Conrad Jacox retweeted
Democrats discovered billionaires in politics were a threat to democracy the exact day one stopped writing them checks.
When Michael Bloomberg spent around $1 billion of his own money in the 2020 primary, then another $100M to help Biden in Florida, nobody called it an attack on democracy.
When George Soros put $125M into a single Democratic super PAC and became the largest political donor of the 2022 cycle, it was "civic engagement."
When Reid Hoffman, Dustin Moskovitz, JB Pritzker and Tom Steyer wrote eight- and nine-figure checks cycle after cycle, it was "saving democracy." When Bill Gates reportedly gave around $50M to a pro-Harris group in 2024, silence.
In 2020, dark money groups spent over $500M backing Democrats, more than double what went to Republicans. In 2024, Kamala Harris raised more than $1 billion in under three months. Democrats outspent Republicans and lost.
So the problem was never billionaires in politics. The problem is a billionaire who doesn't fund your side.
And here's what nobody in DC wants to say out loud: old billionaire money is quiet money. It funds the foundations, NGOs, think tanks and consultants that make up the permanent establishment. It doesn't challenge the system. It is the system. It freezes the picture: same insiders, same incumbents, same experts, every single cycle.
You can like or hate Musk's spending, but at least it's out in the open. If you really want money out of politics, start with your own party's donor list.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
On January 8, 1888, 19-year-old Kate Kampen gave birth to her son, Henry Royal Kampen, alone in a freezing sod cabin on the Dakota prairie. Her husband, Wilhelm, had left the previous day to travel 23 miles to Parker for coal and food, unaware that their baby would arrive while he was gone. With their supplies nearly exhausted, the coal bin empty, and no doctor or midwife nearby, Kate faced an unimaginable situation. She wrapped her newborn in every scrap of cloth she could find, climbed into bed, and held him against her bare skin, using her own body heat to keep him alive. She had no way of knowing that an even greater danger was approaching.
On January 12, the devastating Children’s Blizzard swept across the Great Plains, bringing ferocious winds, blinding snow, and temperatures plunging far below zero. Hundreds of people were caught in the storm, and 235 lives were lost. Wilhelm was stranded in the open prairie when the blizzard struck. After his horses collapsed, he stumbled toward shelter and eventually crawled into a barn, where he survived for three days by huddling among pigs for warmth. Meanwhile, Kate remained in the cabin, holding Henry close through the freezing nights, with no fire, no help, and no certainty that her husband would ever return. For days, her own warmth and determination became her newborn’s only protection against the deadly cold.
When the storm finally passed, Wilhelm made his way home, frostbitten and barely able to stand, but alive. He built a fire, and the cabin slowly warmed again. Kate and Henry had survived against extraordinary odds. The couple went on to raise seven children, build a life on the prairie, and Kate lived into her nineties. Her story is a powerful reminder that courage does not always announce itself with grand gestures. Sometimes, it is a frightened young mother lying in the darkness, refusing to let go of her child. The world may never know the names of countless ordinary heroes, but their extraordinary acts of love and survival deserve to be remembered.
I’m telling my sons that Cornell exposes the poverty of a sexual ethic built almost entirely around consent.
We have told young people that sex can be easily detached from marriage, permanence, fidelity, children, responsibility, even love, and that as long as everyone says yes, the encounter is morally legitimate.
That leaves women with an impoverished set of categories afterward. If a sexual experience leaves her feeling ashamed, degraded, used, or disgusted, our culture gives her very little language for saying: I consented, but it was still wrong. I participated in something that was bad for me.
Instead, the options increasingly become: it was liberation, or it was rape.
But there is a third category: consensual sexual behavior can still be degrading, exploitative, reckless, and morally destructive.
Consent matters because sexual coercion or assault is a grave violation of another person. No man has the right to force himself on a woman, exploit her impairment or incapacity, or use her body against her will. But the absence of coercion/assault does not make a sexual act good.
Consent establishes a floor, not a moral vision. It tells us when a boundary has been violated; it cannot tell us what sex is for, where it belongs, or what men and women owe one another before, during, and after it.
Marriage can.
Marriage does not treat sex as a free-floating act whose morality is determined only by whether two people consent in the moment. It reserves sex for a specific context because sex is powerful, consequential, and sacred.
Before the sexual act, a man and woman stand before their families, their community, and God and make a public, lifelong commitment to one another. That commitment gives sex its proper purpose, perspective, and protection. Sex then becomes not merely something two people agree to do, but the bodily expression of a covenant they have already made: fidelity, permanence, mutual obligation, and openness to the children their union can create.
That framework asks much more of a man than, “Did she say yes?” It asks: Have you promised yourself to her? Will you remain faithful to her? Will you accept responsibility for the children sex may create? Will you still be there tomorrow, next year, and fifty years from now?
Marriage offers a richer sexual ethic. It says consent is necessary, but it is not enough.
Sex belongs inside a covenant strong enough to bear its meaning, its potential, its vulnerability, and its consequences.
That is what I want my sons to understand. The goal is not merely to become men who can secure consent.
It is to become men worthy of making, and keeping, the kind of promise that gives sex its proper home.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Your occasional reminder that "Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor" is Marxist revisionism.
Robin Hood stole from an out of control, high tax state and returned the money to the taxpayers.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Yep.
The Most Destructive Intellectual Project of the Twentieth Century.
The Frankfurt School. You should know what it was, what it built, and why you are still living inside it.
1. The Institute for Social Research was founded in Frankfurt in 1923 and relocated to Columbia University in 1934 when Hitler came to power. The civilization they had decided to dismantle gave them refuge when another tried to kill them. They spent the next five decades producing the theoretical infrastructure for that dismantling. Western civilization itself was the problem: reason, the Enlightenment, the family, tradition, authority. Not reformed. Dismantled.
2. They called it Critical Theory – and the name is the program. Everything is to be criticized; nothing is to be built. In The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), Adorno and Horkheimer argued that Western reason — the reason that produced Newton and the rule of law — contained the seeds of Auschwitz. Not that reason had been misused, but that reason itself, taken to its conclusion, produces the death camp. This was not a critique of institutions. It was an indictment of the civilization itself.
3. Adorno gave them the psychological weapon. The Authoritarian Personality (1950) classified conservatism, religious faith, patriotism, and the traditional family not as political positions but as symptoms of a proto-fascist personality. If you believe in the nation or the father’s authority, you are pre-fascist. The opponent was no longer wrong – he was sick. You don’t argue with a pathology. You treat it.
This made dialogue impossible. You don’t persuade someone who is wrong; you diagnose someone who is sick. Politics becomes therapy, and disagreement becomes pathology.
4. Marcuse gave them the political weapon. Repressive Tolerance (1965) argued that tolerating wrong ideas is itself oppression. True tolerance therefore requires suppressing intolerant ideas. The left decides which ideas are intolerant. Everyone else is silenced – not despite tolerance, but "in its name." Censorship dressed in the vocabulary of liberation.
5. The generation that read Marcuse at Columbia, Berkeley, and Yale went on to run universities, media, foundations, NGOs, content moderation departments, and the EU regulatory apparatus. They implemented the argument sincerely because they had been taught it as philosophy. This was the Frankfurt School’s greatest achievement: it produced true believers.
6. French Theory picked up the tools and made them aesthetic. Foucault made the critique of power literary. Derrida made the critique of meaning philosophical. Deleuze made the critique of identity elegant. A political program became a cultural sensibility. You can argue with a program. A sensibility is in the air you breathe. By the time these ideas reached the American campus through the French conduit, they were no longer ideology. They were the water. The fish did not know they were wet.
7. A civilization stands on three pillars: truth exists and is accessible to reason; good is distinguishable from evil; and there is an inheritance worth transmitting. The Frankfurt School attacked all three – systematically and with considerable intellectual sophistication. It produced a generation that knows how to deconstruct and has forgotten how to build. That sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere.
The ultimate achievement was to make destruction feel like progress. Every inherited institution became suspect; every constraint became oppression; every act of preservation became reactionary. Deconstruction became the default, while construction became something that needed to justify itself.
The answer is not another theory.
It is the thing the Frankfurt School most feared: the builder who simply builds, the scientist who follows the evidence, the father who transmits what was transmitted to him.
The deconstruction machine runs on the assumption that nothing is worth building.
Prove it wrong.
Tell the truth, have courage, and build.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Let’s design a logo for a small wood fire pizza company from South Dakota called Firecraft Pizza. What do you think? Do you like my solution?
.
I designed this logo back in 2014 and my client loved it. l created this video to help educate young designers about designing logos and to show off my problem solving skills to potential clients. I hope you learn something useful. Thanks for watching, saving and commenting. It all helps!
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Minnesota’s Democrat Senate nominee keeps telling voters she is “appalled” by the state’s historic welfare theft. The problem is the woman standing next to her in that viral hijab video, the one Flanagan called a friend of nearly 25 years, is now running an autism center the state has kicked off Medicaid and placed under investigation.
Nimco Ahmed, CEO of Minneapolis-based Milestone Development Center, appeared beside then-Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan at Karmel Mall in December 2025.
Read the rest of the story, link in the comments.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
.@Vikings @ChicagoBears @Cbanks22_ looked and played like a Monster .... It's just the beginning #skol #BaldysBreakdowns
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Since it’s Bears week, let’s throw it back to 2008 for one of the wildest two-play sequences in NFL history:
-The Vikings’ defense makes a successful goal-line stand from the one yard line.
- Gus Frerotte hits Bernard Berrian for an NFL record 99 yard passing TD.
The Dome was absolutely electric.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
“Matt, the Vikings keep blitzing. Should we change the strategy to counter it?”
Matt LaFleur:
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Amy Klobuchar: “I will never stop fighting fraud in Minnesota.”
O.J. Simpson: “I will never stop looking for my wife’s killer.”
Same energy: a lifetime commitment to searching for something that somehow remains mysteriously elusive. 🤣💀
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Aaron Rodgers... "Covid was a multi-trillion dollar worldwide Psyop meant to see how much they can control us. That’s why people dislike me… because I don’t give a shit. I’m going to tell the truth."
"Governments, media, tech platforms, and pharmaceutical companies all moved in lockstep. Billions were spent. Dissent was punished. Questions were treated as moral failures. The goal wasn’t public health. It was to measure how quickly people would surrender their judgment, their jobs, their kids' education, and their right to say "no."
"85% of people complied. They took the shots, accepted the mandates, and then acted shocked when the same institutions that sold them certainty started walking it back. A lot of them still can’t admit it was a test of compliance. They’d rather keep calling people like me dangerous than look at the data, the lab-leak evidence, the shifting narratives, or the damage done to kids and small businesses."
"That’s why some people still hate me. Not because of football. Because I wouldn’t play along. I said I was immunized when I meant I had my own protocol. I refused the product. I called Fauci what he is. I pointed out that a captured media and a captured public-health apparatus don’t get to lecture anyone about "the science." And I’m not going to start lying now just because it’s easier."
"I don’t give a shit about the cost. I’m going to tell the truth. The experiment happened. Most people failed it. A smaller group noticed in real time and refused to pretend otherwise. That’s the only scoreboard that still matters."
Conrad Jacox retweeted
I lost my Dad on 9/11. I don’t get a lot of reach on here. But I just wanted to share a picture. He was 39. I thought he was old. I’m now in my mid 30s and I still feel like a kid.
He was a great trader. He loved markets. He loved to find a stock no one was talking about.
The first trade I ever placed was on his work computer, where he let me click the button to buy AMAT. I loved going to the office with him. It was electric.
He was the best dad. We spent hours out in the street after dinner where he’d throw “pop flys” for me to catch. Eye on the ball.
He loved watching Sponge Bob and eating cereal, wrestling with us in the living room. He just loved being around his kids so much, and we knew it. I’m so grateful I got a dad like that.
Love you, Pops.
Conrad Jacox retweeted
Mamdani Lays Wreath At Tomb Of The Unknown Hijacker buff.ly/Fqnok61
Conrad Jacox retweeted
🚨 Un message à tous les Français 🚨
Dans les mois qui viennent, tu vas voir de plus en plus de propagande sur Elon Musk.
Envoie ça à tes proches. Pas demain. Maintenant.
Elon Musk est en train de détruire, à l’échelle mondiale, le plus vieux mensonge politique du siècle : l’idée que seuls l’État, les intermédiaires et les médias titulaires ont le droit de dire ce qui est vrai, ce qui est possible, et ce qui est moral.
Ce mensonge a un nom familier. On l’appelle socialisme quand il parle de justice. On l’appelle « consensus » quand il parle de science. On l’appelle « protection » quand il parle de parole. Dans tous les cas, le mécanisme est le même : une caste se place entre les gens et la réalité, puis vend cette place comme un service public.
Musk casse ça.
Il a prouvé qu’on pouvait envoyer des fusées sans Gosplan. Construire des voitures sans la bénédiction de Detroit. Relier un village, un front ou un hôpital depuis l’orbite, sans demander l’autorisation d’un ministère. Il a racheté la place publique et arraché le monopole de ceux qui décidaient qui avait le droit de parler.
Voilà pourquoi les médias mainstream, comme une bête à l’agonie, vont tout tenter.
Pas parce qu’ils ont découvert un secret. Parce que l’homme échappe à tous leurs leviers. On ne l’achète pas avec des recettes publicitaires. On ne le recadre pas avec un cycle de une. On ne le débranche pas discrètement. À ce niveau de puissance, c’est probablement l’homme le plus clean du monde : il a mis sa propre fortune en jeu, il n’a pas besoin de leur permission, et il n’a pas construit sa position en capturant l’État.
Ils diront nazi. Ils diront fou. Ils diront dangereux pour la démocratie. Ils ressortiront le même extrait, le même historien du bon camp, la même indécence morale.
Ce n’est pas de l’information. C’est un réflexe de survie.
Il faut que les Français le sachent avant que la vague n’arrive.
Elon Musk ne se bat pas pour un parti. Il se bat pour que le peuple puisse regarder la machine en face, construire sans demander pardon, et cesser de déléguer sa tête à ceux qui vivent de la peur et du récit.
La vérité est simple.
Un bâtisseur qui ouvre le jeu fait plus pour les gens qu’une rédaction qui recycle la calomnie.
Transmets ça. Les mois qui viennent vont être bruyants. Le signal, lui, ne changera pas.































