My rule of thumb: If any ideology requires that the fundamental nature of man be changed for its political aims to be workable, run away like a flaming pig. *** Click this post for archive and 🧵 thread of threads below:

Some things are eternal and unchanging, such as buying a woman drinks with straws in them and then bending them over on a Friday night.

1/ The symbol of the 16-pointed sun has its roots in the Minoan and Mycenaean eras, dating back more than a millennium before it became a prominent Pan-Hellenic symbol and was subsequently adopted by the royal Argead dynasty of Makedonia.

So I thought I'd do an experiment. I uploaded the manuscript of English translations of my poems, and asked the AI to first analyse them. And it did surprisingly well as an android critic. But when told to produce poetry in the same style things went very pear shaped. 2/4

The most prestigious French literary prize, which had preselected Orélien's novel for the contest this year, announced that it was excluded from the list because he plagiarized works he's published in the past and his novel was "in all likelihood largely the product of an AI". It has now come to light that virtually everything Orélien has ever published was either plagiarized or written by AI, so this decision isn't surprising. This comes after the French literary world almost unanimously hailed the novel as a work of genius. In a show that was recorded before the story broke, Orélien was even compared to Victor Hugo, it was completely surreal. Most of the praise for the novel alludes to the fact that it casts immigration in a positive light, so I think it's clear that the desire to promote a pro-immigration narrative played a role, but it's also clear that it would never have happened if Orélien hadn't been black. Sometimes I think anti-racist liberals are racist toward black people in a way that is far more offensive than the way in which openly anti-black racists are. The latter are at least honest about what they believe, whereas the former clearly think that black people should be treated as permanent children whose every turd should be praised (kind of how parents clap and tell their 5-year-old they're proud of him whenever he produces a doodle), which is arguably more disrespectful.

"Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, 732 A.D."  Oil on canvas  This moment defined the history of Western Civilization. In 732 A.D. the armies of Islam's Umayyad dynasty controlled all of North Africa and had conquered Christian Spain. Their armies invaded southern France next, threatening to overwhelm all of Western Europe. Charles Martel was the Mayor of the Palace for the Frankish kings. He was a seasoned warrior and battlefield commander. In response to the Islamic invasion, he marshalled an army of experienced Frankish infantry & cavalry and intercepted the Muslim forces near Poitiers. The Battle of Tours (Poitiers) was decisive. The Franks withstood repeated Umayyad cavalry charges and then broke through in their own counterattack devastating the enemy and halting the Islamic incursion into Europe. Not since 480 B.C. had Western Civilization been in such peril. This painting captures that great victory. It took 10 months to complete.

Storm at Sea off the Norwegian Coast Andreas Achenbach, 1837

No. AI will not replace female middle managers. And the reason is precisely because these jobs were fake to begin with. Women demanded the status of academic education, but didn't want to study hard subjects. So soft ones were created. Then fake jobs to justify the fake degrees.

The worst and most prolonged psychological torture you can inflict on a woman is to convince her she's as good as any man. This torture is lifelong, unendurable, and once you set up the initial conditions, the pain becomes self-inflicted. You see, women are genetically programmed for two things. First, to raise children. Second, to select a man who is superior to her to bear those children for. Not equal. Certainly not lesser. Superior. There is no point in arguing about this. It is obviously true to anyone who looks around himself without blinders made of wishful thinking. There is no point in becoming angry at me or anyone else about this. It is true whether I wish it to be or not, and whether you wish it to be or not. There is no point in trying to talk women out of this. It is not a part of their culture or education. It is not an individual character flaw in them. It is part of their genetic recipe. Therefore, if you convince a woman she is equal to most men, she will only be willing to bear children to a small percentage of exceptional men. If you convince her that she is the equal of any man, she will be unwilling to start a family with anyone. And she will remain genetically programmed to do so. When I was a child, and again when I was a young man, in high school and college, I noticed that the older adults who staffed the education system seemed to think "girls' self-esteem" was our most precious resource, perhaps because it's good for stable nuclear fusion containment, or as a growth medium for cancer-curing fruit trees. Well, I sure hope they're making good progress on that nuclear fusion thing, because it sure is hard on the women they grow up into. Perhaps they thought having a high self-esteem is the same as feeling good. Perhaps they thought half of humanity's potential Newtons, Einsteins, and Da Vincis were hidden among the ranks of the fair sex, waiting to be unlocked by "Project Self Esteem", and no, I did not make that name up. Perhaps they were retarded. They did, after all, work for the government. Self-esteem is not being happy. Self-esteem is not even feeling good. Self-esteem is how awesome you think you are. And if you think you're awesome, when you're mediocre, then you're miserable, because everyone around you treats you a whole lot worse than you think you deserve. High self-esteem is great for young men. It makes them take risks. And to thrive men need to take risks, and achieve things, for many reasons, one of which is that women only mate up. High self-esteem is not so good for young women. It doesn't get them anything they wouldn't have already had. It just makes them less happy with it. Sure, there's such a thing as self-esteem too low, but if a woman can look you in the eye, instead of in the shoes, when she talks to you, she's pretty much good to go. Anything more than that is superfluous at best, and at worst... well, eyeball the video for a moment and you'll see what I mean. But the misery isn't just personal. This is the fertility crisis in a nutshell. We, Western civilization, have spent the past five or six decades telling little boys that they are worthless sacks of protoplasm, and telling little girls that the sun shines out of their collective girl parts. And look what's happened. The fertility crisis is stupidly simple. When you elevate the status of women by giving them a greater share of respect, and of society's wealth, which is created by men, they refuse to have children. You can reverse this by allowing men to keep the wealth they create, instead of giving it to women. Then they will give it to women themselves, but the women will look up to them, and there will be children again. During the Trump administration so far, 94% of new job went to women. This is not natural or organic. This doesn't happen on its own. This is not happening because women are "crushing it". Women are the same women they have always been, risk averse, clustered around average intelligence, prone to wait for others to lead. This is not an accident. This is spin on the ball. Women vote. And pandering is an easy way to get those votes. But give a moderately pretty one a single email job at a Silicon Valley startup, and pretty soon she thinks that the father of her children should be a "post-economic" jet-setter with the body of a professional athlete who ticks all the boxes her therapist thinks are important. And she thinks she can pick him off a shelf at age 35. This is a vote, conscious or not, willing or not, for the extinction of humanity. Throughout the genetic history of humanity, approximately 80% of women had children, as opposed to 37% of men. Those numbers don't lie. Most men either weren't exceptional enough to breed, or died trying to become exceptional enough to breed. Women just had to not be in the bottom quintile. Not to be horrible, or horribly unlucky. This bears out what we already know. And this is why Western civilization told women they were the weaker sex, the dumber sex, the more fragile sex. Why Eve was said to made to serve Adam. Because this preserved civilization and the species. Women were actually happier that way, because women don't want to win. They want a winner. But even if it didn't, what choice would we have? The only nations and tribes in the world which are still breeding are the ones where women are still of low status. And if you try to replace Westerners with them, try to make them into Westerners, not only will you fail, but even if you succeed, they'll stop breeding, too. And we know now why there are no matriarchies. Its not because men have superior strength, and enslaved women with violence. It's because matriarchies don't breed. Humans are an animal, like any other animal. Every animal has mating rituals, and if those rituals can't be conducted, there will be no next generation. This is why some animals can be bred in zoos, and others cannot. We know what's wrong. We just lack the political will to fix it. Because it's "not fair". Well, of course it's not fair. But look around you. Look at the universe. Look at history. Whatever made you expect that things would be fair?

Gnomes originated in the 16th century when Swiss alchemist Paracelsus coined the term for invisible earth elementals. Derived from the Greek genomos (earth-dweller), they represented the physical element of soil and rock. Over centuries, this alchemical concept blended with Germanic folklore regarding miners' legends and underground spirits (Bergmännlein). They evolved into benevolent, bearded subterranean guardians of hidden treasure. Eventually, 20th-century pop culture, cemented their modern image as short, friendly magical beings distinct from their mystical, elemental roots. “Gnome with Frogs and Grasshoppers” (c.1900) by Heinrich Schlitt.

Jacob Rees-Mogg's entire shtick is performative Anglo nostalgia. And he wields it to wheedle his way to stab the actual English people in the back. He's an actor, not a statesman, and acting in ways that justify that profession being lumped in with prostitutes in older times.

Western game studios have flirted with bankruptcy trying to turn male dominated game properties female coded. Male heroes have been race and gender swapped, only for sales to plummet. And it turns out women want to make pretty dresses, not kill things. Who could'a known.

1/10 A number of things about the war in Ukraine have been opposite to what most people in the West fervently believe. You'll often see the claim that the Russians won't respect any deal. And lack of trust is indeed an impediment to a deal, only the other way around.

Everyone can agree on the importance of education. But the institutions, incentives, and people tasked with providing it have reached a point of negative net returns, meaning the intellectual level of society would rise, if they were removed and people left to their own devices.

1901년 시베리아, 활과 화살을 갖추고 전통 갑옷을 착용한 코랴크족 남성들. + 이것은 찰갑(札甲laminar)' 형태의 갑옷으로, 다음과 같은 방식으로 제작되었습니다. 물개, 바다코끼리, 또는 순록 가죽 띠를 겹쳐서(망원경처럼 포개지도록) 만들고 부분적으로 나무, 수염(baleen), 뼈, 상아, 뿔, 금속 등으로 보강하거나, 뼈·상아·뿔·철로 된 개별 판을 가로로 겹쳐 이어 붙여 만들었습니다. + 일부 기록에 따르면, 이 갑옷의 하단부(스커트 부분)는 접어 올릴 수 있는 구조로 되어 있어, 착용자가 달려야 할 때 허리춤으로 걷어 올릴 수 있었다고 합니다. 출처 facebook.com/share/p/1EJCqzT…

Facial reconstruction of a 5,000-year-old(?) man from upper Lena In 1927, A. P. Okladnikov discovered the Eneolithic Khaptsygai burial ground near Bairaki on the upper Lena River. The cemetery contained small stone graves, usually elongated or oval and oriented west–east. The dead were buried extended on their backs with their heads facing west, accompanied by rich grave goods and traces of funerary feasts. Charcoal and roe-deer bones were common. Flint flakes and blades suggest that the cemetery was near a settlement. Grave goods, including white-jade rings and discs, stone beads, and tubular paste beads, resemble those of the early Glazkovo period. Although Okladnikov associated the cemetery with Glazkovo, the frequent presence of red ochre on the skulls suggests that some burials may be earlier, predating the widespread use of copper. The anthropological material from the Khaptsygai burial ground was studied by G. F. Debets. He considered the series relatively homogeneous, assigning it to Group A, or the Paleo-Siberian type. Debets described this as a Mongoloid type with a broad, low skull, similar to the type of Tungus populations around Lake Baikal, and called it the Baikal type of the Paleo-Siberian race. In another work, Debets wrote that the Neolithic population of the Baikal region represented an ancient form no longer found among modern populations. He compared its relationship to modern Siberian Mongoloid types with that of Cro-Magnon or Proto-Europoid types to modern European populations. However, Mikhail Gerasimov did not fully accept Debets’s classification, since such uniformity is not evident either in the broader Paleoanthropological material from the Baikal region or even in this small Khaptsygai series. Some of the skulls from Khaptsygai resemble the anthropological type characteristic of the earlier historical stage of the so-called Kitoi culture, with one clearly belonging to the anthropological type of an undifferentiated Proto-Mongoloid. Other skulls, including the reconstructed individual, belong to a distinctly Mongoloid type, with features characteristic of the North American variant: a more strongly profiled face, a prominent nose, and a thin-lipped mouth, although full lips also occur, particularly among females. He had a cranial length of 180 mm, a cranial width of 139 mm, and a cheekbone width of 138 mm (Gerasimov, 1955).