@dvorstone 's limiting principle of stewardship: Do not mortgage, migrate, or sell what your grandchildren cannot reclaim.

Are you fucking kidding me? @elonmusk this account needs to be reinstated immediately, all he did was expose visa abuse through the proper channels with extremely diligent investigations. How many times are good accounts WHO DID NOTHING WRONG going to be banned on this website because of the indian visa fraud lobby?

The middle of a culture is always fighting between two poles: the high and the low. When high culture recedes, low culture spreads into the middle. Here is an example of the latter. She describes her spending habits as independent of the man or relationship, i.e., she has a "lifestyle" and the man is evaluating whether or not he can or wants to meet that. What she's describing is a woman's "price." This attitude is dominant in American ghettos and has now spread to the broader middle and even upper-middle class. Think about what she wrote; that a man should give a woman a credit card. She's placed the man in a situation as a passive "provider" where he gives and then sees if he can tolerate how much she takes (spends). That's not how a future wife sees a man at all. That's how a prostitute does. And the tragedy is that millions of women have adopted this mindset and have no idea how poisonous it is. Traditionally, a woman would decline letting a man pay for things until they were married because to accept his money was unsavory (because of the implication). This is why "dating" was initially regarded as seedy behavior, and why professional prostitutes disliked it. It competed with them. Modern dating teaches women to act like low-integrity prostitutes and men like passive, begging customers: women expect a man to provide for them but reciprocating with sex is optional. The man is playing a weird lottery. Should a woman accept gifts from a man that she has no romantic interest in (not family or similar)? No. Because to a man, if she accepts, she's communicating "you have a chance." If he doesn't, she's lied to him. But modern dating is just that... it's women saying "this is what I cost" and then coyly denying that if the man insists that he receive what he paid for. It's a dishonest dance. It's fair to point out that many men actively play into this dynamic. All throughout history, many men have been far more comfortable buying a prostitute than marrying a wife. Modern dating has just covered that up with a veneer of respectability by presenting dating as marriage-hunting, but it isn't. A man who offers to spend money on you is buying you. The fact that the majority of men and women are comfortable with this is evidence that low culture rules.

Never rent a car from SIXT. Never. Insanely deceptive app that just charged me hundreds of dollars for features and services it appeared I was declining. Won't allow modification or cancellation. They just created a sworn enemy. I wrote the book on business travel. Bad move.

The quality of the women is missing from this casual experiment. Who are they? The best interpretation of dating apps is is this: it's where physically attractive men find easy women.

I don't care about Palestinians. I don't care what they deserve. They're in a weak military position. If they want freedom they should fight, if they want mercy they should surrender. But what I refuse to accept is a weak enemy who makes moral demands we're supposed to let them win.

How is this not popular?

In sure Eric means well, but this is a feminist/female-centered inversion of both what Taylor Swift was doing here and the original meme. Taylor isn’t taking pride in the fact that her husband did some menial household task that pleases her female sensibilities She was proudly and publicly celebrating her husband’s dominance and accomplishments in his own domain—quite literally outside of the house. On a battlefield. That’s what made the feminists so mad! To turn it into some domestic focused “praise” for completing “honey do” lists is to play right back into their hands.

I might write a longer work on this but... what are the proper criticism of modern liberalism? Before WW1, there was robust and varied criticism of "English commercial liberalism." There were other variants of liberalism but alternatives and defenses of traditionalism. After WW1, more criticisms emerged, most famously Nazism. The critics were defeated both times, and liberalism was only opposed by an alternative project in communism (it was not an extension of it). A few more critics emerged but ultimately, it was time itself that exposed liberalism. Simply living it undermined its claims on truth. The problem is that naming the criticism of liberalism is hard to do, which is why so many people default to Nazism as the "anti-liberalism." It's not. It was just one of many criticisms of liberalism. Some on the right have embraced it but mostly it's the defenders of liberalism (on the right or left) who slander any critic as "fascistic" or "Nazi." What we need to do is step away from that one criticism and look at the whole body of proper criticism of liberalism. So what are they: 1. People are not "unencumbered choosers." They are born into family, language, faith, and a people. This is known as a "false anthropology." 2. Thin social bond. Society becomes a hotel, not a home, when everything becomes transactional. 3. Middle institutions die. Church, town, guild, and family weaken; only market and state remain. 4. A particular Anglo-American way of life is universalized and sold as progress. 5. Parliamentarianism degrades. Talk and "process" replace decision and action. Interests replace the common good. 6. Material comfort and prosperity does not produce meaning. 7. Rights and markets cannot say who belongs, what may be asked, or why this community should continue. Newer criticisms include: 1. The self is treated as a project: sex, family, and body become raw material in the creation of "identity." The "unencumbered chooser" becomes the "self inventor." 2. Everything is transactional, but no duties exist. Everything is filtered and regulated by "markets" or "platforms" in which nothing binds. 3. Managers, courts, HR, and agencies rule; the "parliament" is further corrupted. 4. End of history thinking. After 1989, progressivism went global and took on a religious fervor: dissent is viewed as heretical. 5. Mass migration plus a welfare state plus global corporatism eradicates any meaningful sense of "we." 6. Fertility collapse 7. The elites are mobile and global but everyone else is anchored in place, unless favored by NGOS. This creates utter disloyalty from elites. 8. The state isn't as competent as liberals presumed (again, a product of the particular people who created it, who were competent) and looks less able to do basic things: borders, schools, cities, order. These are the credible early 20th and early 21st century criticisms of "liberalism." So now what? Well, now we need to name them and then contend with them. In so doing, we can organize properly around that goal of solving our current problems. That's what needs to happen in order for us to have a proper political realignment. One side will be defenders and the other critics, and then the critics must eventually settle on proposed solutions. In that sense, they become the new "liberals." They become the ones advocating for change. And that is the way forward: the creation of right wing progressives/liberals against left wing "conservatives" (defenders of liberalism).

We subsidize an army of radical Muslim drug addicts with free food.

RT @AlastairMac1964: Sir, those basic jobs are now reserved for H4 wives and OPT international students.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the Founders believed because that's like four countries ago. I'll explain: 1. The Constitutional Union - this is the foundational America, roughly 1788- 1860. 2. National America - this is post-civil war, where the Union ceased the exist and the country became a nation, by force. 1860-1890. 3. Progressive America - roughly 1890-1954. This when the "limited government" model of the U.S. collapsed and the state took over many formerly private functions. This was the death of the private civic organization. 4. Civil Right's America - this is when the new, nominally invisible Constitution displaced the traditional one. 1954- 2001 Our original constitution was stretched as far as it would go, and now had to be replaced. This was done institutionally and not formally. The old Constitution exists largely as a symbolic relic akin to the symbolic monarchies of Europe today. 5. Globalist America - 1991 until present. This is when the USSR collapsed and the United States became a hegemon. At this point, globalism ramped up. The Founders are mute deities. They exist as symbols of America but their views are entirely neglected relics of the past. No one teaches what they believed as men, but only a few cherry-picked phrases that function to support whatever the current incarnation of "America" is. As America transforms, we simply find a different set of quotes and favored Founders to support that incarnation.

I see this circulate from time to time (he appears to have deleted it) and it's funny but it actually addresses an important question. Does it make a difference for a culture to "hate" one class versus another? Rich, middle, upper-middle, or lower? It does. Hating the poor produces vastly superior outcomes to hating the rich, historically speaking. Technically, it's not about wealth, but competence. Hating your competent class is what produces the worst outcomes, and that's generally your poor. To be fair, it also shouldn't be "hate," but your most incompetent class should be the one that suffers the most social punishment. You can have compassion for the poor, but you should not indulge them nor convince yourself that they have hidden moral virtue. One should mostly have pity on them because their poverty is usually the result of their lack of capacity.

This kind of analysis is so bizarre. The concept of "heritage American" doesn't suggest racial purity because that is a nonsense notion. All people are in a state of ethnogenesis. We're constantly changing. The concept is intended to express CONTINUITY. That means someone in your family line can be traced back a long way. The purpose of this is to psychologically tie people to their heritage through a biological reality. If a person comes here from another country, they cannot ever become that, but their kids can. A half-Nigerian who has one parent who can trace their ancestry to the Mayflower now has continuity. They are a "heritage American." This concept isn't even new. In fact, it's how most people on the planet understand the heritage. This is normal, globally and historically, except in America.

This is a noteworthy exchange between @NeilShenvi and @NateAFischer. There is a hard truth to this: the "right" or "conservatives" recognize that their institutions were overwhelmed by "woke" leftism. They utterly failed to stop it. Why? Because they focused their attention on lesser threats. Now, they're demanding that we all focus our attention on "Nazis in the church" even though they admit that this threat is a fraction of what the "woke" left was. It, again, looks like their focusing on the wrong threat. If that is the case, what greater threat are they ignoring? Additionally, given their track record of focusing on the wrong things, why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt? This is a hard reality that people like Mr. Shenvi need to come to terms with: they had their opportunity to lead and to solve the critical problems of their age, and they failed. It's time to face that fact. They misread the situation and are likely still doing so. Are there "Nazis in the church?" First, "Nazis" are a euphemism for "ethnonationalists." So are there ethnonationalists in the church? Yes. Why say "Nazis?" Because it's scarier. Because it's scary enough that you feel justified in saying "this is the most important thing." It isn't though. Most countries are ethnonationalist. The U.S. isn't but if it was, it wouldn't portend a descent into fascism, Nazism, or any great evil. It would just be a stark rejection of 20th century American ideals. If a general keeps losing battles, he gets replaced. Well, today's institutional right has been losing for decades. The political right, until Trump, was losing for the past century. If they had any sense of honor, they'd resign from their positions of authority and let a new generation step in to solve the problems that they've been too blind to even see.

"Genetically predisposed to unhappiness" That's an interesting observation. It feels directionally correct. I wonder if there's any truth to it.

I want Bryan to dunk People can hate all they want, but if he achieves this, its a real time demonstration of untapped human potential and what is possible even at an older age

You don't hear people talk about this often but he makes an important point: a coalition exists to accomplish a goal. Once that goal is accomplished, the coalition disbands, and a new one is created in response to new goals. Coalitions aren't permanent friendships but pragmatic and temporary alliances. Consider, would you ally yourself to a villain, in order to achieve a noble end? If you think that impossible or wrong then you're a fool, and ill -suited to leadership.

I have explained this to people for years... I wonder if they believe me yet. The story you tell over and over becomes the reality.

I once had a toddler kick my seat intermittently and I turned back and gave him a stern look and shook my head. The mom started to apologize (she'd tried to stop him, and had to limited success, but she had two other young kids, including a baby) and I replied, while never looking away from the boy, with "I appreciate that ma'am but this is between the young man and myself. We can handle this." And then I winked at her. He stopped kicking my seat and she was greatly appreciative.