OneIsWorse retweeted
Oil crashed the day after Democrats took Congress. Then Van Jones went on CNN and admitted the quiet part out loud.
The day after the election, Brent crude fell 8.7% in a single day. WTI fell 13% on the week. Worst week for oil since COVID. Nothing about the war changed overnight. Only the election ended.
And it is still falling this morning. WTI is down near $87 a barrel. Tankers are still getting hit near the Strait of Hormuz. But the fear is gone, right on schedule.
The official story is that traders think a Democrat Congress will force Trump to end the Iran war. Maybe. Hold that thought.
Because then Van Jones went on CNN and bragged about how they did it. His exact words: 'The Republicans never figured out what we were doing.'
Jones said Democrats ran something called the American Accountability Network. Tens of thousands of real people. Not bots. Coordinated to post the same message, everywhere, every day.
And the message never changed. Everything is unaffordable. Gas costs too much. And it is all the Republicans' fault. Jones said they tied kitchen table pain to Democrats on a positive and Republicans on a negative.
The scale he claimed: 32.5 million hits a day on Instagram. 88.8 million on X. 185 million on Facebook. That is not a campaign. That is a flood. And it was aimed at your gas tank.
This was not some random group either. The network's own partner list includes the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, MoveOn, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. The whole machine, working one message.
So here is the question people are asking now. If the crisis was real, why did oil fall off a cliff the morning after the votes were counted? Inventories actually went down that week. Less oil sitting around usually means higher prices. Prices crashed anyway.
They did not win on policy. They won on volume. They manufactured a crisis, pointed it at your gas tank, and flooded every feed in America until it worked. And Jones said the network is not going away.
What were you paying for gas on Election Day?
So the human rights commission decides on a case per case basis who is a woman, in private, without telling you how they applied their own guidelines.
If this isn't a dystopia to you, tell me why
youtu.be/qMctk7ztGY8?si=IMgB…
6
OneIsWorse retweeted
Social workers are in charge in family courts. Not judges. Social workers. If you knew how woke the field is, you'd care less about elections and the cost of living crisis.
OneIsWorse retweeted
I am a professor at the @UofCalifornia. I am appalled by the conduct of one of its Regents, Scott Galloway, appointed in August by Governor Newsom.
@profgalloway is one of only 26 voting Regents entrusted with governing a university system serving hundreds of thousands of students & employing tens of thousands of faculty & staff.
Twice, first on a live Pivot episode featuring Hillary Clinton & on Prof G with Fareed Zakaria, Galloway called Elon Musk a “traitor to the West.”
He invoked Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for espionage, and declared that Musk should be held to the same standards.
He didn’t explicitly demand Musk’s execution. But invoking the deaths of two convicted spies while calling an American citizen a traitor makes the implication hard to miss.
Musk has not been convicted of treason. Indeed, “treason against the West” isn’t even an actual crime.
Now imagine UCLA alumnus @BenShapiro, appointed a UC Regent, saying the same about George Soros.
Would the Governor defend his right to serve? Would Regent leadership shrug and call it provocative commentary? Or would there be demands for resignation?
But there’s something worse here than another of Scott’s trademark podcast rants.
He sits on the Regents’ Academic & Student Affairs Committee.
The committee’s charter says it oversees student conduct, faculty conduct, academic personnel, & campus climate, among other responsibilities.
This is not some honorary title.
The Board sets university policy, controls institutional budgets, & appoints senior university leadership.
You can unsubscribe from a podcast.
A student who finds Scott’s comments morally repugnant can’t unsub from the Regents.
UC bylaws require Regents to serve the public trust with a “high degree of ethics and candor,” including as private citizens.
Professors owe students intellectual integrity. Regents bear an even greater duty: they govern institutions that teach it.
Yet a Regent serving on the committee responsible for student & faculty conduct invokes executions while labeling a fellow citizen a traitor.
What does that say to our students?
That intellectual restraint is expected of the governed but optional for those who govern?
That standards of conduct depend on whether the target of your rhetoric is politically fashionable to despise, as long as the audience applauds?
This isn’t about defending @ElonMusk. He needs no defense from me.
Nor is it about silencing Scott. As if that were possible. He’s free to express his opinions, however reckless they may be.
But freedom of speech is not freedom from accountability, and holding a university office of public trust is not an entitlement.
There is an enormous moral chasm between exercising your right to speak recklessly and demonstrating the judgment required of one of the 26 people who govern our great public university.
The UC Board of Regents isnt a podcast sponsors can boycott. It’s a public trust.
One final irony. At @NYUStern, Galloway teaches Brand Strategy, including a session on crisis management.
His own prescription for leadership in a crisis is unequivocal: acknowledge the problem, have leadership take responsibility, and “overcorrect.”
He’s praised the departure of corporate leaders as evidence of effective crisis management.
Now Galloway himself sits on the UC Board of Regents.
Will he hold himself to the standards he teaches, or does accountability apply only to other people’s institutions?
Professor lecture thyself!
I believe Scott Galloway should seriously consider whether his continued service on the Board of Regents is consistent with the ethical standards and responsibilities of that office, or whether he should resign.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with Galloway directly, including what standards we should expect of those entrusted with governing the world’s best university.
Scott, you have an open invitation to join me on @Into_Impossible for an honest conversation.
OneIsWorse retweeted
Every single long-running movie series, TV show, and cartoon MUST be changed to accommodate a female audience, but don't you dare suggest publishing even a single book for boys, you absurd weirdo. Instead, demand that boys change their tastes, because that's reasonable.
OneIsWorse retweeted
Young Bob just got jumped by a group of violent leftists.
If you are right wing stop going to debate left wingers unless you are willing or able to physically defend yourself. At least bring security. There’s no point in just allowing leftists to bash you
OneIsWorse retweeted
The Krakow shooter is a pro-LGBT, pro-abortion leftist extremist who hates Christianity.
Turns out if you constantly allow leftists to celebrate and call for violence unchecked, they will commit acts of violence.
OneIsWorse retweeted
Replying to @TheTinMenBlog
1. Most domestic violence is done by women:
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
OneIsWorse retweeted
The claim that “misogyny kills, but misandry merely annoys” is a rhetorical shield, not an empirical claim, as it rests on selective framing, ignores the actual distribution of lethal violence, and applies an explicit double standard to identity-based hostility.
Most homicides are not ideological, since data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the large majority of global intentional homicides are driven by organized crime, gang conflicts, robberies, socioeconomic disputes, and immediate interpersonal altercations. Furthermore, men commit roughly 90% of these killings, and men and boys also make up the large majority of victims, at around 80% globally. Because male-on-male lethal violence is the statistical norm, no serious criminologist treats it as an expression of misandry.
Treating male-on-female homicide as definitionally ideological while treating the much larger volume of male-on-male homicide as non-ideological is special pleading.
The attempt to inflate the threat of broad-scale misogynistic ideology through online radicalization runs into the same numbers, given that clear, self-identified incel-motivated attacks have produced fewer than 50 deaths worldwide across more than a decade. While each of these deaths is a real tragedy for the people killed, they do not provide evidence of a population-level killing machine.
Media outlets have repeatedly stretched the category, labeling socially isolated or mentally ill young men as ideological actors after the fact to fit a preferred story. This practice of conceptual inflation was evident during the tragic 2021 Plymouth shooting carried out by Jake Davison. Although early coverage treated the incident as incel terrorism, the official UK counter-terrorism assessment did not.
Investigators found engagement with incel-related material, but also severe mental health problems and a family conflict that began with his mother; these were the actual drivers, not an ideologically driven terror mission.
The same institutions that inflate rare male-perpetrated cases systematically minimize or reframe overt anti-male hostility.
Viral content in which women describe lighting a son on fire, throwing him into the streets, or treating a male child as their “worst fear” is routinely filed under hyperbole, rage-bait, or empowerment. Equivalent language directed at daughters would trigger rapid deplatforming and, in many jurisdictions, immediate police attention, demonstrating that enforcement is completely asymmetrical.
This asymmetry continues into real-world violence, as Office for National Statistics data shows that men comprise roughly one-third of domestic abuse victims in the UK. This means hundreds of thousands of men experience serious physical partner violence each year. Although a smaller, non-trivial number are killed, these cases are almost never analyzed as symptoms of structural misandry.
When a man kills a woman, the act is routinely diagnosed as the product of systemic misogyny, but when a woman kills a man, the act is treated as a private tragedy, revealing a consistent interpretive rule where identity-based animosity is visible only in one direction.
The attitudes are not confined to fringe accounts, as an April 2026 Merlin Strategy poll for the New Statesman found that only 35% of British women under 25 hold a positive view of men. By contrast, 72% of young men hold a positive view of women, and only 7% express an unfavorable one, indicating the hostility is markedly one-sided. Governments have responded with dedicated public money, such as the UK’s Misogyny Prevention Fund, while showing no institutional interest in the parallel, algorithmically amplified hostility directed at boys and men.
The slogan survives because it treats one form of prejudice as a national security problem and the other as a harmless social trend. Misandry does not “merely annoy”; it normalizes casual contempt, rewards hostility toward boys in plain sight, and ensures that only one side of the ledger is ever treated as a moral emergency. The double standard is the point.
OneIsWorse retweeted
Scott Galloway calls Elon Musk a "traitor to the West" and invokes the executions of the Rosenbergs after WW2.
"We lined up the Rosenbergs against a wall. This is a traitor to the West, and he should be held to the same standards as every other traitor in the West."
*Applause*
These people are absolutely unhinged.
OneIsWorse retweeted
TL;DR:
Every single possible data center ban passed.
OneIsWorse retweeted
The double standard around pornography reflects a flattering assumption about women: that their desires are inherently healthier, and that expressing those desires is therefore a form of progress. As Emma Goldman many other feminists have advocated.
With male pornography, we ask all the right questions about expectations and side-effects, but when women consume sexually explicit fiction, the discussion comes to a halt if the girls enjoy it. "At least they're reading!" Says The Guardian. "You should let your teen read smut, I started at 13," wrote UnHerd.
In this vaccum of criticism of female pornography, a huge industry has developed, pushing violent smut to younger and younger girls.
OneIsWorse retweeted
“Only 1.09% of youth funding analysed went to organisations specifically focused on boys/young men. These organisations received just £28.5 million of the £2.62 billion in youth funding analysed from 2020 to 2025…
thinknpc.org/resource-hub/bo…
OneIsWorse retweeted
The Lancet's new issue on men's health is all about taking an intersectional approach to men's health. I would like to remind everyone that such an approach is partly what caused big public to ignore men's health for so many years. I discussed this in my article titled, "Public Health's Historical Prejudice Against Men and Boys." In the article, I discussed an influential article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2011 that used the same "health equity" ideology as rationale for why public health should NOT be concerned about the sex difference in life expectancy.
jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/m…
OneIsWorse retweeted
She said “violence is never the answer” and then also says “he must’ve deserved it” within two minutes 🤦♂️
This belief system, of wanting women to be “equal”, but also to be “too tender & delicate” to face real consequences, is exactly what’s wrong with the world.
OneIsWorse retweeted
Straight out of critical / intersectional theory.
The time for defunding or leaving the UN is now.
“Gender inequality is a question of power. Racism is a question of power.
And power is never given, it’s taken.”
- @antonioguterres
Full speech ➡️ buff.ly/klnJAGK
OneIsWorse retweeted
Feministas: "¡Si no existieran los hombres no habría violencia!"
*Mujeres cuando ven otra mujer más atractiva que ellas: teapawt.net/srkntnyldz/status/2116…



























