与「CivilRights」相关的搜索结果

TODAY is a NEW DAY for #ParentalRights#! @CivilRights will restore parental authority—no secret transitions, no hiding info from parents, no surveys without consent. We WILL investigate, litigate & defund as necessary. Parents, your voice is back NOW! @TheJusticeDept

More than 40 years ago, I arrived in Chicago in search of an idea. I was a young man looking for purpose, who believed deeply in America, was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement, and wanted to be a part of something larger. The America I believed in was one where everyone has opportunity, everyone is seen, everyone belongs—because that was an America that had a place for me, too.

.@AAGDhillon on reforming DOJ’s Civil Rights Division: “I don’t need to be liked. I just need to get the job done. They had unhappy hours, mass departures, and crying sessions… They meet regularly. They place media hits on us. They monitor every filing.”

One of the big reasons for the current lack of patriotism and pride in our nation’s history is that about 40 years ago our most prominent storytellers in Hollywood just basically stopped telling stories about American history altogether, unless it has something to do with WW2, civil rights, or slavery. I mean they just released a movie about the meteorologist who did the weather report for D-Day. They’ll give WW2 weathermen their own movies before they tell a story from any other era of American history. The Right has attempted to counteract this a little bit, but “conservative” attempts at American history films and TV shows are invariably hokey and kid friendly, the kind of thing you can watch with your grandmother and your 5 year old, and you’ll all be equally informed and bored by the experience. We need R-rated adult-oriented American history stories. Daniel Boone should have his own series. It would be gritty and violent and not for children, but it would also be phenomenally entertaining and put an American legend back on the cultural map, so to speak. The fact that Daniel Boone hasn’t been depicted on screen at all since like the 60s is a travesty. Throw a dart at that guy’s Wikipedia page and you’ll land on something that could be its own feature length trilogy. That’s just one example. How is there not a great R-rated movie or series about Antietam? Or Kit Carson? Or the Panama Canal? How does Theodore Roosevelt not have like 10 movies about different periods of his life? You could go much farther back to pre-American history. A movie about Cortes’s conquest of Tenochtitlan would be tremendous and horrifying and fascinating, and it would introduce into the public consciousness one of the world’s most incredible stories that most Americans know next to nothing about. And on and on. The possibilities are literally endless. All of these movies, if they’re executed to even a B+ level, could make hundreds of millions of dollars and transform the culture in a way that a million podcast monologues never could. If the Right actually wants to reclaim the culture, this is the place to start.

TO @mtgreenee IN DEFENSE OF BOOMERS!! Back in our day, colleges had a few loud radical leftists. Now they’re everywhere, loud, and angry and they still blame Boomers for the mess. They are taught to hate themselves and their country. They believe men can become women (and vice versa) by declaration. They’re obsessed with race in the most counterproductive way possible treating every outcome as proof of systemic oppression while ignoring individual behavior, culture, and the massive progress that actually happened. And instead of blaming the people and ideologies that pushed this worldview into every institution, they point at Boomers. That’s not analysis. That’s brainwashing dressed up as enlightenment. The “long march through the institutions” was real. A minority of 1960s radicals didn’t just protest they stayed in academia, became professors, and eventually controlled hiring. Faculty political ratios went from noticeable left tilt in the ’60s–’90s to extreme monocultures today: often 10:1, 15:1, or worse liberal-to-conservative in humanities and social sciences. Far-left faculty have grown dramatically while conservatives became rare. The result? Generations raised on critical theory, grievance studies, and the idea that Western civilization (especially America) is defined by oppression rather than its achievements. Boomers didn’t invent this. A subset of us lived through the early stages and many of us rejected it. The average Boomer worked, raised families, paid taxes, and expanded opportunity. We, lived through and supported the real civil rights era color-blind equality under law, not racial score-settling. Built the post-war economy, suburbs, infrastructure, and technological foundations (internet precursors, computing, medical advances) that younger people now take for granted. Navigated the Cold War and helped bring down Soviet communism. Created the wealth and stability that made today’s safety nets and opportunities possible. The current version of “social justice” biological denial on sex, racial essentialism, national self-loathing, and “punch a Boomer” energy is a later-stage product of captured institutions, not something Boomers as a generation imposed. Most Boomers still believe in observable reality: there are two sexes, judging people by skin color is wrong either way, and America, for all its flaws, has been a net force for human flourishing. Blaming “Boomers” is the laziest possible scapegoat. It lets the actual drivers (ideological capture of education, media, HR departments, and tech platforms) off the hook. It ignores that many Boomers are as disgusted by this stuff as anyone. And it’s historically illiterate every generation has produced radicals and conformists. Judging 76 million people by the worst campus activists is the same tribal stupidity they claim to oppose. I could write a whole book on how a handful of bad ideas metastasized into cultural dominance while the people who benefited most from Boomer-era progress turned around and spat on the generation that built the platform they’re standing on. The angry ones aren’t the victims of Boomers. They’re the product of an education system that replaced critical thinking with approved narratives. Stop blaming your grandparents. Start questioning what you were taught. ...and don't even get me started with government corruption and the cancer of MARXISM!

"Disparate Impact," the legal doctrine that stipulates outcomes between blacks and whites must be the same, was codified into law by the 1991 Civil Rights Act. That doctrine has destroyed the schools and the colleges and the police. It very nearly destroyed financial system when mortgages were awarded on the basis of racial quotas. And, as of this writing, it remains the operating doctrine of every major public American institution. It has not been repealed. It has been mildly rolled back in some domains — the Supreme Court ruling in SFFA, the state DEI rollbacks in Texas and Florida, the Trump administration’s executive orders — but it has not been uprooted. The people who believe in "equity" still staff HR departments, admissions offices, the civil-rights divisions of the federal agencies and the editorial boards of what used to be the newspapers of record. They will not go quietly. They cannot. Their entire professional identity is built on a doctrine that, if honestly examined, would be repudiated as nothing more than racial Marxism. So they will fight — inside the universities, inside the corporations, inside the courts, inside the federal bureaucracy, inside the cities they still run — for every inch of the ground the doctrine has captured. And the fight they will put up is one of the things that makes the coming Fourth Turning particularly dangerous. A Fourth Turning in which the political class is honest about what it has done — as FDR was honest about abandoning the gold standard, as Hamilton was honest about paying the state debts — can be resolved relatively quickly. A Fourth Turning in which the political class refuses to admit what caused the crisis and continues to fight for it is what leads to violence. Like during the Civil War of 1861-1865. And, sadly, I believe it will, once again, lead us into the equivalent of a race-based, low-level civil war. Why? Because there is no reform that fixes this. There is no tax increase that reverses disparate-impact jurisprudence. There is no interest-rate cut that restores public safety to Baltimore. There is no stimulus that teaches an Oregon high-school graduate to read. There is no political candidate who can, within the current legal and regulatory framework, restore the premise that individuals are to be judged as individuals and that the standards by which a society measures achievement are not themselves to be abandoned whenever they produce a disparity. The false doctrine, that individuals are not equal under the law because some people are functionally different than others, is embedded in statute. It is embedded in case law. It is embedded in the professional identity of three generations of administrators. It will not be uprooted by ordinary political means. It will be uprooted, if it is uprooted at all, by the same process that has uprooted every other entrenched false political doctrine in American history — by a Fourth Turning severe enough to make the doctrine’s defenders surrender ground they would never have surrendered in ordinary politics. And thus, you must be ready for what will come next. You cannot, by yourself, fix American public schools. But you can choose your children’s schools. You can homeschool them. You can place them in classical academies or Catholic schools or the small number of charter schools that have kept the older standards. You cannot, by yourself, fix the violence and mayhem in our cities. But you can own productive land. You can own real assets, directly, that will survive what's coming. You cannot, by yourself, fix the police. But you can choose where you live, you can choose whom you associate with, and you can prepare your family to defend itself and to help defend your neighbors. And you cannot, by yourself, fix the disparate-impact doctrine. But you can see it for what it is. You can teach your children to see it. You can refuse to participate in its rituals. You can decline to sign its loyalty oaths. You can, and this is perhaps the most important thing, tell the truth about it in public, in your own voice. How? By using the words it refuses to accept. “Marxism” is one of those words. “Per capita” is another – some groups are prone to violence, prone to ignorance, prone to abandoning their families. Pointing this out isn’t “racist.” It is identifying serious social problems that must be addressed and that cannot fixed by waving the magic wand of "disparate impact" or by an HR rule. "Responsibility” is a third. The entire racist agenda today is based on the idea that people can’t be responsible for their own lives because of racial oppression that ended more than three generations ago. The antidote to these lies is speaking the truth. Use these words. Do not flinch when the doctrine’s defenders accuse you of racism or bigotry. They are not interested in your character. They are interested in your silence. The doctrine has only ever had one real enemy, and it is not a political party or a candidate or a court. Its enemy is the plain speech of a free people. When free people describe what the doctrine has done — when they name it, in the ordinary language of their communities — the doctrine loses its power. Because its power was never in its arguments. Its power was in its capacity to intimidate people out of naming it. So, name it. That is the first political act of a Fourth Turning. Everything else that the country needs to do to get through the next decade — the monetary reset, the fiscal consolidation, the restoration of discipline in the schools, the re-policing of the cities, the rebuilding of standards across the institutions — depends on millions of ordinary Americans recovering the courage to call the thing by its true name. The true name is Marxism. The American form of it is disparate impact. Its consequence, measurable in the statistics of forty years, is the ruin of American institutions. The doctrine can be defeated. It has been defeated once before — in the Soviet Union, which built a more ambitious form of it at greater cost and collapsed under the weight of the contradictions it could not resolve. Ours is smaller and more refined and better camouflaged, but it is the same doctrine, and in the end it will collapse because of the same contradictions. The only question — the only question that matters, now — is whether we can name the doctrine and defeat it at the ballot box and in the courts and in the schools, or whether we will have to suffer a violent collapse of society. However it resolves, you must survive. The rest of this book is dedicated to helping you and your family survive whatever comes next.

Earlier today after a chat I was looking for books on what the founding fathers would have thought about today's America. I didn't find a great match but it occurred to me that it could be an interesting test of the o1-pro sub I'm paying $200/mo for. So: Founding fathers on today's America A treatise by o1-pro, prompted iteratively: 1. generate a good outline of the treatise and the chapters 2. generate all chapters in turn 3. generate final "summary" chapter, put all previous chapters in the context Chapter 1: The Constitutional Framework Under Modern Strain Chapter 2: Liberty and Surveillance in the Digital Age Chapter 3: Political Parties and the Founders’ Intentions Chapter 4: Economic Power and Corporate Influence Chapter 5: Equality and Civil Rights Beyond the Eighteenth Century Chapter 6: Education, Citizenship, and Civic Virtue Chapter 7: Religion, Secularism, and the Public Sphere Chapter 8: Military, Foreign Policy, and America’s Global Role Chapter 9: Technological Advancement and Democratic Discourse Chapter 10: Renewing the American Experiment Elevenlabs for audio. Veed for subs and video. Ideogram for thumbnail. Available as either text on my blog site, or as the 1h21m listen (see links in the reply). I read the full thing and I thought it was pretty good and at least on a high level mildly interesting and insightful, but I'm not versed enough to fully judge it as "great", "not bad" or "slop", or spot hallucinations (if any) maybe others can help as a kind of test of the o1-pro LLM capability. Slop or not? In any case, it's the first time I thought to generate a custom "book" for myself on a topic I wanted to think more about and couldn't quite find the right book on, partly inspired by the progress in LLM capabilities. What you see here is the "out of the box" naive attempt, possibly it's a lot better to e.g. attach a lot of supporting materials (founding documents or articles) into the context window, etc.