AMY WAX:

The Most Dangerous Woman in Academia | Amy Wax

Watch the full thing in the replies below! 👇 pic.twitter.com/MyEH2m605m

— Edward Dutton (@jollyheretic) April 5, 2026

I was interviewed by @ClaytonMorris, Redacted, about the case in the Netherlands against the orchestrators of Project Covid. The US HHS, and @SecKennedy are now complicit in crimes against humanity by refusing to stop the inhumane PREP Act covid liability shield they are…

— sashalatypova.substack.com "Due Diligence and Art" (@sasha_latypova) April 6, 2026

Epstein with Gates created the funding structure through DARPA and DOD for COVID.

if they have to make up 50 different things to attack a trait, but they lose 10% each time, they know that they have 10 different intersectional attacks on one target ultimately it'll be a trend down.  --Stephen Coughlin

Matt Walsh exposes the REAL history of American Indians

Everything we’ve been told and taught in school has been a lie

“We're told that as Americans, we live on stolen land, and that the U.S government perpetrated a literal genocide against Native Nations. These narratives are… pic.twitter.com/Bhh1mIuOPT

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 5, 2026

If you grew up in the United States in the past 50 years, then you know about the Trail of Tears.  It's one of those stories that is beaten into our collective consciousness.  Starting in grade school we're taught in no uncertain terms that Native Americans were forcibly removed from there ancestral lands by the US government between 1830 and 1850 and that thousands of natives died in the process.  The government did this so that white men could seize Indian land and the valuable resources that it sat on.  In case you miss that lesson in the classroom, you might have caught it in the 2006 documentary narrated by James Earl Jones, or the sprawling National Park with signs that the Indians did not want to leave, or the endless amount of online propaganda about it.  Much of what they're saying is a myth.  As it turns out, none of the Cherokee Indians who travel the Trail of Tears had ever heard of the Trail of Tears.   That's because from 1830 to 1850 almost no one used the phrase.  The term was popularized a full 7 decades after the Cherokees moved to Oklahoma and even then it wasn't truly household name.  That didn't happen until the 1960s more than a century after it took place.  But it isn't just the name that's at issue here, it's the details that are so often omitted from the actual story.  

1:19.  The story begins in 1830 when President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act.  The law did not authorize the US government to forcibly remove them, instead the law authorized the president to negotiate legally binding treaties with the various tribes in which those tribes would be awarded compensation and a new territory west of the Mississippi in exchange for voluntarily vacating the territory that they currently lived on.  In accordance with that law many Indian tribes agreed to terms to relocate. The first major treaty was the Treaty of New Echota in 1835.  In school this treaty is presented as a fraudulent agreement in which a tiny number of Cherokees signed away all Cherokee lands in the Southeast allowing the US government the Cherokee to Oklahoma salting the deaths of 4,000 Indians.  Well, every aspect of that narrative is false.  The first lie is that 4000 Indians died that figure comes from a letter written by Dr elizer Butler a member of the American Board of the American Board of Commissioners for foreign missions

JARED TAYLOR: Why Have Young Women Gone the Wrong Way?

Thank you to Jared Taylor.  His articles.  His books.

Why is there a big and growing sex difference?  

Journalist Helen Andrews, "The Great Feminization," Helen Andrews, Compact, October 16, 2025.

3:49.  Ms. Andrews says that women evolved to solve conflicts not openly or through tests of strength, but by undermining and ostracizing each other.  And women now dominate universities.  They've also poured into law schools and journalism.  Once there are enough of them, they run things according to squishy emotion rather than hard facts and they stamp out dissent.  That's what we saw in those student attitudes.  Women are the ones who want to ban ideas that might hurt feelings.  Feminized college turns young women into hard lefties, and feminized media keep them that way.  Someone who writes at X as Vittorio has a different theory that starts out in a similar way women evolved to fear social exclusion because if you're pregnant or nursing a child and get kicked out of the group, you die.  Men are more independent and they take more risks.  Also, in every culture ever studied men have a higher tolerance for disagreement.  A committee meeting doesn't have to be a group hug.  In fact, it better not be if anything's going to get done.  Women love consensus.  And Vittorio argues that social media are the biggest, most ruthless, consensus machines ever built.  You can see what everyone believes in real time, disagreement is visible, measurable and punishable at scale.  And once everyone got a smartphone, social media could hound you always . . . everywhere.  This constant scrutiny by potentially everyone in the world overwhelmed the people who are most vulnerable to criticism most fearful of not fitting in namely young women.  Social media surely contributed to the rise in mental distress from 2011 to 2021 with a sharp rise in 2016.  As you can see, it's been worse for the youngest group, 18 to 25, and the numbers are a lot higher for girls.  This is prevalence of major depressive episodes for adolescents in 2021.  The other data are interesting but look at the sex differences, a shocking 29.2% for women and 11.5% for men.  These are major depressive episodes and women are twice as likely as men to suffer from anxiety.  Women complain more than men, and an increasingly woman-dominated power structure not only takes women's complaints more seriously, it shares them.  This is how we get safe spaces trigger warnings, hysterical MeTooism, kangaroo courts for mail students who look at a co-ed the wrong way, and the absurd idea that being fat is healthy and sexy.  The only way to enforce this stuff is through censorship.  This is the staff of hate a German nonprofit that claims to strengthen democracy by keeping people like me off the internet.  I count 4 men and 15 women.  And of course the big boss is a woman. Here are the no fewer then eight photos of Miss Von Hodenberg that she invites you to download.  It's hard to get more female than that.  And censors now wear hip clothes, not commissar uniforms.  

7:46.  And so to return to the survey from Wisconsin, no fewer than 39.3% of co-eds think a campus speaker should be disinvited, that is to say, told to stay away after he was invited if some students would find his views offensive.  

Helen Andrews thinks it will all get worse.  Older men will age out of their jobs and once the English Department or the newsroom reaches a certain level of estrogen poisoning, only sissy boys will stay and they'll go along with the girls.  Right thinking right thinking white men will tune out the news, despise the left, stop going to college, and have a hard time finding girlfriends.  How can anyone marry when feminism teaches women that if they think they want children it's only because the patriarchy brainwashed them, and that true fulfillment is working an HR or a progressive non-profit.  And even when they are 35 and childless and have been taking antidepressants for 15 years, they still won't admit that they're Republican voting father was right.  Steve Sailer thinks the sex divide can also be thought of as a marriage and babies divide. Married white women are a lot more likely to vote Republican, especially once they have children.  They start caring about schools, policing, lower taxes, traditional values.  And in 2024, 56% of White married women voted Trump.  That's pretty close to the 59% of white men who did.  Single white women voted only 47% for Trump but the tragedy remains for young white men today traditionally it was women who wanted to marry and have children.  Now it's white men who want to have families and rear happy, proud children, and many can't find healthy minded women.  Many women do return to good health once they become mothers, but for now a lot of them are just impossible.  It's understandable why so many white men lash out at liberal women, but they are victims of a sick and cruel system, a system that hijacked the best part of their nature, their kindness, and their caring, and turned it against everything that it is also in their nature to love their men, their families, and their race.  Sometimes destructive forms of insanity fall out of fashion.  Trans identification really is in free fall.  Same for non-binary.  Let's hope single white women begin to come to their senses but whatever happens White women must not be our enemy.  They need us, and we need them.  They are our troubled unhappy sisters.  They will never be happy until they are cured, and the best cure is a strong patient white man.  

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: Intersectionality is a Marxist term that covers for the dialectical attack process. Intersectionality is a mechanism of intentional cultural genocide.

Stephen Coughlin @ Unrestrained Analytics.

2:25. Once they've eaten the fruit they're not in play.  Arguably the main point of penetration for Marxist activities May well be in religious organizations it's in hollowing them out have the inability to fall back on over time.

The people who run Marxism would rather be rulers in hell than subject in heaven that is so important to take in they would rather be in command of a s*** Heap that they own then have the most elegant life not being in charge of it.

3:16.  What did Mark say in 1837 I wish to avenge myself against the one who rules above.  Thus Heaven I have forfeited I Know It full well.  My soul once true to God has chosen for hell this point is like being a self-confessed Satanist Satanism is itself operates on a dialectical formula it's the same formula that Marxism operates on and it's the same formula other things operate on like angles metaphysical worldview.

If someone says that they're a witch you just treat them like the Witch and then you start attaching them thing to them things that which is due and you incorporate it that's your analysis because failing to do so maybe to miss things that come in through that.  Once you start incorporating this very close long-term association threat analysis we're not going to incorporate crap. We're going to get into it because the people who are operating against us are informed by it.  And if we understand how that might influence it if you're doing real threat analysis, you have to account for it.  And that's as far as we will go.

4:41.  Critical theory is a Neo Marxist principle that envisions the total dissolution of the existing order through a series of escalating dialectical negations over time.  On the street side, it's cancel culture.  Critical theory is Marxism.  It's not a version of Marxism.  It's not a form of Marxism.  Intersectionality isn't something Marxism participates in.  That's a very platonic statement.  It is Marxism.

Intersectionality is a Marxist term that covers for the dialectical attack process.  It is a popular branding that provides an academic veneer, allows it to pass itself off as a science and supports pseudo science narratives that conceal hostile intent through the systematic negation of targeted cultural, religious and personal values along critical theory lines of attack.  Intersectionality is a mechanism of intentional cultural genocide. With a America as a repressive intolerant regime wherever there is an "other" with a competing value, a negative value, that value will be scored as holding a liberating tolerance that will then be pitted against an American value in a dialectical process of negation.  The dialectical process was use "the other" to generate as many liberating values as there are American values to be negated.  To identify as an American, racism will negate that.  Love America, xenophobia will negate that. Secure the Border, the right to the migrant will negate this.  Believe the Constitution as the supreme law of the land fascism will negate this if American institutions of Higher Learning were built by immigrants of European stock White Privilege will negate this.  If you are biologically male and call yourself a man genderism will negate that.  So you're saying that this is how it works what we are talking about is a liquification of reality every one of these intersectional attacks is an attack on your identity so those things that are under direct attack so that you are not allowed to identify yourself it is a total attack on identity and in theory once every one of these is taken out you are whatever we say you are including if we have to make you say you are that yourself.  You have a canceled culture.  These are attacks on identity that cause you not to lose your way, but to erase it from your own knowledge.  Us drifting is a deliberate attack.  Nobody forgot anything.  This stuff has been removed from your vocabulary.  Now there's another aspect to the opposite.  It's just made up. It's just made up.  So if they lose, all they lose is a made-up narrative.  But every time you lose, you lose something so if they have to make up 50 different things to attack a trait, but they lose 10% each time, they know that they have 10 different intersectional attacks on one target ultimately it'll be a trend down.  What they are trying to do right now is replay the Weimar Republic when they thought they were going to take control in Germany and what you see them doing on a slow roll is actually try to make sure of the stakes of the Weimar Republic aren't repeated and using Nazis to kind of bootstraps themselves up by calling them the bad guys the Nazis got the upper hand on them.

I can't tell you how much time we lost going to Capitol Hill saying if we could just get this member of congressman to understand us, we could change.  And almost invariably, a couple of years later, they knew what we were saying and they were batting for the other team. You can't go to the second cause if the first cause can explain it.  Why did they do that? Well, because they did it.  If we could just explain it when they do this, bad things happen, they'll stop.  But you haven't exhausted the fact that the reason they did it is because bad things happen. You just can't accept the fact that the person you elected to stop it is okay with that. 

The difficult thing we have is that everything is so obscured it's so difficult to figure out the actual cause was and then we get wrapped up in why did they do that?  Well, you know, the simple answer is they want to negate everything.

9:08.  It's just semantic Marxism.  If you control the language, you control the conversation, you'll control the outcome.

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Stephen Coughlin, 2015.