Watch the video above!

Millions of young women are listening to voices telling them the sisterhood lied. Pearl Davis and Shoe0nHead built massive followings by saying the quiet part out loud.

Feminism spent decades promising women that career, independence, and delayed family life would deliver happiness modern women’s grandmothers never had access to. Two of the most-watched female commentators on the internet are now telling millions of young women that promise never got delivered.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Hannah Pearl Davis, known online as JustPearlyThings, has built a channel with over two million subscribers making exactly that argument, week after week. Speaking with Piers Morgan, she put it bluntly, arguing that feminists have ruined marriage for the people who actually still believe in it. She’s repeated variations of that same case across dozens of interviews, distilling her entire worldview into a title that’s since racked up millions of views: “Feminism Made Society Crumble.”

Why does a message millions of women are actively choosing to watch keep getting dismissed as fringe extremism by the very institutions claiming to speak for women?

The Case Against Career-First Culture

Davis doesn’t limit her critique to abstract philosophy. She’s built her entire platform around a specific, repeatable argument about what modern feminism actually delivered to the women who followed its script. Appearing on the H3 Podcast, she stated her position without hedging, saying plainly that feminism “overall is a bad thing,” arguing that women are happier prioritizing family and children over a career in the long run.

That’s not a throwaway opinion. Davis has built out the argument methodically, pointing to no-fault divorce laws and family courts she describes as structurally biased against men as evidence that the institution of marriage itself has been destabilized by decades of policy built around feminist priorities. Whether or not every viewer agrees with her most sweeping conclusions, her core argument, that career-first messaging left a generation of women isolated, childless later than they wanted, and disillusioned with dating, resonates because millions of young women are actually living that exact outcome.

Here’s the sharp point worth sitting with. Davis rose to prominence specifically by filling a vacuum, an entire demographic of young women who felt unrepresented by mainstream feminist media telling them their frustrations with modern dating and family formation were imaginary or their own fault.

The Comedy Act That Became a Real Critique

June Lapine, better known as Shoe0nHead, took a different route to the same battlefield. She built her audience of over two million subscribers initially through parody and comedy, mocking what she saw as feminism’s most performative and least serious tendencies. In one of her most viewed early sketches, she mimicked a certain strain of feminist rhetoric almost verbatim, exaggerating the demand that women who wear makeup or diet are somehow betraying the cause, comedy built specifically to expose what she considered feminism’s contradictions from the inside.

Over time, that comedic framing hardened into a more direct set of arguments. Lapine has repeatedly challenged some of feminism’s most commonly cited statistics and framings head on, arguing publicly that rape culture as commonly described isn’t an accurate characterization of American society, and that the oft-cited wage gap figure doesn’t hold up once actual hours worked and career choices are accounted for.

Isn’t it telling that a commentator who explicitly avoids the “anti-feminist” label, and who has stayed personally friendly with feminist creators like ContraPoints and Marina Watanabe, still felt compelled to spend years publicly dismantling the movement’s most repeated talking points?

Two Different Paths, One Shared Conclusion

What makes Davis and Lapine worth examining together isn’t that they agree on everything. Davis has embraced explicitly traditionalist positions on marriage and family roles. Lapine describes herself as an egalitarian and a social democrat, distancing herself from the “anti-feminist” label even as she spends hours of content picking apart specific feminist claims. They arrived at their skepticism of modern feminism from genuinely different starting points and built genuinely different audiences.

That’s exactly what makes their overlapping conclusion so significant. Two creators with different politics, different tones, and different target audiences both built massive platforms by identifying the same underlying problem: a mainstream feminist narrative that millions of young women no longer feel accurately describes their own lived experience.

Feminism as an institution has spent years treating this kind of criticism as a fringe backlash driven by algorithm-fed radicalization. The subscriber counts tell a different story. When two of the most-watched women on the internet, coming from entirely different ideological starting points, build audiences in the millions by challenging the movement’s core claims, that’s not a fringe phenomenon anymore. That’s a genuine crack in a narrative that spent decades assuming it spoke for women without much room for disagreement.

If you have been on the free list at Deskooled and have been meaning to upgrade, 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

Afghanistan is the only country on earth where girls are banned from secondary and higher education by government decree.

2.2 million girls. No school beyond primary level. No university. No future in medicine, law, teaching, or any profession requiring advanced education. The Taliban has issued more than 70 decrees systematically erasing women from public life since seizing power in 2021. UNICEF estimates Afghanistan will lose 25,000 female teachers and healthcare workers by 2030 as a direct result.

The world watches and calls it barbaric. Which it is.

But there is a question worth sitting with.

What is the difference between a government that bans girls from learning what it does not want them to know and a government that fills classrooms with what it does want them to believe? The Taliban uses force. American public schools use curriculum. The methods are different. The underlying instinct, that the state has the right to control what children learn and who they become, is the same.

Connecticut just tried to require parents to notify child welfare agencies before pulling their children from public school. California school districts have policies facilitating secret gender transitions without parental knowledge. Pete Hegseth just cut Harvard off from military education programs because officers were coming back indoctrinated rather than trained.

Nobody is banning girls from learning in America. But plenty of people in positions of authority over American education have decided that parental rights are an obstacle to the agenda rather than a foundation of a free society.

The Taliban does it with guns. The American education establishment does it with school boards and curriculum committees and policies buried in handbooks parents never read.

Two different worlds. One dangerous assumption in common.

These people do nothing but hurt kids.

Deskooled covers the full spectrum of what governments do when they decide education belongs to them rather than to families. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep asking the questions nobody else will.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Watch the video above for my long-form criticism of public education!

Every generation of kids has outperformed their parents. More schooling, more resources, more cognitive horsepower passed down the line. That’s just how it’s worked for a hundred years.

Gen Z just broke the pattern.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

As one researcher recently laid it out, Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to underperform previous generations on basically every cognitive measure available. Attention. Memory. Literacy. Numeracy. Executive functioning. General IQ. Every single one, moving in the wrong direction, even though today’s kids spend more total hours in school than any generation before them.

So what changed?

It Can’t Be School Itself

The obvious suspects don’t hold up. It can’t be the schools themselves, because schools basically look the same as they did twenty years ago. It can’t be biology, because evolution doesn’t work on a fifteen year timeline. The one thing that actually changed inside the classroom during that window is the tool being used to deliver the lesson.

Digital technology.

Across eighty different countries, once schools widely adopted digital technology, academic performance dropped, and it dropped significantly. Kids using computers for roughly five hours a day for schoolwork score over two-thirds of a standard deviation lower than kids who rarely or never touch a screen at school. That’s not a fluke limited to one country’s education system. That’s a pattern showing up on every continent tracked.

Bring it back home and the story holds. Take any state’s NAEP scores, the national assessment used to track student achievement across the country, and compare them to the exact year that state rolled out one-to-one technology programs, a laptop or tablet for every student. The scores plateau. Then they start dropping.

This isn’t a new theory either. Academic research stretching back to 1962 shows the same result, over and over, for sixty straight years. When technology enters the classroom, learning goes down. The reason is almost embarrassingly simple. Kids skim on screens. They don’t read deeply, they don’t sit with hard material, they scan for the next dopamine hit the same way they scroll social media.

Rather than asking what we actually want children to learn and building an education system around that goal, schools quietly redefined education itself to fit the tool sitting on every desk. That’s not innovation. That’s surrender, dressed up in a laptop cart.

And Then the Boys Just Leave

Here’s where the story gets darker. That cognitive decline is hitting an entire generation right as they’re supposed to be transitioning into adulthood, into careers, into college. And a huge share of young men are looking at what higher education has become and simply walking away.

The numbers are staggering. Men now make up only 42 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients nationally, the lowest share ever recorded. About one million fewer young men are enrolled in college today compared to 2011. At schools like the University of Vermont, male undergraduate enrollment has dropped from 45 percent in 2015 down to just 37 percent today.

This isn’t happening because young men suddenly stopped valuing success. It’s happening because they’ve done the math, and increasingly, they don’t like the answer college gives them.

Nearly forty percent of young men say colleges are designed to benefit women more than men. Skepticism toward the value of a degree runs deep across the political spectrum, but it’s most pronounced among conservatives, where seventy four percent now doubt college is worth it at all. Compare that to a trade job paying twenty five to thirty dollars an hour straight out of high school, no debt attached, and the choice stops looking irrational. It starts looking obvious.

Two Systems, One Failure

Put these two stories side by side and a pattern emerges that should terrify anyone paying attention. An education system that hands a laptop to every eight-year-old and calls it progress, even as the research says it’s quietly eroding attention spans and literacy. Then, a decade later, that same system hands those same kids a soul-crushing amount of debt for a degree an increasing share of young men have decided isn’t even worth pursuing.

The kids getting dumber in elementary school are the same kids opting out of higher education by eighteen. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pipeline, built one bad policy decision at a time, from the first tablet handed to a kindergartner to the empty seat where a young man used to sit in a college classroom.

Nobody in charge of either system seems interested in asking why. They just keep buying more laptops, and keep wondering why enrollment keeps shrinking.

A daycare owner just pleaded guilty to millions in fraud. Wikipedia’s page on the man who exposed her still describes his reporting as “unsubstantiated.”

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Nick Shirley published his Minnesota daycare investigation the day after Christmas, a 42-minute video showing seemingly empty childcare centers that had collected millions in taxpayer money. One of the facilities he visited, run by Fahima Mahamud, is now confirmed. In July, Mahamud pleaded guilty to $4.6 million in daycare fraud and an additional $850,000 tied to the broader Feeding Our Future scandal that’s already sent dozens of people to prison.

Read Shirley’s Wikipedia page today, and you’d have no idea that outcome vindicates anything. The page states plainly that “Shirley’s central claims that members of the Somali community were operating fake childcare centers or inflating attendance numbers were unsubstantiated,” adding that “prosecutors did not accuse the owner of inflating attendance numbers.”

Why does that framing survive a literal guilty plea?

Because Wikipedia’s editors have drawn the narrowest possible line between “fraud happened here” and “Shirley’s specific claims were correct,” and they’re using that gap to preserve a narrative that was already crumbling in real time. Shirley never claimed to have prosecutorial precision about which exact fraud statute would eventually get charged. He walked into daycare centers, found them empty during hours they claimed to be operating, and said something was clearly wrong. A jury of one federal guilty plea later says he wasn’t wrong. Wikipedia’s page still frames the underlying accusation as debunked because the charging documents used different technical language than his video did.

That’s not how basic accountability journalism works anywhere else. If a reporter says a company is committing fraud and the company’s owner later pleads guilty to fraud at that exact location, no serious outlet describes the reporter’s claims as “unsubstantiated” just because the indictment used different specific language than the original story.

Isn’t that exactly the kind of hairsplitting that erodes trust in supposedly neutral reference sources?

This is the same Wikipedia entry that leans heavily on a University of Minnesota media law professor’s assessment that Shirley “prioritizes fearmongering over fact-checking,” and cites critics calling his approach “sensationalized” with “anti-immigrant undertones.” Meanwhile, the same page acknowledges, almost in passing, that federal prosecutors estimated half or more of roughly $18 billion in funds across fourteen Minnesota-run programs since 2018 may have been stolen. Local outlets like the Minnesota Star Tribune and Sahan Journal had been tracking these fraud schemes for years before Shirley ever picked up a camera, with 98 people already indicted in connection with pandemic-era theft schemes. The underlying rot wasn’t a hoax Shirley invented. It was a real, years-long scandal that state and local reporters had already documented, and Shirley’s video is what finally forced national attention onto it.

None of this means every frame of Shirley’s video was perfectly executed. A CBS camera crew did catch parents dropping kids off at one center he visited, and Shirley dismissed the discrepancy as people “showing face” rather than offering a clean explanation. Reasonable critics can point to real methodological weaknesses in his reporting style, the lack of traditional editorial review, the confrontational interview tactics, the absence of a formal correction process. Those are legitimate critiques of independent journalism as a genre.

What isn’t legitimate is describing his central allegation as “unsubstantiated” the same month a federal guilty plea confirms fraud at one of the exact facilities he flagged. That’s not neutral encyclopedic caution. That’s an editorial choice to protect a predetermined conclusion against inconvenient facts.

Wikipedia built its reputation on being the place people turn to for a settled, sourced account once the dust clears. In Shirley’s case, the dust has cleared. A daycare operator he named on camera is now a convicted fraudster. The page covering that story still reads like it was written the week before the plea deal, because in the parts that matter most, it was.

We’re generating graduates who can recite slogans about equity, but can’t make ends meet (i.e., they can’t even do simple math). Many advocates on X are now calling for complete abolition of it to replace it with home schooling and/or schools run by parents who understand what the real world consequences are.

This isn’t a call for a new committee to study how to fix this problem. Or for a new curriculum to teach students how to fix this problem. It’s a statement of fact that the current system exists solely to feed and empower bureaucrats and activist groups, not children.

Why pretend the system can be improved with another committee, another curriculum, etc. – all of which are controlled by the very same ideological framework that views parents as barriers to be overcome?

Read more

Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested by U.S. Marshals in Miami on Saturday night, pulled into custody on a sealed warrant just as Andrew was scheduled to appear at a bare-knuckle boxing event downtown.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

The timing wasn’t a coincidence. Just hours before the arrest, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service announced a dramatic expansion of the criminal case against the brothers, bringing the total number of charges to fifty nine. Andrew Tate now faces forty two separate charges. Tristan faces seventeen. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the U.S. Marshals in the Southern District of Florida made the arrests specifically pursuant to extradition proceedings tied to the U.K. investigation.

That’s not a minor legal update. That’s an entirely new phase of a case that’s been building for years.

What the New Charges Actually Say

According to the CPS, the additional charges against Andrew Tate include rape, arranging or facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and offenses involving alleged indecent images of a child and extreme pornography. Tristan Tate faces additional rape, sexual assault, and trafficking charges of his own.

Prosecutors say the alleged crimes span from 2010 to 2017 and now involve four additional alleged victims, bringing the total number of accusers in the U.K. case to seven. Malcolm McHaffie, who leads the CPS Special Crime Division, confirmed directly that Britain has formally requested the brothers’ extradition from the United States, and that they’re now awaiting extradition proceedings.

Assistant Chief Constable Karena Thomas of Bedfordshire Police, whose department has led the investigation, put the department’s position plainly, saying there is no place for male violence against women and girls and that investigators would continue working to support victims and pursue every report made to them.

The brothers, who hold dual U.S. and British citizenship, are expected to make their first court appearance in the Southern District of Florida early next week. They have consistently denied all wrongdoing in both the U.K. and Romanian cases.

How the Tate Brothers Became Impossible to Ignore

Long before this weekend’s arrest, Andrew and Tristan Tate had already built one of the most polarizing online followings on the internet. They rose to fame as self-described leaders of the so-called manosphere, building an audience of millions around content promoting hypermasculinity, wealth, and a worldview that frequently veered into open misogyny.

Andrew Tate has never shied away from saying the quiet part loud either. He once declared that a woman’s value could essentially be judged by how many past partners she’d had, arguing the number should be visible the way a price tag is visible on a product. He’s also claimed depression simply isn’t real, telling followers that people who feel sad should just change their circumstances rather than treating it as a legitimate mental health struggle.

Some of his stranger public moments have nothing to do with his legal troubles at all. Tate once posted a lengthy rant declaring that sleeping soundly through the night was, in his words, an “overtly homosexual” trait, arguing that real men should experience nightmares instead of restful sleep. He’s also claimed that eating breakfast is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity, describing the simple act of eating food after waking up as a flawed mental model.

The Matrix Obsession That Followed Him Into Custody

Perhaps the strangest recurring theme in Tate’s public persona is his fixation on “the Matrix,” a phrase he’s used for years to describe a shadowy set of institutions supposedly conspiring against him personally. The moment Romanian police arrested him in December 2022, his first public reaction wasn’t to address the trafficking allegations directly. It was to declare that the Matrix had attacked him.

He’s continued leaning on that framing throughout every subsequent legal battle, posting lines like “you cannot kill an idea” and describing his prosecution as a political operation designed to diminish his influence rather than a legitimate legal process addressing serious criminal allegations. Whether audiences found that framing compelling or absurd, it became one of Tate’s defining rhetorical habits, showing up in nearly every video he’s released since his initial arrest.

Even his lighter public moments have had a surreal quality to them. After posting bail from Romanian custody in 2023, one of his first widely circulated videos showed him smoking a cigar and swaying along to Mariah Carey’s “We Belong Together,” a strikingly soft soundtrack choice for a man who spends most of his platform preaching hardened masculinity.

What Happens Next

The legal process ahead is far from simple. The brothers still face separate, ongoing criminal proceedings in Romania involving allegations of rape, human trafficking, and forming a criminal gang to exploit women, charges that must be resolved before any formal transfer to the U.K. can move forward under the extradition arrangement Romanian courts approved back in 2024.

This weekend’s arrest in Miami adds an entirely new layer to that timeline, placing the brothers back in U.S. custody while British authorities push to bring them across the Atlantic to face the expanded slate of charges directly. Neither the Justice Department nor the U.S. Marshals Service has publicly detailed what triggered Saturday’s sealed warrant specifically, beyond confirming it was tied to the extradition process itself.

For two brothers who’ve spent years insisting their legal troubles were manufactured by unseen forces determined to silence them, this weekend made one thing clear. The list of formal charges against them just got significantly longer, and it happened in the span of a single afternoon.

Two men. One video call. And within minutes, a debate about religion in America turned into one of the strangest online spectacles of the summer.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Alex Jones and Sneako, real name Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy, sat down on July 8th for what was billed as a serious debate on Islam, jihad, and immigration. It didn’t stay serious for long. Clips from the exchange spread fast under titles like “Alex Jones Just CRASHED OUT on Sneako,” and it’s easy to see why once you watch the two men talking over each other, fists raised, both shouting at a volume better suited to a boxing weigh-in than a policy discussion.

Right at the three minute mark, Sneako runs his finger across his own throat, a gesture that reads as nothing short of a threat aimed straight at the camera. It’s the kind of moment that would end most people’s credibility in any serious conversation, let alone one where the entire premise is supposed to be a good faith debate over religion and immigration policy.

Why does a gesture like that matter more than just being an ugly moment on camera?

Because it says more than anything either man argued out loud. A throat slashing motion isn’t a rhetorical flourish. It’s intimidation, plain and simple, and it lands especially hard given the actual subject matter on the table, a debate over whether Islamic doctrine carries an expansionist, even violent undertone. Sneako spent part of the exchange defending the Quran’s teachings on expansion, arguing the religion wasn’t inherently violent despite centuries of conquest tied to its early spread. Making a throat cutting gesture three minutes into that exact conversation doesn’t exactly help the argument.

That single moment wasn’t an isolated slip either. It’s a pattern with Sneako at this point. Just days before the Jones debate, he filmed himself in a crowd of Egyptian soccer fans celebrating a World Cup win, shouting “Allahu Akbar” and declaring, “This is the Islamic Republic of New York-istan. Islam will be in every household. Inshallah the whole world will be Muslim.” He turned to the camera and added, “Welcome to Mamdani’s New York. You see this city? You see how it looks? Inshallah, your city looks just like this too.” The clip went viral almost instantly, prompting Jones to repost it with a blunt “Deport him now,” a call Elon Musk echoed with a one word reply.

That controversy is what set the stage for the debate in the first place. And once the two finally got on camera together, the tone matched everything that came before it. At another point in the exchange, Sneako brought up Sandy Hook, referencing the 2012 shooting Jones infamously called a hoax, a topic that sent Jones into an even sharper tone almost instantly. Watching the full exchange, it’s genuinely hard to tell which of the two men is more unhinged in the moment. Jones fires back with his signature bombast. Sneako escalates right alongside him rather than backing down, that throat gesture at the three minute mark crystallizing exactly how far the conversation had drifted from anything resembling a real debate.

Isn’t that the real problem with content built this way? Two people who clearly disagree, put in front of a camera, rewarded by the algorithm for escalating rather than resolving anything, until a hand gesture becomes more memorable than a single argument either man made.

Sneako has built an entire online persona around this exact formula. Provoke, escalate, claim victimhood when the backlash arrives, repeat. He’s palled around with edgy corners of the internet for years, built a following past a million people on Kick, and seems to treat every controversy as fuel rather than a lesson. Watching him square off against Jones, a man with his own decades long history of manufactured chaos and legal consequences from Sandy Hook alone, felt less like a genuine debate and more like watching two wildfires try to put each other out, with Sneako’s gesture at the three minute mark serving as the spark that should have ended the conversation right there.

The deeper theological question underneath all the shouting deserved a real airing, and it’s one Christian apologist David Wood has spent years developing under a framework he calls the Islamic Dilemma. Wood’s argument is straightforward. The Quran itself instructs believers to judge disputed matters against the Torah and the Gospel, treating those earlier scriptures as reliable and authoritative. That creates a bind neither path escapes. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then Islam collapses under its own weight, since the Quran contradicts Christian scripture on fundamental points like the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. If the Bible has been corrupted, as many Muslim scholars argue, then Islam collapses anyway, because the Quran explicitly affirms the Torah and Gospel as preserved and authoritative. Either direction leads to the same dead end, which is why Wood has argued for years that the religion, in his words, self-destructs under its own internal logic.

That’s the kind of substantive argument that got buried underneath fists in the air and a finger across the throat. American audiences are increasingly asking honest questions about religious doctrine, immigration, and assimilation, and those questions deserve better than two men shouting past each other. Instead, viewers got a spectacle, punctuated by a threatening gesture that had nothing to do with making an actual argument, and everything to do with proving exactly why Sneako keeps finding himself at the center of the same chaos, video after video.

This is vindication for those that have been watching this system deteriorate for years. Today’s “education” simply acts as a tax funded tool for conformity and thus the only logical solution is complete separation of school and state.

Some recent contributors to Twitter (X) have outlined their plans clearly; i.e., remove the personnel from the institutions, allow them to go private, implement voucher programs, and let the free market decide what works and what doesn’t.

These plans are not looking for reform. They reject the idea that the government should collect taxes from its citizenry to fund the operation of schools. Instead, the alternative is creating deskooled paths where family members select without coercion.

Why would a system that proclaims to assist children need forced funding to continue?

Read more

Watch the video above. It's one of my more in-depth analyses.

Capitalism Didn’t Start With Adam Smith. It Started in a Monastery.

The Story Nobody Was Taught

Ask most people where capitalism came from, and Adam Smith’s name comes up almost automatically. The Wealth of Nations, 1776, the invisible hand, the whole story wrapped up in one Scottish philosopher’s ledger.

That story is wrong.

Murray Rothbard spent the final years of his life dismantling that assumption, and the case he built points somewhere nobody expects. Catholic monasteries. Medieval scholastic theologians. Centuries before Smith ever picked up a pen.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Rothbard’s Real Argument

In “Economic Thought Before Adam Smith,” the first volume of his massive “Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought,” Rothbard argued that laissez-faire liberalism and economic thought itself began with the Catholic scholastics and early Roman and canon law. Not with Smith at all.

That’s a direct challenge to the version of history taught in most economics departments, where everything meaningful supposedly starts in 1776.

Why does that starting point matter so much? Because the scholastics weren’t dabbling in economics as a side project. According to Rothbard’s research, they established and developed the subjective utility and scarcity theory of value, the foundational idea that something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, not some fixed, objective measure independent of human judgment. They also worked out that prices and the value of money depend on supply and demand centuries before those terms became standard economic vocabulary.

The Friar Who Invented Capital

One figure Rothbard highlights captures just how far back this thinking goes.

Pierre de Jean Olivi, a thirteenth-century Franciscan friar, argued that the value of a good comes down to its scarcity, its usefulness, and its desirability, what modern economists would call marginal utility. Olivi also introduced something even more consequential into economic thought: the concept of capital itself, a fund of money invested specifically in a business venture with the expectation of return.

That’s not a footnote. That’s the conceptual seed of capitalism, growing directly out of a friar’s moral theology rather than a merchant’s ledger.

Isn’t it striking that the person credited with articulating what capital actually is wasn’t a businessman at all, but a Catholic monk wrestling with questions of ethics and value?

Built on Aquinas, Not on Accident

Rothbard traces this tradition specifically to the Spanish Scholastics, thinkers working within the Thomistic framework built on Thomas Aquinas, who had already established that the laws of nature, including human nature, gave reason the tools to discover a rational, coherent ethics.

That framework didn’t just produce theology. It produced an entire intellectual infrastructure capable of analyzing trade, property, and value on its own terms, using logic rather than scripture alone to work through economic questions.

That tradition didn’t emerge from nowhere either. As one review of Rothbard’s work put it, libertarian and economic thought has “an ancestry extending down through the ages to antiquity,” and “those roots are both Western and Christian.” Much of the analysis stayed embedded in moral theology, scattered across commentaries and disputations rather than organized into a single unified text. But the substance was there, developed and refined by clergy debating what a just price actually meant, or when merchants were owed a return for the risks they took on.

Where the Story Gets Provocative

Here’s where Rothbard’s argument stops being safe intellectual history and starts picking a real fight.

He doesn’t treat Adam Smith as simply the next step forward in a straight line of progress. He argues Smith actually represented a step backward for the tradition, a retrograde influence rather than a breakthrough. Smith’s strong Calvinist tendencies toward glorifying labor, toil, and thrift, Rothbard contends, buried a richer scholastic tradition that had emphasized labor in service of consumption rather than labor as a virtue unto itself.

The continental, pre-Austrian tradition built by centuries of Catholic scholars got overshadowed, not built upon, once Smith’s labor cost theories became dominant, especially in Britain.

A Straight Line From Aquinas to Locke

That reframing lines up with a broader pattern historians and economists have pointed to for years. Western institutions, individual dignity, rational inquiry, and eventually market economics, didn’t spring up in a secular vacuum during the Enlightenment. They grew out of centuries of Christian intellectual labor, from Aquinas’s synthesis of faith and reason to the Spanish scholastics working through the ethics of trade and property in the sixteenth century, decades before anything resembling modern capitalism existed as a named system.

Even later natural rights theorists who get credited as purely secular Enlightenment thinkers don’t fully escape this lineage. Rothbard read John Locke’s political theory as what he called “neo-Scholastic Protestantism,” essentially a resurrection of Christian natural law doctrine dressed in a new philosophical vocabulary.

The line from medieval Catholic theology to Enlightenment liberalism to modern free-market economics turns out to be far more continuous than the standard textbook chronology admits.

The Pin Factory Came Later

Capitalism’s popular origin story credits a Scottish moral philosopher standing at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Rothbard’s research suggests the real starting point sits centuries earlier, in the arguments of Catholic friars working out, on Christian moral grounds, what makes a price fair and what gives capital its value in the first place.

The pin factory came later. The theology came first.

Asmongold Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud, and He’s Not Even Religious

Sometimes the strongest defense of Christianity in America doesn’t come from a pastor. It comes from a guy who doesn’t believe in God at all.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Twitch streamer Zack Asmongold, one of the largest voices in online gaming with millions of followers, went viral this summer for saying something that would have been unremarkable a generation ago and somehow feels radical today. I want to live in a Christian country, he told his audience. Not a mandate. Not forced conversion. Just an honest admission that the laws, the culture, and the predominant religion shaping his country should stay Christian, because he’d grown up benefiting from exactly that.

He said it plainly. I am an atheist, but I recognize and enjoy the privileges of the Christian culture that I grew up in.

Why does that admission land so hard coming from a nonbeliever?

Because it strips the argument of the one dismissal the left always reaches for first. Nobody can accuse Asmongold of pushing religion to save his own soul. He has no theological stake in the outcome. His argument is entirely civilizational, built on a simple observation that a lot of people, believers and atheists alike, have been too afraid to say out loud. The system works. Tear out its foundation and something worse tends to move in.

Asmongold went further in a separate clip, describing Western culture as Roman law fused with Greek philosophy and Christian morality, a combination that built the entire social system Americans take for granted. That’s not a fringe theory. It’s a description historians and philosophers have made for centuries, and it maps onto three pillars that quietly built the modern West long before anyone called it Western civilization.

The first pillar goes all the way back to Genesis. Imago Dei, the idea that every human being is made in the image of God, sounds like a purely religious concept until you trace what it actually built. Universal human dignity. The radical notion that a peasant and a king possess equal inherent worth, regardless of class or station. Strip that concept out, and the entire philosophical basis for human rights loses its foundation. Rights stop being something a person simply has and become something a government decides to grant, which means a government can just as easily decide to take them away.

The second pillar came through the Scholastics, medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas who fused Christian revelation with Greek philosophy and built something the ancient world never had. The conviction that the universe runs on rational, knowable laws. That synthesis didn’t just produce theology. It produced the university system itself and elevated reason as the primary tool for understanding reality, laying groundwork the modern scientific method would later build on.

The third pillar shaped how an entire civilization thinks about labor. The Protestant work ethic, developed by Martin Luther and later Calvinism, reframed ordinary work as a calling rather than a burden, tying discipline and worldly success to something larger than a paycheck. That single reframe helped fuel the rise of modern capitalism and the culture of individual ambition that still defines the American economy today.

Here’s what should stop critics cold. Even committed atheists who’ve spent careers arguing against religion keep landing in the same place Asmongold did. Murray Rothbard, an atheist of Jewish heritage and one of libertarianism’s foundational thinkers, argued that Western liberty and property rights weren’t invented from nothing. He traced them directly to Catholic natural law theory, developed by scholastics centuries before Adam Smith ever picked up a pen, and warned that without a transcendent moral standard above the state, the state simply becomes the new god.

Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous atheist alive, has said something almost identical. He’s called himself a cultural Christian, admitting he feels at home in the Christian ethos and prefers its outcomes to the alternatives competing for civilization’s foundation. He’s leaned on an old Belloc rhyme to make the point. Always keep ahold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.

So what happens when a civilization actually does let go?

The twentieth century already ran that experiment, and the results weren’t neutral or secular utopias. They were catastrophes. When Soviet Russia rejected Imago Dei entirely, it didn’t produce equality. It produced Lysenkoism, a state ideology that banned real genetics and treated human beings as raw material to be reshaped by decree, a delusion that helped starve millions. Mao’s China ran the same experiment on a larger scale, treating an entire peasantry as a blank slate for state engineering, producing the deadliest man made famine in recorded history.

Without a religious floor beneath human worth, both regimes treated people as economic inputs rather than individuals with inherent dignity, and both used forced sterilization, mass starvation, and outright execution as tools of policy once that floor disappeared.

That’s the pattern Asmongold, Rothbard, and Dawkins are all circling from different directions. None of them need to believe in God to recognize what happens to a society once it fully discards the moral architecture Christianity built underneath it.

A gamer with no religious stake in the outcome just said what a lot of quieter Americans have believed for years. You don’t have to kneel in a pew to understand what happens when the floor gets kicked out from under an entire civilization.

Some rants are so unhinged they end up making the opposite case from the one intended. Hasan Piker just delivered one for the ages, and this time even sympathetic outlets are struggling to defend him.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

In a since-viral clip, the Twitch streamer went off on Fox News and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in a rant laced with claims that don’t survive even a few minutes of fact checking. “Fox News is Rape TV,” Piker said. “It’s the pro-rape network.” He then turned to Hegseth directly: “One of their rapists hosts is now the f***ing Secretary of War. Pete Hegseth also has a Nazi tattoo on his motherf***ing chest. He was such a prolific rapist that his own mother sent him an email begging him to stop.”

Why does a claim this specific, this detailed, fall apart so completely under scrutiny?

Because none of it holds up. Hegseth was investigated once, in 2017, following an accusation. No criminal charges were ever filed. He denied the allegation and later reached a civil settlement, a resolution that happens constantly in disputed cases and is not, by any legal or factual standard, an admission of being a “prolific rapist.” Piker didn’t just exaggerate a real story. He invented a pattern of behavior that has no basis in the actual record.

The tattoo claim is even easier to check. What Piker called a “Nazi tattoo” is a Jerusalem Cross, a medieval Crusader symbol with deep roots in Christian iconography. It’s the same symbol that appeared on the program at former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral. Commentators on the right were quick to point that out, with the Washington Examiner’s David Harsanyi noting he wasn’t surprised Piker “makes no distinction between a Jerusalem Cross and a Nazi tat.”

Isn’t that exactly the problem with rhetoric this reckless? Once a symbol tied to centuries of Christian tradition gets rebranded as extremist iconography by a commentator with millions of followers, the label sticks in people’s minds long after the correction gets a fraction of the reach.

CNN contributor Scott Jennings didn’t mince words responding to the clip. “Absolutely none of that is true,” he wrote. “But he should be sued for defamation. You cannot call people rapists because they hurt your feelings or you don’t like their politics. Time to sue.” Media watchdogs across the spectrum flagged the same conclusion, with one outlet calling the rant “reckless defamation dialed up to eleven, complete with profanity and zero evidence.”

This isn’t an isolated lapse either. Piker has a documented history of downplaying sexual violence when it doesn’t fit his politics. He’s previously dismissed the significance of the systematic rapes committed against Israeli women during the October 7th attacks, saying on his show that it “doesn’t change the dynamic for me even this much.” That’s the same person now positioning himself as an outraged voice against a “pro-rape network,” a contradiction that hasn’t gone unnoticed.

Pete Hegseth’s actual public record tells a very different story than the one Piker tried to paint. He’s spoken openly about his Christian faith shaping how he leads, describing his role at the Department of War in terms of duty, service, and moral responsibility rather than personal ambition. He’s worn the Jerusalem Cross publicly and talked about what it represents to him, a symbol of faith carried by warriors for centuries, not the hateful caricature Piker tried to smear it into. Whatever disagreements people have with his politics, the record shows a man who has been consistent about his faith and his sense of service, not the cartoon villain invented in a profanity-laced livestream.

Here’s the uncomfortable question hanging over all of it. If a conservative commentator had invented a fabricated rape allegation against a sitting Democratic official, paired with a false claim about hateful tattoos, how fast would that clip have been buried under fact checks, network apologies, and advertiser pressure?

Piker’s own defenders in Democratic politics haven’t exactly rushed to distance themselves either. Several Democratic candidates have appeared on his show or accepted his endorsement in recent months, with little pressure from within the party to explain why.

Some words carry weight precisely because they’re supposed to be true when spoken. Piker used the most serious accusation society has, calling someone a rapist, as a rhetorical bludgeon against a man’s actual faith and public service, without a shred of evidence behind it. That’s not commentary. That’s exactly the kind of reckless disregard for truth Piker claims to be fighting against.

If you have been on the free list at Deskooled and have been meaning to upgrade, 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

Konstantin Kisin said it better than almost anyone has.

“You spent 60 years teaching your children to hate your own civilization. Why are you surprised that they hate your civilization? It is hard to teach people to hate. It is much easier to just lie to them about history.”

That is not a political argument. That is an observation about cause and effect.

The narrative on slavery that fills American classrooms today runs something like this. There was no slavery. Then Western civilization came along and invented it. Then enlightened progressives came along and ended Western civilization. The end.

Every piece of that narrative is false.

Slavery was not invented by the West. It was practiced by every civilization in human history without exception. Native Americans kept slaves. Arab traders kept slaves. African kingdoms kept slaves and sold other Africans into slavery. Slaves were probably the first commodity human beings ever traded and it had nothing to do with race. It was about power. Conquered people were subjugated by whoever conquered them.

What actually happened is that Western civilization, specifically Britain, spent extraordinary amounts of blood and treasure to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Royal Navy patrolled the Atlantic for decades intercepting slave ships. Britain paid enormous diplomatic and financial costs to force other nations to stop. Western moral philosophy produced the arguments that made abolition not just possible but inevitable.

None of that is in the curriculum.

Instead American students are taught that their civilization is uniquely guilty, that they must eternally apologize for history their ancestors did not personally participate in, and that the appropriate response to being born in the freest and most prosperous civilization in human history is shame.

Then everyone acts surprised when a generation raised on that curriculum does not feel any particular obligation to defend or preserve what they inherited.

Kisin is right. It is not hard to teach hate. It is easier to lie about history. And for sixty years the people controlling American classrooms have been doing exactly that.

Deskooled covers the full scope of what has been done to American education and what it is going to take to undo it. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep covering the ideas the education establishment does not want your children to encounter.

Get 35% off for 1 year

WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE

Something remarkable is happening in American education, and it isn’t happening in a classroom.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Homeschooling in the United States grew at nearly triple its pre-pandemic pace during the 2024-2025 school year, according to research from the Johns Hopkins Homeschool Research Lab. Not a temporary blip. Not a pandemic hangover finally fading out. An acceleration, with ten states reporting their highest homeschool enrollment numbers ever recorded, higher than even the peak pandemic years.

Why would families keep leaving a system built specifically to educate their children?

Because for a growing number of them, that system stopped delivering on the one thing it promised. According to recent survey data, roughly seventy two percent of homeschooling parents point to poor academic quality and ineffective teaching approaches as their primary reason for leaving. Not politics first. Not culture war headlines first. The classroom itself.

That distinction matters more than most coverage of this trend admits. Standardized testing has narrowed what actually gets taught in many public schools, pushing curriculum toward teaching to the test rather than building the kind of critical thinking that sticks with a kid for life. Parents watching that happen in real time aren’t leaving because of a single controversial lesson plan. They’re leaving because they’ve concluded the entire model has drifted away from actual learning.

Here’s the number that should stop anyone defending the status quo. Homeschooled students average around 1190 on the SAT, compared to 1060 for public school students nationally, a gap of over a full standard deviation on some scoring breakdowns. On the ACT and other standardized measures, homeschooled students consistently score fifteen to twenty five percentile points higher than their public school peers. That’s not a small effect explainable by wealthy families opting out. That’s a pattern showing up across income levels and geography.

Isn’t it worth asking what a one on one, self paced education model is doing right that a room of thirty kids and one overstretched teacher structurally cannot replicate?

The growth isn’t confined to any single demographic either. What started as a largely white, middle to upper income movement has diversified substantially over the past several years, with non white and non Hispanic families representing a rapidly expanding share of homeschooling households nationwide. This isn’t a niche lifestyle choice anymore. It’s becoming a mainstream alternative that families across every background are actively choosing, not settling for.

Meanwhile, the public school system is contracting under its own structural weight. Enrollment nationally was already flattening before the pandemic hit, and the shock that followed accelerated a decline that shows no sign of reversing. Researchers at Brookings found that the share of children outside traditional public schools, whether in private school, homeschooling, or simply unaccounted for in official rolls, has stayed well above pre-pandemic levels for four straight years running. The modest rebound some districts saw in 2022 wasn’t a recovery. It was a pause before the next wave of families walked out the door.

That exodus creates a financial death spiral few school boards want to discuss out loud. Most state and federal education funding flows on a per pupil basis, which means every family that leaves takes real dollars out of the system with them, tightening budgets for the students who remain and giving remaining districts even less capacity to fix the problems driving families away in the first place.

So where does that leave the debate over what American education is actually supposed to accomplish?

The old argument assumed public school was simply the default, the water everyone swims in whether they love it or not. That assumption is eroding fast. Families aren’t waiting for a school board to fix a broken system on their own timeline. They’re building something else entirely, one dining room table and one self directed curriculum at a time, and the test scores suggest they’re not sacrificing quality to do it.

The number worth remembering isn’t a statistic buried in a research paper. It’s the growing share of American parents who looked at the system built to educate their kids and decided they could do it better themselves. That’s not a fringe opinion anymore. That’s a movement with the data to back it up.

Ask someone why a family stays poor and there’s a decent chance you’ll hear a version of the same story. Somewhere, someone got rich, and that riches had to come from somewhere. Usually from them.

Thomas Sowell built an entire argument around testing that story against actual numbers, and the test doesn’t go the way the theory predicts.

If the wealth of rich capitalists really comes from exploiting poor workers, then places with more rich capitalists should show more poverty, not less. That’s not a strawman version of the argument. That’s the logical conclusion the theory demands, laid out plainly by Sowell himself, who put it this way. Larger concentrations of rich capitalists should produce correspondingly larger concentrations of poverty, if the exploitation theory holds any water at all.

So does it hold up?

The United States has more billionaires than the entire continent of Africa and the Middle East combined. If wealth concentration at the top drained resources from everyone else, America’s poor should be among the worst off on earth. They aren’t. Not close. The poor in the United States live with conveniences, healthcare access, and material security that would count as comfortable by the standards of most of the world’s poorer regions, the very regions with far fewer billionaires to supposedly blame for the problem.

That’s a direct contradiction the theory can’t explain away.

Here’s the part almost nobody stops to ask. If billionaires caused poverty, wouldn’t the poorest regions on the planet be the ones with the fewest rich people?

They’re the opposite. Regions with the least private wealth accumulation, the fewest capitalists building large fortunes, tend to have the deepest and most widespread poverty. Meanwhille the regions producing the most billionaires also tend to produce the highest standards of living for people at the bottom of the income ladder. Correlation isn’t causation, but when a theory predicts the exact opposite of what actually happens in the real world, that theory has a serious problem.

Sowell spent decades making the same underlying point across dozens of examples. Wealth isn’t a fixed pile that one person’s gain shrinks for everyone else. It gets created, not just moved around. A billionaire who builds a company that employs thousands of people, produces a product millions of people want, and generates tax revenue governments then spend has added wealth to the world that didn’t exist before. That’s fundamentally different from a thief pulling money out of someone else’s pocket, yet the two get treated as morally identical in a lot of modern political rhetoric.

Why does that distinction get erased so often?

Because exploitation makes for a simpler, angrier story than production does. Blaming a billionaire is emotionally satisfying in a way that crediting an entire system of incentives, risk taking, and innovation is not. It’s a lot easier to point at one person’s yacht than to explain why some economies generate rising living standards for the poor while others stay locked in poverty for generations regardless of how equally the little wealth available gets divided.

The numbers Sowell pointed to aren’t complicated to check. Count the billionaires. Compare the poverty rates. Look at which regions produce both extraordinary wealth and rising standards of living for the poor, and which regions produce neither.

The exploitation theory promises one outcome. The actual data delivers the opposite one, every time someone bothers to look instead of just repeating the slogan.

The K-12 education system has been intentionally engineered to create sufficient levels of basic literacy to enable students to perform their assigned roles as obedient wage earners, and enough socialization to inhibit them from asking who established the rules.

In a revealing recent post on X, Rittenhouse_O exposed the unspoken collaboration between those responsible for designing our nation’s education policies. Corporations desire employees who will merely follow orders, rather than challenge them.

Debate in today’s society has become nothing but theater; Democrats continue to throw billions of dollars at the same outdated structures and the same union-controlled mediocrity, claiming that if we finally fund public education adequately, then kids will learn how to read.

So, what’s the answer? It’s revealed below to subscribers.

Read more

GATE programs, which promote themselves as “enrichment” opportunities for gifted students, provide an early filter for identifying those who will follow orders.

GATE programs were where one former GATE participant on X learned what she had never known before: that there were other ways to learn besides being forced to learn.

She then chose to un-school and found that the act of engaging her passion, rather than just completing school requirements, resulted in her becoming an active learner. While she was in GATE, she was taught to conform, and was told to ask questions after. Now, she is a passionate learner.

What is going on when schools designate children as “gifted”, not to give them greater opportunities, but to put them on the same production line as all the rest?

Read more

Your Child Spends 35 Hours a Week in a Building That Sends Them Home With More Work. And Still Teaches Them Less.

If you have been on the free list at DeSchooled and have been meaning to upgrade, 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

The average American child spends 35 hours every week inside a public school building.

Then they come home with homework.

Think about what that actually means. Six to seven hours a day sitting in a classroom designed to manage 30 children simultaneously, moving at the pace of the slowest learner, stopping for attendance and announcements and transitions and standardized test prep and administrative procedures that have nothing to do with education. Then a backpack full of work to finish at home because 35 hours was not enough to cover the material.

If your child is ahead of the class they still have to complete the homework. Their time is wasted and their curiosity is punished with busywork. If your child is behind they sit at the kitchen table struggling through material they did not understand the first time, usually with a parent trying to reteach it from scratch.

Which means you are homeschooling in the evenings whether you chose to or not. You just also surrendered 35 hours a week to have someone else do it worse first.

The average homeschooled student finishes their entire academic day in two to three hours. The rest of their time belongs to them. Music. Nature. Reading for pleasure. Learning a trade. Being a child. Their standardized test scores run 15 to 25 percentile points higher than public school peers consistently regardless of family income or parental education level.

The public school system was not designed around the needs of your child. It was designed around the needs of an institution. Those are not the same thing and they never were.

DeSchooled covers what the education establishment will not say out loud. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep covering the truth about what is happening to American childhood.

Get 35% off for 1 year

If you have been on the free list at Deskooled and have been meaning to upgrade, this story is exactly why this newsletter exists. 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

Pete Hegseth just cut off every military education, fellowship, and certificate program linked to Harvard University effective with the 2026 to 2027 school year.

His explanation was four words.

Harvard is woke.

The War Department is not.

For years the United States military sent its best officers to Harvard hoping they would gain skills and credibility that would benefit the fighting force. Instead Hegseth says they came back filled with globalist ideology that weakens military readiness. Professors who openly despise the military. A culture that silences dissent and replaces real debate with rigid ideological conformity. Insane tuition funded in part by American taxpayers.

Harvard takes billions in federal money while operating as what Hegseth called a hotspot for anti-America radicalism. The school that charges students $80,000 a year to attend spent the last decade producing graduates more comfortable with diversity statements than with the demands of actual warfare.

Hegseth’s position is simple. We train warriors not activists. If Harvard cannot serve that mission it does not get access to the men and women willing to die for this country.

The left is melting down. The same institutions that spent years demanding the military embrace their values are outraged that the military finally said no thank you.

This is what happens when someone who actually believes in the mission runs the War Department.

Deskooled covers the full war on education, from Harvard’s ideological capture to what is happening in your local school district. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep covering what the education establishment hopes you ignore.

Get 35% off for 1 year

If you have been on the free list at Deskooled and have been meaning to upgrade, now is a great time. 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz and Representative Brandon Gill just said what millions of working Americans have been thinking for years.

Working class taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for woke degrees that provide no value to the economy. Cut funding for federally subsidized student loans and fix the broken education system.

That is not a radical position. That is basic accountability applied to an industry that has avoided it for decades.

Here is what the current system actually does. A teenager is handed access to tens of thousands of dollars in federal loans with no underwriting, no assessment of whether the degree they are pursuing will generate enough income to repay the debt, and no consequences for the institution if the graduate cannot find work. The university collects the tuition regardless. The student carries the debt for decades. The taxpayer backstops the whole arrangement.

Meanwhile the degrees being financed with that money increasingly have nothing to do with skills the economy actually needs. Gender studies. Diversity and inclusion administration. Social justice frameworks. Degrees that cost $80,000 and lead to jobs that either do not exist or pay less than a skilled trade that requires no college at all.

Pete Hegseth just cut Harvard off from military education funding because officers were coming back indoctrinated rather than trained. The One Big Beautiful Bill capped federal undergraduate borrowing at $50,000. Gaetz and Gill are pushing the argument further. Stop subsidizing the universities that are producing graduates who hate the country that educated them.

Konstantin Kisin said it perfectly. You spent 60 years lying to children about history and teaching them to despise their own civilization. The federal student loan system spent 60 years writing the check that made it possible.

DeSkooled covers the full war on American education from kindergarten through university. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep covering what the education establishment does not want working class families to figure out.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Socialism (on the left and fascism (on the right), despite seeming worlds apart, share an uncomfortable amount of common ground.

As a result, they have been converging ideologically, according to a growing number of analysts who identify this trend as a form of “horseshoe theory.”

The theory describes the way ideologies that seem diametrically opposed can eventually converge into a single point of extreme authoritarianism.

In recent years, socialists and fascists have increasingly found common ground. As such, there has been an increasing tendency among them to adopt similar tactics in order to further their agendas.

For example, both groups have developed a strong aversion to free markets, and many advocates of both ideologies advocate for significant restrictions on freedom of expression. This trend has become so pronounced that even critics of socialism and fascism are now beginning to take notice.

Deskooled is Highlighting the Theory in Action

One critic, Deskooled, recently highlighted this phenomenon in an article on X. He specifically used Nick Fuentes as an example of someone who embodies the extreme right wing, yet also exhibits traits associated with socialism.

Deskooled explained that while Fuentes may appear to be promoting a very nationalist agenda, he ultimately seeks to impose his will on others in much the same way that socialists do.

According to Deskooled, both socialism and fascism are based upon the idea of imposing one’s values on society through coercion. While socialists often use economic means to achieve this goal, fascists typically rely on violence.

Regardless of which method is employed however, both ideologies aim to limit the freedoms of individuals in favor of establishing a highly centralized authority.

When students graduate from high school, they are given a wide range of options for continuing their education. However, the overwhelming majority of American students choose to attend four-year colleges.

What’s the problem? How does horsehoe theory play into it? The details are below for subscribers.

Read more