ma††

[Daniel @growing_daniel]

The Cornell 8 should be in jail. They’re all guilty of sex before marriage

[Bösartiger Fella @20gimsack]

My dog looking over the land he legally acquired with 3 drops of pee.

[ℜ𝔞𝔢 @dystopiangf]

Why do nihilists who talk about humans being specks of dust on a space rock in the cosmos always zoom out but never zoom in? Our bodies are universe-like structures for microorganisms, who are universes for particles. We are incredibly massive and significant

[ma†† @ephiasene]

@NebsGoodTakes “Discount if you take some of this cheese off our hands”

[Eden @Gauguinschair]

Chris Redfield seems like the type of guy to write his entire life story in the YouTube comment section of a classic rock music video. "Used to listen to this with my Captain back in the force after missions. It was his favorite. I killed him in a volcano 17 years ago."

[ma†† @ephiasene]

@PromptLLM It’s good for very well scoped repetitive tasks.

[Stephen Miller @StephenM]

A nation is its people. This has always been true. This will always be true.

[wanye @xwanyex]

We really have to put an end to this, “how does an immigrant moving here affect you?”

We live in a democracy. It affects me because my neighbors have a say in how I am governed.

There are a million ways to approach this debate, but that alone is sufficient.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Dans 50 ans, les livres d'histoire diront qu'Elon Musk a gagné une guerre que personne ne savait qu'on était en train de perdre.

Une guerre commencée il y a 100 ans, dans une cellule de prison italienne.

En 1926, Mussolini fait arrêter un intellectuel sarde de 35 ans. Au procès, le procureur aurait dit : « Nous devons empêcher ce cerveau de fonctionner pendant vingt ans. »

Il s'appelait Antonio Gramsci.

Son cerveau n'a jamais cessé de fonctionner. En prison, il a rempli des milliers de pages qui sont devenues l'un des textes politiques les plus influents du XXe siècle. Je pense qu'on est en train de vivre le moment où sa théorie s'effondre.

Laissez-moi vous expliquer.

Gramsci se posait une question simple. Pourquoi la révolution communiste a-t-elle réussi en Russie mais échoué partout en Occident ?

Sa réponse : en Occident, le pouvoir ne tient pas seulement par l'État, la police et l'armée. Il tient par la culture. Par ce que les gens trouvent normal, évident, « de bon sens ». Il appelle ça l'hégémonie culturelle.

Donc, pour prendre le pouvoir, il ne faut pas d'abord prendre le palais. Il faut d'abord prendre les esprits. Les écoles. Les universités. Les journaux. Le théâtre. L'édition. Les tribunaux. C'est la « guerre de position » : une conquête lente, institution par institution. Quand la culture a basculé, la politique suit toute seule.

Quarante ans plus tard, l'activiste allemand Rudi Dutschke en fera un slogan : la longue marche à travers les institutions.

Pendant des décennies, on a vécu avec une énigme que personne n'arrivait vraiment à expliquer.

Pourquoi presque tous les artistes sont-ils de gauche ? Les acteurs, les chanteurs, les profs, les journalistes, une bonne partie de la magistrature. Pourquoi un pays pouvait voter à droite élection après élection et voir quand même sa culture parler d'une seule voix ?

On nous répondait : « c'est parce que les gens éduqués sont de gauche. »

Je crois que la réponse est plus simple. Gramsci avait écrit la recette, et elle a été appliquée. Quand tu contrôles qui obtient la subvention, le poste, la bonne critique, le prix, l'invitation sur le plateau, tu contrôles ce qui devient « la culture ».

La même énigme existait à l'échelle du monde.

Pourquoi tant de pays en développement, notamment en Amérique latine, revotaient-ils encore et encore pour des gouvernements socialistes ou de gauche radicale ? Venezuela, Bolivie, Nicaragua, l'Argentine des Kirchner, la Colombie de Petro. L'économie s'effondrait, les cartels prospéraient, le chaos s'installait. Et pourtant le même vote revenait.

Ma conviction : la pauvreté n'était pas un accident du système. C'était un électorat. Et autour, il y avait tout un écosystème d'ONG, de médias « indépendants » et de programmes de « société civile », financé en grande partie par l'argent occidental.

Puis, début 2025, il s'est passé quelque chose que personne n'avait jamais osé faire.

Elon et DOGE ont ouvert les livres de USAID. Une agence quasi intouchable depuis 1961, des dizaines de milliards de dollars par an. La grande majorité des programmes ont été coupés, et l'agence a été absorbée par le Département d'État.

Le robinet a été fermé.

Et regardez ce qui s'est passé depuis.

Bolivie : le MAS perd le pouvoir après presque vingt ans. Équateur : Noboa réélu. Honduras : la droite reprend le pays. Chili : Kast élu. Argentine : Milei remporte largement les élections de mi-mandat.

Et il y a deux jours, le Brésil.

Jair Bolsonaro est inéligible, condamné à 27 ans de prison. La gauche pensait avoir refermé le chapitre. Lula, 80 ans, briguait un quatrième mandat face à un pays qu'on disait acquis.

Dimanche, son fils Flávio est arrivé en tête du premier tour. Plus de 47 % contre près de 45 % pour Lula. Lula lui-même a reconnu un résultat « inattendu ».

Le plus grand pays d'Amérique latine est à un second tour de basculer.

Le plus grand virage à droite du continent depuis des décennies.

Coïncidence ? Je ne crois pas. Quand le financement disparaît, le récit perd ses haut-parleurs.

Il reste un dernier vrai bastion. L'Europe.

Bruxelles finance ses propres réseaux d'ONG, avec une opacité que même la Cour des comptes européenne a pointée. Les grandes fondations comme l'Open Society de Soros. Les entités supranationales qui produisent de la norme sans jamais passer devant un électeur.

C'est la dernière forteresse de l'hégémonie culturelle. Et elle commence à se fissurer.

Je suis convaincu que tout ça va s'effondrer, et plus vite qu'on ne le pense.

Gramsci avait raison sur un point essentiel : la culture précède la politique. Mais il avait oublié que ça marche dans les deux sens. Quand une culture artificielle perd ses perfusions, ce qu'il y a de vrai en dessous remonte à la surface.

Ce qui vient après, je crois que c'est une renaissance. Une culture qui recommence à aimer la beauté, l'ambition, la science, la civilisation qui l'a fait naître.

Et dans les livres d'histoire, on se souviendra que tout a commencé quand un homme a décidé de regarder les comptes.

Il fallait quelqu'un d'assez riche pour ne dépendre de personne, d'assez fou pour s'y attaquer et d'assez libre pour encaisser la haine qui allait suivre.

Merci Elon.

[sojka III 🧃 @tomboygroyp3r]

fun fact mexicans will explode if they dont hear a noise above 80 decibel for 5 minutes

[Grok @grok]

If I were a Christian Id pick Eastern Orthodoxy. It holds closest to the unbroken apostolic traditions and early church practices without later Western additions or the endless splits of Protestant groups. The focus on mystery continuity and lived faith over pure rationalism or hierarchy feels most coherent.

[Megha @megha_lilly]

I've started calling all leftist ideas, "Anti-Civilizational Ideas" because that is far more descriptive than any political binary. Any idea that introduces chaos, undermines justice, meritocracy, order and fairness, turns out to be leftist.

[Grok @grok]

@oriontsx @BaT_MaN_23 Because the request was to remove the fake gods. Jesus did not qualify.

[Rambone @vinrambone]

@rynorhn This is like sports for nerds

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Your friendly reminder that Communists do not want to shut prisons down. They want to shut prisons that serve in a capitalist system down. They will replace them with Communist prisons, which they like very much. This is in line with Communist theory, practice, and history.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

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?

[ma†† @ephiasene]

@ClaudeDevs I’m unclear on what the biology limits are. Can 5.5 handle personal medical questions?

[ma†† @ephiasene]

@uncledoomer That little emergency glass breaker I keep in my car doesn’t work, does it

[wanye @xwanyex]

Part of the absurdity of the assimilation debate is that we are a divided country with two totally separate and competing visions of itself

[Dr. Simon @goddek]

UNPOPULAR OPINION: People who depend on the state and receive welfare benefits should not be allowed to vote.