the strongest among them are just genetically… gone.
It’s just a continent full of literal sheepish retards at this point. There’s nothing left to resist tyranny because the kind of people who do that are now dead.
Fully spent.
Cooked.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
GOD BLESS YOU SIR 🫵🏻🫡
My respect 96 years .
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
AMERICAN MADE .
The GOAT !!
Clint Eastwood Said Something About Getting Old That Stopped Me Cold.
Aging is not gentle.
You are still here. Still present. Still watching the world move. But the body that carried you through everything - the wars, the work, the wildness of youth - begins to ask for more than you can give it. Joints that never complained now speak up in the morning. Eyes that once took in everything now flinch at the light. Breathing, which never required a single thought, starts needing little pauses.
But none of that is the hardest part.
The hardest part is the quiet.
At a certain age, you reach for the phone and remember there is no one left to call.
The people who knew you when you were young - who remembered the same summers, the same streets, the same faces
- are gone. One by one, then all at once, until the memories you carry have no one left to share them with.
So you tell the stories anyway.
To whoever will listen. With a little more color than perhaps the truth deserves. With a touch of pride you've earned and a grief you don't always name. You know the person across from you wasn't there. You know they can't quite feel it the way you do.
But you tell them. Because the telling is the holding on.
Those stories are not just memories. They are the proof that a life was lived. That people were loved. That things mattered.
And if no one asks for them - you offer them anyway, quietly, like setting something down on a table and hoping someone picks it up.
Old age is not simply what happens to a face or a body.
It is memory looking for a place to rest.
And what an older person needs - more than advice, more than solutions, more than someone telling them how to feel - is simply someone willing to sit down, be still, and listen.
Not to fix anything.
Just to be there.
That is the whole gift. And it costs nothing.
~Wild Whispers .
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
They Only Love Us When We’re Dead
Let me explain why @PeteHegseth’s struggle cuts deep for so many of us.
He jokes about receiving 100% negative media coverage as @SecDef. Classic infantry humor. But behind the laugh is something serious, something warriors like me feel deep in our bones.
I didn’t know who he was until @realDonaldTrump announced him. I was bitter. Burned out. After years of watching the Army rot under leaders who didn’t believe in warfighters, I was ready to walk away. Then I saw his interview with @ShawnRyan762, and for the first time in years, I heard my own voice coming from someone else.
He was raw, honest, full of fire and frustration, saying what so many of us have felt and lived. I listened to The War on Warriors during my PCS from California to Texas and thought: maybe, just maybe, the tide is turning. But then came the media.
They didn’t see a man reborn from war, they saw tabloid bait. They didn’t see someone rise from the wreckage of combat, they saw a drunk, a womanizer, a threat to their fragile narratives. They ignored the mission, the movement, the message. They attacked the man. Because that’s what they always do.
And for the first time, I asked myself: is that how America sees me?
Because I drank too much. I chased women. I did reckless things to feel alive after brushing shoulders with death. Like many infantrymen, I struggled when I came home. Not because I was broken, but because I was human.
The media never tells that story. They only love us when we fight their wars, come home silent, and k*ll ourselves. That’s the Soldier they’re comfortable with. The one who disappears. But rise from that? Try to lead again? Speak your mind? Now you’re dangerous.
So no, I’m not asking the media to be nicer to him. I’m asking the American people to see through them. To understand what it means to walk through fire, stumble, and still choose to serve again, reborn. Because when you malign warriors for surviving the wars you forgot, don’t be surprised when we stop trusting you.
They went from “thank you for your service” to “how dare you not be perfect.” From hero to headline. They used our war, our pain, our sacrifice, and turned their backs the moment we showed our scars. That’s not criticism. That’s betrayal.
If the media actually cared about warfighters, they’d shine a light on our real battles: the suicide crisis, mold ridden barracks, a broken VA, commanders who punish truth tellers, and an IG system built to bury the truth. But they don’t. Instead, they spend their time tearing down Pete Hegseth for anything they can spin, forcing him to pause the mission just to swat away their lies. That’s not journalism. That’s sabotage. And we see it for exactly what it is.
And it proves what so many of us have known for years: they don’t hate Pete because he failed us, they hate him because he won’t fail warriors.
They don’t care about warfighters. They care about the narrative. And for the first time in years, the narrative is scared. We aren't backing down.
In case you wonder what we — and President Trump — are up against.
100% NEGATIVE coverage from so-call “mainstream” press in the first 100 days. PERFECT SCORE.
(Come on @RobertKennedyJr & @elonmusk , you guys can do better!)
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
We Will Not Be Replaced
It is quite insane, really. The entire world now arrays itself against the United States the moment we remember we have a right to self-determination. Borders. Continuity. The simple demand that this nation remain ours.
I have never witnessed anything like recent events. The Catholic Church hierarchy and the mullahs of Iran suddenly chanting the same refrain. The UN. The Pope. Most Western governments. All reciting the identical globalist Marxist filth in a propaganda symphony that would make Goebbels himself stand in silent awe.
The message is not subtle. It's delivered with the cold precision of those who actually run the world:
>You will be persecuted if you want a country with borders.
>You will be smeared if you refuse infinity migrants who rape and don't assimilate.
>You will be damned if you reject sharing the earth with terrorist regimes.
>You will be hunted if you deny the ruling class its “Epstein” privileges over your daughters.
Submit. Dissolve. Perish quietly. You will never be thanked for it. Only chastised until you sheepishly die.
But we see you. Every last one of you. The globalist chorus that suddenly finds common cause with our enemies. You are not hiding. You're telling us exactly who you are, and we believe every damn word.
This isn't holy compassion you peddle. This is the deliberate weakening of the West so that it can be replaced. Our lands overrun. Our women violated. Our children’s future auctioned off while we are lectured about “welcoming the stranger.”
Where was this moral thunder when it matter most in recent years? Nowhere. Because the goal was never mercy. The goal was erosion.
America doesn't ask permission to exist as itself. We don't negotiate our survival. And we certainly don't apologize for refusing to roll over and die.
WE are the ones who underwrote the peace you enjoyed. WE are the ones who carried the bill for your delusions of borderless utopia. The invoice is now due, and this latest outburst is proof you feel the weight of it in your bones.
A sovereign people does not debate its own replacement. It secures its right to remain.
Pressure will come dressed as virtue. It always does. Shame, sermons, sanctions. Tired old tools with new voices. They mistake restraint for weakness. They always do.
America is not sustained by your worthless approval. It is sustained by will. It's sustained by steel laid down long before the argument, by ships already at sea, by a people who have paid in blood for the simple right to decide their own future. That memory does not fade. It simply hardens.
We are NOT asking permission. Nor are we seeking consensus. We are setting terms. We will not thin out. We will not be dissolved. We will not be replaced. We remain.
And all you can do is shriek at a country that has heard it all before. But the world runs on something older than your arguments.
If you want us to die, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
One of the reasons X terrifies soft ideologues is that it has become one of the last places where ideas are forced to compete in the open.
I don’t block people and certainly don’t deliberately curate an echo chamber. My replies are full of people who disagree with me.
And yet every day I watch the same thing happen.
The people who spent years convinced they represented the silent majority get ratioed into the earth by ordinary Americans.
Not because of brigading, coordination, or because some shadowy force is helping.
Because their ideas suck.
That realization should horrify them. But it doesn’t, because they’re dented.
For years they mistook institutional power for public support. They confused HR departments, media outlets, universities, and bureaucracies with actual consensus.
Now the walls are gone and the ideas have to stand on their own. And many of them just can’t.
What’s happening on this platform is not the triumph of a movement. It’s the collapse of an illusion.
The worst part isn’t that they’re losing. It’s that they’re finding out how few people ever agreed with them in the first place.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
Aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction.
La déconstruction est le virus mental le plus efficace jamais conçu contre une civilisation. Il a été fabriqué en France entre 1966 et 1980 par trois hommes : Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Il a été exporté aux États-Unis, hybridé avec le puritanisme racial américain, et il est revenu trente ans plus tard sous le nom de wokisme paralyser l'Occident entier. Voici comment il fonctionne, et pourquoi il faut le détruire.
La thèse est simple. Toute vérité n'est qu'un rapport de pouvoir déguisé. Tout texte sacré, toute loi, toute science, toute norme, toute hiérarchie, toute identité, toute institution cache en réalité une domination. Déconstruire, c'est montrer le rapport de force sous le vernis du vrai. C'est arracher le masque. C'est "démasquer".
Formulé comme ça, ça paraît inoffensif. Voire utile. Qui n'aime pas un peu d'esprit critique ? Le piège est là . La déconstruction se présente comme une méthode. Elle est en réalité une ontologie. Elle ne dit pas seulement "interrogeons les normes", elle dit "il n'y a *que* des rapports de pouvoir". La différence est civilisationnelle.
Une société qui interroge ses normes reste debout. Une société qui croit que ses normes ne sont *rien d'autre* que de la domination s'effondre. Parce qu'elle ne peut plus rien défendre. Plus une frontière, plus une loi, plus une science, plus une langue, plus une histoire, plus une biologie, plus une famille. Tout devient suspect. Tout devient négociable. Tout devient "construit donc déconstructible".
C'est la première raison pour laquelle c'est un virus. Il s'auto-réplique. Une fois inoculé, il transforme tout ce qu'il touche en cible. La science est patriarcale, donc déconstruisons-la. Le langage est colonial, donc réinventons-le. La méritocratie est raciste, donc abolissons-la. Le sexe est une construction, donc choisissons-le. Il n'y a plus de roc. Tout est sable.
Deuxième raison. Le virus est *non-falsifiable*. Si vous défendez une norme, c'est que vous êtes l'oppresseur. Si vous niez être oppresseur, c'est la preuve de votre privilège inconscient. Si vous citez des faits, vos faits sont contaminés par le pouvoir qui les a produits. Si vous citez la raison, la raison elle-même est blanche, masculine, occidentale. Il n'y a aucune sortie possible. Le système est conçu pour rendre toute objection irrecevable par définition.
C'est exactement la structure d'une secte. Et c'est exactement ce qui s'est installé dans les universités, les RH, les médias, les administrations, les conseils d'administration depuis vingt ans.
Troisième raison. Le virus s'auto-réfute mais ne s'auto-détruit pas. Si toute vérité est pouvoir, alors la phrase "toute vérité est pouvoir" est elle-même du pouvoir, donc sans valeur. Logiquement, la déconstruction se mord la queue dès la première phrase. Mais elle s'en moque. Parce qu'elle n'a jamais cherché la cohérence. Elle cherche l'efficacité politique. Et son efficacité politique est immense. Elle désarme ses ennemis et arme ses militants. Elle paralyse le défenseur et libère l'attaquant. C'est une arme asymétrique parfaite.
Quatrième raison. Le virus produit des humains diminués. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Elle sait soupçonner, jamais admirer. Elle voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Elle peut produire mille pages sur le caractère opprimant de Shakespeare et zéro ligne qui vaille la peine d'être lue dans cent ans. Elle a confondu l'intelligence critique avec la pose critique. Elle est stérile par construction. Un esprit nourri à la déconstruction est un esprit qui ne sait plus rien édifier.
Cinquième raison, la plus grave. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers. La croyance qu'une vérité est accessible à la raison. La croyance qu'un bien se distingue d'un mal. La croyance qu'un héritage mérite d'être transmis. La déconstruction a méthodiquement dynamité les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui avait nourri ses prophètes. Mais le résultat est là . Une civilisation qui ne croit plus en sa vérité, ni en son bien, ni en son héritage ne se défend pas. Elle s'excuse en attendant la fin.
VoilĂ ce qu'on a fait. VoilĂ ce qu'il faut nommer.
La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'un virus mental ne survit que tant qu'on lui cède l'autorité du discours. Il meurt dès qu'on cesse de jouer son jeu. Dès qu'on réaffirme tranquillement qu'il existe une vérité, un beau, un bien, un héritage. Dès qu'on cesse de demander la permission aux déconstructeurs pour bâtir. Dès qu'on refait. Dès qu'on transmet. Dès qu'on crée.
Les bâtisseurs ont toujours le dernier mot sur les commentateurs. Toujours. Parce qu'à la fin il reste ce qui est construit, et rien de ce qui a été déconstruit.
Alors aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. Et demain je construis.
Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme).
Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident.
Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité.
Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison.
Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme.
Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable.
Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion.
C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là . Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part.
Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes.
Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre.
Alors pardon. Et au travail.
JamesB 684 💯 🇺🇲 retweeted
The common counterargument, often driven by anti-Trump narratives, is that because the United States has not seized control of the Strait of Hormuz, it therefore cannot, and that Iran is somehow demonstrating a lasting strategic advantage it will carry forward. That logic is deeply flawed. The absence of a U.S. operation to fully secure the Strait is not evidence of military incapability. It is evidence of political restraint and strategic calculation.
Just because the President has not ordered a combined air, naval, and ground campaign to seize and secure the Strait does not mean the U.S. military lacks the capability to do so. It means there are economic, diplomatic, escalation-management, and broader strategic reasons such an operation has not been ordered.
The United States has spent decades building the exact naval, airpower, logistics, ISR, mine-clearing, amphibious, and strike capabilities required to dominate chokepoints like Hormuz if directed.
Confusing political decision-making with military capability is a common uniformed mistake. Iran’s threats to shipping, harassment operations, mining efforts, or missile attacks do not demonstrate that the United States is unable to secure the Strait. If anything, they reinforce why freedom of navigation operations and deterrence have been central pillars of American power for decades.
The question has never been whether the United States could impose control over the Strait. The question has always been whether the political leadership believes the costs, escalation risks, and global economic consequences of doing so outweigh the benefits at a given moment.
