🚨 NEW: For the @WSJ, @Hartz_PhD and I expose the ideological takeover of the American Psychological Association. The APA is facing the possible loss of its federal accreditation authority following allegations of widespread antisemitism. But while the APA's antisemitism problem is serious, it's only a symptom of a much deeper ideological rot. The organization has become so captured by radical left-wing political activism that its commitment to scientific objectivity competence is now in serious doubt. We examined the program for this year's major APA Division 39 conference, which drew nearly 800 attendees and held 90 panels over four days. By our count, roughly 70 of the 90 panels were overtly political, and always left-wing. Topics included abolishing the family, queer anarchist psychoanalysis, dismantling gender assessment guidelines, and white supremacy. One session even concluded with a drag show. There was at least some hope that the threat of losing federal accreditation might prompt some institutional soul-searching. It didn't. Instead, APA members just elected Candice Hargons as their next president. Her campaign identifies "systemic intersectional oppression" as the profession's "common enemy" and calls for rejecting the traditional scientific notions of objectivity. Psychologists wield enormous influence over vulnerable patients, and the people seeking treatment deserve the peace of mind knowing that the care they're receiving care is evidence based and not tainted radical politics. We believe most would agree that federal accreditation should actually mean something. If the APA cannot distinguish its scientific mission from its political activism, the Education Department should reconsider whether it deserves the government's endorsement as an authority over psychological training. Read our full essay in the Wall Street Journal below: 🔗wsj.com/opinion/the-inmates-…

Incredible hoax. Nafisa Fai is a leftist running for office in Oregon. She gave a speech in front of an upside-down US flag -- everyone at this Somali event did. (She's a Somali immigrant.) End Wokeness posted the video. Her campaign said it was a fake video, that the flag was actually right-side-up, and provided a "screenshot" image purportedly from the video. Leftist media reported that the video was a deepfake. They just asserted that it was fake because a leftist Democratic candidate said it was... On the contrary, the image the campaign supplied was generated or edited by OpenAI, which anyone can confirm at SynthID. We have independent confirmation that the flag was upside-down from Google image search because Somali TV Minnesota posted the videos on its FB page (they have a national focus on Somalis, not just MN), before deleting them after End Wokeness exposed them, and a thumbnail is now on Google image search (attached). The Oregon Journalism Project (@OregonJournProj) started this hoax. They're a group of leftist activists who cosplay as journalists, which describes most journalism in the US today. Incredibly, they just *asserted* that the video was AI. They didn't report any testing on it whatsoever. They just asserted it. It's amazing what "journalists" can get away with. They literally did nothing, no investigation, no testing. They just acted as PR for a leftist, America-hating politician and planted this hoax about a purported hoax. From the OJP, the hoax spread. It's been reported by leftist media outlets like @axios, Willamette Week, Lookout Eugene-Springfield, the Hillsboro Herald, and News in the Grove. Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Dexter fell for it, and called the imagined deepfake but actually real video a "racist, disgusting attack". The media did no work here. They didn't even bother checking the image that Fai gave them. They spread a hoax based on the word of a leftist and America-hating politician, perhaps *because* she's a leftist, America-hating politician. She lied to them. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the Oregon Journalism Project try to salvage any notion that they're journalists and run a retraction and apology? They only seem to employ radical leftists, which is not going to work for journalism. No one with pronouns in their bios should be employed as a journalist on political topics -- they're members of a cult and cannot possibly be impartial in left-right politics. Axios deserves special mention. They're an absurdly unreliable outlet that regularly makes false claims, and the nature of those false claims is consistently aligned with a leftist bias. None of these outlets seem to have an anti-bias framework, which is incredible. Their journalists aren't trained to not embed their ideology or to be impartial in their story selection. It still surprises me that this is where we are at this point in history. I thought @JimVandeHei was trying to do something else.

Every study finding "evidence" that medical transition is beneficial is like 53 people sent a questionnaire two years after transition with a 40 percent loss to follow up rate. Meanwhile, Finland has rigorously tracked the mental health of every single patient who received gender medicalization over decades in the entire country and found that the rate at which patients required mental health treatment more than doubled after transition. The study is orders of magnitude larger and more methodologically rigorous than anything ever attempted by those claiming transition is medically necessary and lifesaving. And yet trans activists pretend that the vastly stronger study is weaker than their collection of hundreds of laughably weak, underpowered, and self-evidently tendentious studies. Any multiple of zero is zero.

Who you got..the Cowboys or the Packers? 👀 You know who I got..and yes..I caught it!💙⭐️

Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred. The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead. By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable. Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini. The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place. Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers. On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse. When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting. On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT. On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment." The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients: An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations. As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board. When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family. At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims. I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis. The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide. [In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.] On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David. Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice. Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest. The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment. While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view. To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation. Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here. And the reputational damage was not just to David. David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?" For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts. How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time. For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute. I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world. To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here. At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report. Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.

i would like to remind everyone who is mad at Shane Gillis that SNL was built on “Jane you ignorant sl*t”

This tweet is a deliberate distortion—a falsification—of what the appellate court found. This was not a “trans panic” case in any ordinary sense of the term. The classic “trans panic” defense involves someone claiming that discovering the presumptive woman they've taken home is actually male provoked the ensuing violence. Whatever you think about such a defense, that isn't what happened here, and this ruling has done nothing to give anyone “impunity” to kill trans-identified people. The killer in this case had been in a two-year relationship with the trans-identified male he killed and knew his sex. He claimed self-defense—the man he shot was armed—but the jury rejected his claim and convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. But the trial judge had barred the defense from referring to the victim's sex, forcing everyone to go through an elaborate charade that the man who presented himself as a woman was in fact a woman throughout the trial. This included redacting crime-scene and autopsy photographs to conceal his male genitalia, and redacting the autopsy report to remove information establishing his sex. One aspect of the defense thereby rendered inadmissible was that the victim was a 5'11", 262-pound biological male—a fact inescapably germane to the defendant's assessment of the danger he faced in a violent confrontation. The appellate court found that the falsification of the victim's sex misled the jury into believing “a male defendant killed a female victim.” It called Lee's biological sex “relevant and full of probative value” to Ward's self-defense claim and held that its exclusion prejudiced Ward and prevented him from fully presenting his defense. Truthout's framing is par for the course in treatments of trans issues—as was the trial judge's elaborate falsification of reality. This is not incidental to trans inclusion but intrinsic to its present form: once a falsehood is granted standing as fact in language and law, ordinary institutional practices must be altered to accommodate it. Here that meant altering photographs, an autopsy report, testimony, and the vocabulary permitted in a criminal trial—and, according to the appellate court, misleading the jury in the process. Here it meant using references to a "trans panic"' defense that do not apply in reporting on the decision. Transgender inclusion always means corrupting ordinary standards of evidence to collude in the falsification of reality. Kudos to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals for doing its part to contain this ongoing mania.

Effective November 12th, 2026, abusive behavior towards Claude will be a violation of Anthropic's Usage Policy.

Here’s the thing about “Keep theaters alive!” and “Go watch this film in the movie theater!” It’s a two-way agreement. The audience agrees to pay to see films in a theater only if: - The filmmakers are shooting scripts that have a thesis statement/intention/point. - The actors and director are giving it their all, and not phoning it in. - The edit has trimmed off all the fat. - The film isn’t some didactic exercise, intent on jamming a “lesson” into us. - The studio executives have paid close attention to the film from start to finish and have given the filmmakers useful notes to keep it all on-track. - The film is entertaining. - (And the theater managers are maintaining some order and decorum in the theaters themselves.) Otherwise, the audiences will continue to stay home and wait for the films to come online, so they can maybe watch five minutes of it or scrub through, and then turn it off. The film has to be excellent. Or at least try in that direction. Much of what is released is just not good enough.