Get 50% off for 1 year

Less than 10!Days Left!!

Watch the video above, starting at 0:15:26 for the case against diversity mandates, and keep watching through the affirmative action discussion that follows. The news commentary on equity at 0:19:48 is worth your time too.

For years, Americans have been told that diversity is a good in itself, a value so obvious that questioning it is practically forbidden. The video asks the question anyway.

Thomas Sowell says the claims made for diversity have swept the country without anyone being asked for a speck of evidence. Ask him to name one place where that isn’t the case, and he can’t find one. The Ivy League, Stanford, Berkeley, corporate America: all of it runs on a word that is almost never challenged.

Want more commentary like this, the kind that asks for proof? Subscribe to the Deskooled Substack today and get 50% off for a full year. The deal ends in 9 days.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Consider what the argument actually is. Sowell points to the world’s diverse societies and notes that many of them have all they can do to avoid mutual bloodshed. India barely holds together as a nation. When it was split into India and Pakistan, the number of Hindus and Muslims slaughtered ran into the hundreds of thousands.

Is that the picture of diversity as a strength?

Then there is the law. The video walks through the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. The majority opinion said the Constitution does not prohibit the tailored use of race in admissions to further a compelling interest in the educational benefits of a diverse student body. It sounds lofty. Sowell’s response is short and devastating: it would have been nice if the Court could produce one speck of evidence for it.

The video also takes on multiculturalism, which Sowell describes as the idea that no group’s culture can be blamed for gaps in income, education, or crime. The causes are supposed to stay the same while the effects change, and if the effects don’t change, the fault lies with society.

Who is that kind of thinking supposed to help?

Later, the video turns to a news commentary segment on equity, now the organizing principle of the federal government under Executive Order 13985. The argument is blunt: equity, as practiced, means helping some people and hurting others on the basis of race. That is exactly what Martin Luther King’s definition of racism describes, and the segment points out that it is immoral and illegal under countless laws.

We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

So why are we building policy that treats people differently by skin color, and calling it progress?

That is the kind of question the Deskooled Substack exists to ask. No slogans, no sacred words, just arguments, evidence, and the courage to follow them.

Right now, you can subscribe for 50% off for the year, but there are only 9 days left.

Subscribe today.

Get 50% off for 1 year

A Recruitment Strategy Hiding In Plain Sight

Democratic Socialists of America leaders are openly urging young socialists to become teachers, join the unions, and build what they call a “militant minority” inside America’s public schools.

They have a name for the strategy: salting. Get hired first, then organize from within, using classroom access as a foothold for political influence.

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

We must stop public school indoctrination.

Get 50% off for 1 year

How The Network Actually Works

This isn’t a fringe theory. Research from Parents Defending Education found DSA connections to school boards and teachers unions in at least 15 states, part of a coordinated effort the organization has openly committed to through official resolutions on running candidates in school board races.

Once socialist-aligned educators are inside the system, that same network works to convert basic union power into broader political muscle, reshaping curriculum, discipline policy, and school board leadership from the inside out.

Oakland offers a preview of what this looks like in practice. DSA celebrated the election of a socialist-aligned school board president there and has openly endorsed multiple members of the district’s teachers union.

Why Parents Should Be Paying Attention

The stated goal isn’t subtle. DSA describes its mission in education as fighting what it calls “neoliberalism and systemic racism,” language that increasingly shapes actual policy decisions in districts where its members hold influence.

That’s not a hypothetical concern for the future. It’s a documented, ongoing strategy already active in school systems across the country right now.

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Only 13 days left for 50% off!

CNN did. While cars burned near the Arc de Triomphe and a 143-year-old town hall spire collapsed in flames, the network stressed that the vast majority of protesters remained peaceful. At least two people died. More than 2,000 were arrested. Hundreds of police were injured. Shops were looted across multiple cities. The framing stayed the same.

How many deaths does it take before the phrase stops being useful?

A full year of the Deskooled newsletter is 50 percent off.

Get 50% off for 1 year

This is the same language that turned 2020 into a blur of “mostly peaceful” footage while American cities burned. The words do not describe what happened. They tell the audience which side is allowed to make the mess. French authorities and far-left leaders used nearly identical wording. CNN repeated it without hesitation. Burned vehicles, a collapsed historic building, and a dead police officer became background details under the headline about unrest.

If the buildings are on fire and the death toll is already in the story, what exactly does “mostly peaceful” still mean?

Media that needs the qualifier is not reporting the event. It is managing the reaction. The pattern is clear. When the right kind of people are in the streets, the violence gets minimized. When the wrong kind of people show up, the same outlets treat every broken window as a national crisis. France is now counting the cost of the weekend. The old script is still running on cable.

Take the half-price year before the offer ends.

Get 50% off for 1 year

A Question About Language On Campus

Bill Maher confronted Wesleyan University president Michael Roth over how liberal professors have reshaped the way students talk about Israel and Western civilization.

Maher pointed to a shift he’s tracked for years. “Since I have been covering news and especially the Middle East, even before that, Israel was known as an ‘outpost of Western civilization,’” he said. Roth confirmed it. “Yes, it was.”

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

A Disagreement Over Who’s Really Teaching What

Maher argued that language, once considered a compliment, has quietly become an insult on college campuses.

“That was always a good thing,” Maher said. “Now, I don’t think it is. The Western civilization, they talk about it like it’s a bad thing. Instead of saying Western civilization is what gave everyone who is a progressive the things they should be most proud of.”

Roth pushed back gently, admitting, “I think that a lot of our students learn just that in class.”

Maher wasn’t convinced professors were the source. “I don’t think the professors are teaching. I really don’t,” he said. Roth disagreed, noting that faculty watch Maher’s show too, “maybe even more often than an 18-year-old.”

The Question That Cut The Deepest

Maher shifted the conversation to something more personal, asking directly whether he’d be welcome on campus.

“Do you think I could come on campus and speak and be welcomed?” Maher asked.

Roth’s answer was careful. “Welcomed, maybe not, but certainly given a hearing.”

Maher didn’t let that slide. “I shouldn’t be welcomed? Someone who twice gave the Democrats a million dollars, that’s not enough credentials to come on and be welcomed?”

Roth’s response revealed something telling. “Well, if you came to Wesleyan with a million dollars, I would welcome you with open arms.” Maher’s reply was blunt. “Okay. Right. Well, I’m not going to be doing that.”

The Numbers Behind The Exchange

This isn’t just one college president’s opinion. A 2018 National Association of Scholars study of 51 top-ranked liberal arts colleges found Democratic faculty outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 10.4 to 1.

At 39 percent of those same schools, researchers found not a single registered Republican among full-time professors.

That kind of imbalance doesn’t happen by accident, and conversations like this one make clear just how deeply it shapes what students hear, and what viewpoints get welcomed at all.

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

This viral video shows how numbers are used as props and then discreetly reduced.

When a popular left-wing streamer cuts his own poll claim in half on live video shows the underbelly of how some people use American public opinion as the raw material for manufactured outrage and not as based upon objective reality.

The Instant Backtrack

Hasan Piker’s recent exchange on YouTube involved him stating that 66% of America blames parties besides the 9-11 hijackers for the 9-11 attacks.

He was asked where he got this info during the live video, so he adjusted down to 33%, but did not show the original data or any evidence for why he changed it.

There were no surveys at the time that supported the 66% number and there was no reason to adjust except that there was nowhere else for the live viewership to go, so when he started taking heat, he just shrunk it.

Why is this important?

Get 50% off for 1 year

Read more

Watch the video above, starting at the 14:38 mark, where the host turns to a guest’s early life. It takes only a minute or two, and it is easy to miss.

The host describes a young man who dropped out of high school, and then asks what he did next. Did he go on welfare? Did he sit and wait for someone to rescue him? No, the host says. He went to work. And he spent some of that money on inexpensive encyclopedias.

Stop and think about how unusual that sounds today.

If you want more stories and ideas about learning on your own terms, subscribe to Deskooled today and get 50% off for a full year.q

Get 50% off for 1 year

A teenager with no diploma, no mentor mentioned, and no program built around him did the simplest and most radical thing possible. He earned money, then used it to buy knowledge. The guest confirms it with a single word, yeah, and the conversation moves on. But that short exchange holds a whole philosophy of education.

Around 15:26, the guest explains what the world looked like when he left home in 1948. He says he had no clue about the bigger forces at work. What he found was a job market where teenagers were expected to work and the jobs were there for them. He started as a Western Union messenger at 65 cents an hour. The work was available, the pay was real, and the path to the next step was open.

That is the first half of the lesson. A job is not just a paycheck. It is a classroom with no tuition.

The second half is the encyclopedias.

Nobody required him to buy them. No teacher assigned them. No exam was waiting at the end. He bought them because he wanted to know things, and he could afford to, because he was earning. That is what real learning looks like when it is driven by curiosity and not by a schedule. You pick the subject. You set the pace. You follow the question wherever it goes.

What would happen if more young people were trusted to do the same?

The host calls the world of that era vanished, almost a council of despair, a place that seems gone. The guest pushes back and says it can be done, though it is hard, like reconquering the same ground. That small disagreement is worth noticing. One person sees a lost world. The other sees one that can still be rebuilt.

Think about what rebuilding it would take. Young people would need access to real work early, not only after years of waiting. They would need freedom to teach themselves what they care about, and a culture that respects the person who learns something difficult without a certificate to show for it.

Does a diploma prove you learned something, or only that you were present?

That question runs through the rest of the video, too. Around 25:58, the narration pokes at an economist who has a PhD, a Nobel Prize, and, in the speaker’s view, a habit of being wrong. Early in the clip, a prediction that the economy would tank is followed by a flat contradiction. Credentials and correctness are not the same thing, and the video keeps making that point from different directions.

None of this means school has no value. It means learning is bigger than school, and a person who can teach himself, starting from a pile of secondhand books and a paycheck, has a skill no institution can hand out.

That is the spirit behind Deskooled. Every week, we explore how people learn, think, and build a life on their own terms, with stories that remind you how much you can do without waiting for permission.

Right now, you can subscribe to Deskooled for 50% off for a full year.

Watch the video above, starting at 14:38, then subscribe today.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Legacy news agencies are alarmed by Trump’s comments suggesting that press outlets who continue to report false information may be excluded from press briefings.

Mr. Trump stated he was considering limiting the access of outlets who knowingly publish misinformation. These outlets immediately began crying foul claiming his words were an attack on democracy.

In doing so, these outlets were merely protecting their own business models (and their own ability to spin), while simultaneously ignoring their own complicity in promoting propaganda and misinformation in their own reporting.

To hear the legacy media tell it, Trump’s comments regarding limiting access to press outlets who knowingly publish false information represents an unprecedented level of aggression towards the press.

However, we must recall that many of these very same outlets created and promoted an entire genre of anonymous-sourced reporting on Russia-gate; and then, when official documents emerged, these outlets quietly deleted all their prior reports.

Moreover, these outlets actively promoted bureaucratic efforts to undermine election results and framed legitimate debates over social media policies as foreign meddling.

We can’t help but wonder if any of these same outlets ever seriously considered their own responsibility in suppressing reporting on border encounters and economic data before president trump raised concerns about access.

Selective outrage ignores the fact that legacy media has always engaged in some form of gatekeeping as part of their daily activities. For example, CNN devoted much time and effort into investigating aspects of the Trump-Russia scandal until primary documentation became available.

Likewise, MSNBC personalities did not hesitate to use their bully pulpit to encourage bureaucrats to resist certification of election results.

Similarly, Politico’s access-driven model often blurred lines between reporting and influencing insiders.

In each case, the legacy media presented themselves as impartial facilitators of debate while imposing a uniform ideological filter on any issue where there was dispute. And what is notable here is that Trump’s comment simply calls attention to the one-way nature of that relationship.

Of course, what also becomes clear is how rapidly the legacy media pivots from demanding transparency from others to defending their own privileged position within the political establishment when the shoe is on the other foot.

Press Access Used as a Tool

Protests over first amendment rights ring hollow when weighed against previous actions.

How many competing viewpoints experienced sudden decreases in visibility or monetization opportunities during elections while these outlets touted unsubstantiated claims without similar counter-pressures?

Read more

An Audience Most Campus Speakers Never Reach

For years, Charlie Kirk was one of the only conservative voices willing to walk onto college campuses and engage students directly, debate them, and try to shift minds rather than just preach to an already-friendly crowd.

By 2024, that effort had scaled into something much bigger than campus tours. Kirk had built an audience of roughly 7 million on Instagram, close to 4 million on YouTube, nearly 5 million on X, and a massive following on TikTok.

Numbers That Moved With Him

The most striking part isn’t the follower counts themselves. It’s what happened to youth voting patterns during that same stretch.

Trump’s share of 18-to-29-year-old voters climbed from 36 percent to somewhere between 46 and 47 percent. Young men flipped from a 56 percent Biden advantage to a 56 percent Trump advantage. And Trump carried the youth vote in 17 states, up from just 7 previously.

Correlation isn’t the same as proof, but the timing lines up with the exact demographic Kirk spent years building relationships with, one video, one campus visit, one debate at a time.

A Voice That Was Just Getting Started

Supporters of Kirk have pointed to numbers like these as evidence that his influence went far beyond typical campus activism, and some have argued his rising reach made him a genuine political threat to opponents, a claim that remains their interpretation rather than an established fact.

What isn’t in dispute is the scale of what he built. A movement that started with college debates turned into one of the most significant youth political shifts in recent electoral history.

Whatever comes next for the movement he built, the numbers tell a clear story about the influence he had already achieved.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Watch the video above for the full story, but the image at the center of it is worth sitting with on its own.

Thomas Sowell describes visiting West Berlin decades after World War II and being struck by how thoroughly the city had rebuilt — modern, functional, very much alive. Not long after, he drove into the Bronx to visit relatives, and saw block after block of abandoned, boarded-up buildings. His observation cuts straight to the point: if someone from another planet had to guess which of the two cities had been bombed in World War II, they’d pick the Bronx without hesitation. Berlin had recovered from actual bombing. The Bronx hadn’t recovered from rent control.

Get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

That’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a direct comparison between a city that suffered real wartime destruction and a neighborhood that suffered decades of a policy originally sold as temporary.

Why would a law meant to be temporary end up outlasting a city that was leveled by bombs and rebuilt from the ground up?

Because rent control carries a structural flaw most people never notice until it’s already entrenched: it guarantees the exact condition it claims to be solving. Rent control is typically introduced during a housing shortage, with language promising it’s only in effect until the shortage ends. But capping rents below market rate reduces the incentive to build or maintain housing, which keeps the shortage alive indefinitely — which means the law, by its own stated terms, never reaches the condition required for its own repeal.

Paris adopted rent control as an emergency wartime measure during World War I. It was still on the books when World War II began. Sweden introduced similar controls in the early days of World War II. Decades later, they were still in place — until, for reasons the record doesn’t fully explain, someone finally removed them. The result was immediate: a housing surplus appeared almost overnight, and government housing projects that had struggled for years suddenly had vacancy rates high enough to require a financial bailout just to stay afloat.

What does it say about an institution that an entire housing market can recover within months of a policy being lifted, after decades of shortage under that same policy?

It says the shortage was never really about a lack of housing capacity. It was about a law actively preventing that capacity from being built or maintained, for as long as the law stayed in place — which, without some external force intervening, turned out to be the better part of a century in more than one country.

That’s the deeper pattern worth sitting with: a policy that fails for fifty, sixty, seventy years, consistently, across different countries and different decades, with no built-in mechanism forcing anyone to revisit it. Nobody votes a failing rent control law off the books once the damage becomes visible, because the people most harmed by it — the ones living in buildings nobody has an incentive to maintain — have the least power to force that correction. The Bronx didn’t fail to rebuild because nobody cared. It failed to rebuild because the law made rebuilding irrational, year after year, for longer than most people currently living there have been alive.

Watch the full explanation in the video above for how this connects to the housing debates happening right now.

Get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Trump renamed Lake Ontario to Lake America last Thursday.

He signed the executive order in the Oval Office and said it was official effective immediately. He also said he had no message for Canada and then immediately added that Canada has been ripping us off for a long time on trade.

Liberals are furious.

Subscribe to DeSkooled now. This is your Learing Center discount, named after the Minnesota welfare fraud scheme where government money funded fake learning centers while the system looked the other way.

50% off for a limited time!

Get 50% off for 1 year

Bill Maher did what Bill Maher does occasionally. He said the thing out loud that made everyone uncomfortable.

Liberals, he noted, say you can’t just go around renaming things to suit your political agenda.

Then he delivered the punchline.

Just ask any Latinx birthing person.

The audience laughed because the joke is airtight. The people most outraged about Trump renaming Lake Ontario are the exact same people who spent the last decade renaming women as birthing persons, renaming Latinos as LatinX, renaming biological sex as gender assigned at birth, renaming Christmas break as winter break, renaming the cafeteria as the nutrition center, and renaming failing schools as opportunity campuses.

The institutions that educated an entire generation had no problem renaming reality whenever it suited their ideological agenda. Now those same institutions and the people who run them are horrified that a president renamed a lake.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed out that the name Lake Ontario comes from an Indigenous word meaning the lake is beautiful and predates both Canada and the United States by hundreds of years.

This is true and it is a reasonable point.

It is also being made by the same political class that spent years renaming schools named after Abraham Lincoln and George Washington because of their historical associations. The same class that removed statues, renamed military bases, and scrubbed names from buildings across the country in a wave of renaming that nobody asked for and nobody voted on.

Trump renamed a lake during a trade dispute.

They renamed the founders of the country during a cultural revolution.

The fury is not really about Lake Ontario. It is about the fact that the renaming power was supposed to flow in one direction only. The institutions got to decide what things were called. The president was supposed to accept those decisions. The moment he started doing it back the outrage became deafening.

This is what happens when the people who control language lose control of the person who controls the executive order pen.

DeSkooled covers the institutions that decide what things are called and what it costs the rest of us when we are no longer allowed to push back.

50% off for a limited time!

Subscribe now.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Document dumps are revealing previous enforcement reversals amid increasing crossing numbers and growing cartel profits during the last 10 days.

The border with Mexico has become an open invitation to chaos.

The latest reports from the Customs and Border Protection detail an ongoing increase in border encounters that leaves both surrounding communities vulnerable and the same partisan news outlets providing false narratives claiming border management is proceeding in an orderly manner while emphasizing humane priorities.

Cartels are continuing to transport goods and people across the open areas of the border, local residents are facing increased threats on a daily basis, and those news outlets that downplayed the number of fatalities related to border issues are now attacking any efforts to present factual information regarding the policies behind those numbers.

This represents a direct confrontation of facts that are associated with an increase in crime throughout America and resource strains.

A combination of Rapid Response 47 and the release of documents from the administration shows that waiting for the distortions to subside is only giving more opportunities to those engaged in selective reporting to shape their own agendas.

Each successive group of operational log entries undermine this strategy; as there are already reports coming from multiple sources indicating that there could be an additional surge in encounters this week.

When these numbers come in and the same news outlets claim that enforcement is working effectively will audiences accept the contradiction and demand the raw logs to verify?

Read more

Watch the video above for the full discussion, but the core argument deserves to stand on its own.

In almost any other sector of the economy, failing to deliver value eventually catches up with an institution. A hospital that mistreats patients loses them to competitors. A business that makes a product nobody wants stops making money and eventually closes. That built-in consequence isn’t a flaw — it’s the mechanism that forces institutions to improve or disappear.

Universities don’t operate under that pressure. The discussion makes the point bluntly: it’s almost unheard of for a university to actually go out of business, no matter how badly it performs.

The money just keeps arriving regardless of consequences.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

That's only $40/year and a huge help to the Deskooled substack.

Get 50% off for 1 year

What happens to an institution that can fail indefinitely without ever facing the consequence of failure?

It keeps doing whatever it’s already doing. There’s no external force requiring change, because the one mechanism that corrects every other kind of institution — the threat of running out of money — simply doesn’t apply in the same way.

Part of the argument goes further than just funding. Universities are also treated as indispensable in ways that don’t hold up well under scrutiny. Research, long assumed to require university infrastructure, increasingly happens outside of it entirely — at private labs, independent institutes, and companies with no campus at all. If research doesn’t actually require the university, then a major pillar of the institution’s claimed necessity starts to look more like inertia than genuine indispensability.

What would it actually take to introduce real consequences into a system that’s never had any?

One pointed answer raised in the discussion: a major university actually failing — going bankrupt, losing accreditation, closing its doors — might be the only thing that gets the message through to the rest of the system. Not as a punishment, but as proof that the money isn’t unconditional. That taxpayer and endowment funding isn’t guaranteed simply because an institution has always received it.

That’s a much harder case to make than it sounds. Universities carry prestige, tradition, and alumni networks that insulate them from the kind of market discipline that shapes nearly everything else. But the underlying question remains worth asking directly: what exactly is correcting the failures inside higher education right now, if nothing ever has to close?

Watch the full discussion above for where this argument goes next.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Watch the video above for the full discussion, but the core argument is one worth sitting with on its own.

A private business that stops delivering what people actually want finds out quickly. Sales drop, losses mount, and eventually the business closes. That threat of failure isn’t a flaw in the system — it’s the mechanism that forces correction. Nobody has to vote to shut down a failing company. The losses do it automatically.

Public education doesn’t have that mechanism. It runs on what’s described in the discussion as an almost inexhaustible supply of taxpayer money, regardless of whether students are actually learning to think, being given a real foundation of history and knowledge, or being allowed to express views that don’t match the prevailing line in the classroom.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

What happens to an institution that never has to answer for failing the people it’s supposed to serve?

It keeps doing whatever it’s already doing, indefinitely, because nothing built into the system forces a change.

This isn’t just an abstract argument. The discussion includes a specific example that makes it concrete: a private school charging $65,000 a year shut down a student who tried to offer a different perspective during a classroom discussion of a controversial police shooting. When a parent pushed back and asked why the school wasn’t presenting both sides, the answer given wasn’t about curriculum standards or academic rigor. It was that the school didn’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable.

That’s a remarkable thing to hear from an institution charging tuition at that level.

Classrooms exist to challenge students, not to shield them from ideas that complicate a simple narrative. A school that treats discomfort itself as the problem has quietly redefined its own purpose — and there’s no mechanism forcing it to notice, because the tuition checks keep clearing either way.

What would have to happen for a school like that to actually change?

Based on the argument laid out in the discussion, probably nothing internal. The correction, if it comes at all, has to come from parents and students choosing to leave — the closest thing education has to the loss that forces a business to fix what’s broken. Until enough people make that choice, the institution has no reason to.

Watch the full video above for more on why this gap between business and education matters more than it might seem.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

A Blunt Take On Credentials

Elon Musk didn’t hold back when asked about the value of a college education.

“There’s no need even to have a college degree at all, or even high school,” Musk said.

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

What A Degree Actually Signals

Musk didn’t dismiss education entirely. He reframed what it actually proves.

“If somebody graduated from a great university, that may be an indication that they will be capable of great things, but it’s not necessarily the case,” he said.

That’s an important distinction. A degree isn’t proof of ability. At best, it’s a hint, and one that doesn’t always hold up.

The Names That Prove His Point

Musk didn’t have to reach far for examples.

“If you look at, say, people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, these guys didn’t graduate from college,” Musk said. “But if you had a chance to hire them, of course, that would be a good idea.”

Three of the most consequential figures in modern business history, all without a completed degree between them.

What Actually Matters, According To Musk

Musk laid out the standard he believes should replace the diploma.

“Looking just for evidence of exceptional ability,” he said. “And if there’s a track record of exceptional achievement, then it’s likely that that will continue into the future.”

That’s a fundamentally different way of evaluating talent, one built on demonstrated results rather than credentials on paper.

Why This Matters Beyond Silicon Valley

Musk’s comments land at a moment when more families and students are questioning whether traditional higher education is worth the time and cost it demands.

Track records, portfolios, and real skills are increasingly speaking louder than a framed degree on a wall, and that shift is reshaping how an entire generation thinks about their future.

Subscribe to support the DeSchooled newsletter, available now at 50 percent off for the year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Reduced enforcement was never going to produce safety. Reduced enforcement produced increased risk for average citizens while ideologically-driven politicians chased wins.

Angie Nixon’s recent video attempts to soften her prior record; however, the timing of this attempt arrives precisely at a time when voters have witnessed enough chaos to push back vigorously against the disorder.

The main problem with the way selective retractions are being made.

Subscribe now

Read more

Watch the video above for the full argument.

The core claim is worth sitting with on its own: crime rates among both black and white Americans were declining in the years leading up to the 1960s.

Then, in the same decade that produced landmark civil rights legislation, crime spiked sharply — and cities across the country saw waves of rioting.

That timeline runs against the version most people have absorbed by default.

The common explanation treats rising unrest almost entirely as a response to injustice that had simply built up over time, finally boiling over.

The video makes a different case. Specific policy decisions made during that period — including instances where law enforcement was deliberately held back from intervening — shaped how those riots unfolded and how far they spread.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

If crime was already falling before the decade that’s remembered for rising disorder, what actually changed?

That’s the uncomfortable question sitting underneath this argument. It’s easier to tell a story where unrest is the inevitable output of injustice reaching a breaking point. It’s harder to ask whether specific, reversible choices — how aggressively laws were enforced, how leadership responded in the moment, what kind of restraint was ordered from the top — played as large a role as the underlying social conditions themselves.

Neither explanation erases the other.

Real grievances existed, and real policy choices were made in response to them. But if the second half of that equation gets left out of the story entirely, the lesson people take away is incomplete — and incomplete lessons tend to get repeated.

What gets lost when a complicated history gets flattened into a single, simple cause?

Share

Usually, the parts that would actually be useful to know the next time similar conditions start to build.

Watch the full video above for the specifics.

Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Get 50% off for 1 year

1972. A scientist named Paul Ehrlich went on television and said some time in the next 15 years the end will come. And by the end he meant an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.

That was 54 years ago. We are still here.

Subscribe to DeSkooled now and support independent coverage of what the institutional establishment has been teaching your children for 50 years. This is your Learing Center discount, named after the Minnesota welfare fraud scheme where government money funded fake learning centers while the system looked the other way.

50% off for a limited time.

Get 50% off for 1 year

The same year Ehrlich appeared on television, news broadcasts were reporting on a new ice age creeping over the northern hemisphere. A British professor said cities like New York, Cincinnati, and St. Louis had once been under 5,000 feet of ice and a new cooling trend was coming.

Then the threat switched to warming.

In 2007 Al Gore accepted the Nobel Prize and warned that the North Polar ice cap could be completely gone within seven years. The Navy said it could happen as soon as five to seven years. Scientists said the Arctic summer could be ice-free within 22 years.

None of those deadlines passed. The Arctic is still there.

In 2008 a climate official said we had 100 months left to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse. He later revised it down to 96 months as the clock was ticking. We have now passed both deadlines.

We had 500 days to avoid climate chaos. That was announced in 2014. The 500 days passed.

We were on the verge of irreversible tipping points. Trump’s climate policy would push the earth to become like Venus with a temperature of 250 degrees and raining sulfuric acid. The world would end in 12 years if we did not address climate change. Miami would cease to exist. Milk would cost $12.99. Gas would be over $9 a gallon.

Greta Thunberg told us she did not want hope. She wanted panic. She wanted us to feel the fear she felt every day and act like the house was on fire.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us the lives of children would be so difficult that young people had a legitimate question about whether it was okay to still have children.

John Kerry explained that he had to fly his private jet everywhere because he could not sail across the ocean but what he was doing almost full time was working to win the climate battle. He told us this will take trillions not billions of dollars. He told us we needed a vast military-style campaign to marshal the global private sector with trillions at its disposal.

And when you stop and think about what lesson Kerry said he had learned as Secretary of State, he boiled it down to seven words.

Money. Money. Money. Money. Money. Money. Money.

The United Nations secretary general declared in 2023 that the era of global warming had ended and the era of global boiling had arrived. Climate change was more frightening than a nuclear war. One billion climate refugees by end of century. Loss of capacity for self-governance.

None of the deadlines have come true. Every catastrophe predicted with absolute scientific certainty for a specific date passed without the catastrophe. The ice cap is still there. Miami still exists. The Arctic had another summer.

What does come true every single time is the demand. Give politicians, bureaucrats, and the activist class trillions of dollars and shut down the economy or we are all going to die.

Fifty years of climate predictions. Zero accuracy. Endless money.

Is that science or is that the longest running grift in modern history?

DeSkooled covers what institutions teach, what they get wrong, and what it costs the rest of us when they do. 50% off for our limited to him.

Subscribe now.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Get 50% off for 1 year

Early in the video above, around the 0:36 mark, comes a line easy to miss on a first watch: the Immigration Act of 1882 has slowly become increasingly forgotten.

That’s not a throwaway detail. It’s the entire premise of what the current administration is doing right now.

Around the 5:31 mark, a White House announcement lays out the policy directly — pausing immigrant visa proceedings from 75 countries until the U.S. can confirm that incoming immigrants won’t become what the law calls a public charge. A few seconds later, at roughly 5:53, the video asks the obvious follow-up: where has that term been heard before? The answer traces straight back to 1882.

Subscribe now and get 50% off the Deskooled Substack.

Get 50% off for 1 year

The law itself, quoted plainly around the 22:17 mark, is almost startling in how blunt it is by modern legislative standards: the country did not want any convict, lunatic, or idiot. Nearly a century and a half later, the underlying logic hasn’t changed even if the language has softened. The government has always reserved the right to ask whether someone coming in is likely to become dependent on public support rather than self-sufficient.

Why did it take until now for a 150-year-old law to get enforced the way it was written?

That’s the real story here. This isn’t new policy dressed up as history. It’s old policy that simply stopped being applied for decades, quietly, without anyone voting to repeal it.

Around the 22:34 mark, the video makes the point even sharper, arguing plainly that this standard should have been enforced the entire time — not reinvented, not rewritten, just applied.

What changes when a country stops asking whether newcomers can support themselves?

The welfare rolls change. The strain on public services changes. And eventually, the political will to keep the door open changes too, because the public start to sense the mismatch between what the law says and what’s actually being enforced.

The administration’s current position isn’t asking anyone to accept a new idea. It’s asking the country to go back to enforcing an old one that never actually left the books — it just stopped being read.

Subscribe now and get 50% off the Deskooled Substack.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Minnesota officials are providing poll worker Training which includes telling judges to “skip” voter id checks.

The video frames this action as policy, but it appears to be an unintended result of what may have been well-intentioned actions. The timing of this video could not be worse.

Trust in our electoral systems remains low and some states are currently debating whether or not voter verification should occur at all.

There is nothing subtle about the video’s message. It encourages poll workers to ignore requests for identification even if there is doubt about a voter’s qualifications.

Proponents of this type of checkless procedure argue it makes lines shorter and provides less barriers. Opponents say it leaves voters vulnerable to problems that cannot be solved by auditing the results later.

Why do we need to train poll workers to ignore simple verification steps?

Subscribe now

Read more

Michael Desronvil held the room. Lindsay Clancy sent her husband for takeout, took Cora, Dawson, and Callan to the basement, and used exercise bands. That is guilt. The rest was a campaign to rename it

Lindsay Clancy was not a riddle. She was a mother who killed her children.

Cora was five. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months. The husband was out for food. The basement and the bands did the rest.

The holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, is now saying what the rest of the room tried to talk him out of. She was guilty from the start. He is the morally correct person in that story. The vote that treated her as a patient instead of a killer was the error.

Get 50% off a full year of the Deskooled Substack.

Get 60% off for 1 year

One Catholic Seat

Desronvil is Catholic. That is not a punch line. It is a man who still thinks a small body on a floor is a fact, not a mood.

Eight others, he said, sounded like activists from day one. The defense tried to bounce him for “not following reasonable doubt.” Translate that. He would not recite the script.

If a jury can be packed with people who arrive as advocates, what is a trial for?

What “Insanity” Was Being Asked to Cover

Postpartum tragedy is real in other files. This file is a sequence. Husband removed. Children isolated. Ligature. Three ages that cannot fight back.

That is planning enough for a moral verdict even when lawyers want a diagnosis to do the work of an acquittal. Clancy was clearly guilty of the deaths. The argument in the room was whether the country still had permission to say so.

A society that cannot call this murder will call the next one self-care.

Why the Holdout Matters

He is the reason she can still be tried as a killer instead of discharged as a case study. God bless Michael, the clip said. The blessing is earned.

Who would you want in the box — the man who looked at three children, or the eight who needed her to be a symbol?

Stay with Deskooled. The culture that excused this in a jury room is the same culture that lectures everyone else about safety.

Readers who still think Cora, Dawson, and Callan were owed a guilty name already know which stack is willing to write it.

Get 50% off a full year of the Deskooled Substack.

Get 50% off for 1 year