GohanSaru2

Learning Japanese using AI, YouTube, 聖書. Working toward JLPT N3

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@TSDmemes

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@BenWa11ace @GeneralMCNews You may recall that there was no election fraud in 2020 because no court said so. Apply the same rule here.

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@MAGAVoice Swap it with the pic of the guy sitting in front of a wall of ivy.

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@wildcapturd Rubber skull?

[Will Knowland @beherleader]

Not every repeated correction from your wife is nagging.

Sometimes it's charity.

A wife is not virtuous because she silently watches her husband become lazy, disorganised, intemperate, harsh, passive, prayerless, unreliable, or addicted to comfort.

She is not a better wife because she smiles while his word becomes worthless.

She is not more submissive because she refuses to oppose his vice.

A good wife wants her husband’s good.

And his good is not his comfort.

His good is virtue.

So if she says:

“You said you’d do this.”
“You keep putting this off.”
“You’re on your phone every night.”
“You’re getting harsh with the kids.”
“You haven’t prayed with us in weeks.”
“You keep avoiding this conversation.”
“You’re not following through.”

…your first move should not be, Why is she nagging me?

Your first move should be:

Is she opposing something in me that actually needs to die?

That question will make a weak man defensive.

But it will make a serious man examine himself.

Correction is not rebellion

A wife correcting her husband’s vice does not overthrow his headship.

She is not “usurping authority” because she names a real moral disorder.

She is acting as a wife.

A helpmeet is not a mute spectator. She helps him toward the good. And sometimes help sounds like warning, opposition, reminder, protest, even rebuke.

Of course, she can do this badly.

She can correct with contempt.
She can exaggerate.
She can repeat herself from anxiety rather than charity.
She can weaponise truth to wound rather than heal.

That must be addressed.

But don't hide behind her imperfect delivery to avoid the truth she is carrying.

Many men do exactly that.

They make the whole conversation about her tone because they don’t want to face their vice.

“She shouldn’t have said it like that.”

Fine.

But did she tell the truth?

Did you say you would do it and fail?
Did you drift again?
Did you make her carry what you promised to carry?
Did your sloth, avoidance, or disorder create the very correction you now resent?

Then receive the correction like a Christian man.

Not like a sulking boy.

When her correction becomes nagging

There is still a difference between charitable correction and nagging.

Charitable correction aims at your good.

Nagging aims at pressure, control, or emotional discharge.

Charitable correction is ordered by reason.

Nagging is often ruled by anxiety or resentment.

Charitable correction names the fault and calls you upward.

Nagging circles the fault endlessly and makes the home bitter.

But here is the trap:

Men often call it “nagging” before they have done the moral work of discerning whether she is right.

That is cowardice with a masculine accent.

A husband should be able to say:

“Your tone was sharp, and we can talk about that. But you’re right: I have been unreliable here.”

That sentence would save many marriages.

Because it separates two issues:

- her manner
- and your fault

A weak man collapses them.

A virtuous man distinguishes them.

Your wife should not have to become your conscience

There is also a deeper shame here.

Your wife should not have to drag you toward ordinary virtue.

She should not have to remind you to pray.
She should not have to beg you to finish basic duties.
She should not have to supervise your screen habits.
She should not have to keep calling you back from sloth.
She should not have to become the voice of responsibility in the home.

When she does, you may resent the sound of her voice.

But the deeper problem is that you have stopped listening to the voice of conscience.

So God uses the person closest to you.

And you call her annoying.

Be careful...

The correction you keep dismissing as nagging may be one of the mercies God is using to pull you back into order.

[Mike Netter @nettermike]

"No Letting the Old Man In!" That's the response admired actor Clint Eastwood, now in his 90's, gave to country singer Toby Keith when asked about his secret to staying active and vibrant at his age...

"Every day when I wake up, I don't let the old man in. My secret has been the same since 1959: staying busy.

I never let the old man into the house.

You have to stay active, alive, happy, strong, and capable.

It's in us, in our intelligence, attitude, and mentality.

We are young, regardless of our ID.

We must learn to fight to not let the old man in.

That old person awaits us, stationed and tired by the side of the road to discourage us.

I don't let the old, critical, hostile, envious spirit in, the one that scrutinizes our past to tie us up with complaints and distant anxieties, or relived traumas and waves of pain.

You have to turn your back on the old murmurer, full of rage and complaints, lacking courage, denying himself that old age can be creative, determined, and full of light and projection.

Aging can be pleasant and even fun if you know how to use your time, if you're satisfied with what you've achieved, and if you still maintain enthusiasm," adds Clint Eastwood, a legend with ten Oscar nominations, of which he has won four statues, all after crossing the threshold of sixty.

That's called "not letting the old man into the house."

These words resonated so deeply with country singer Toby Keith that they inspired him to compose the song "Don’t Let the Old Man In" dedicated to the legendary actor.

[Anna Lulis @annamlulis]

BREAKING:

78-year-old pastor Clive Johnston has been convicted in Ireland for publicly reading the Bible verse John 3:16

The judge claims abortion-minded women could be influenced to choose life for their unborn babies.

He made no direct mention of abortion.

Pray for him 🙏

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 JUST IN: HHS Sec. RFK Jr. CONFIRMS nearly ALL of the 1.4 million people purged from taxpayer healthcare are ILLEGAL ALIENS

Holy crap. We gave welfare to THAT MANY ILLEGALS?!

"They're almost ALL illegal immigrants!"

"We found ~1.5 MILLION illegal immigrants illegally collecting Medicaid."

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@TeslaBoomerMama Oakland. Sigh.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihteshamali]

A MIT student figured out how to compress an entire semester of lecture content into one 90-minute study session.

He calls it "context stacking," and it's the most unfair thing I've seen done with NotebookLM.

I asked him to walk me through it. He did. I haven't studied the same way since.

Here's exactly what he does.

Two days before each lecture, he uploads everything into NotebookLM. The assigned readings, the previous week's slides, 3 or 4 related papers he finds himself, and any problem sets that are still open.

Most students wait for the lecture to explain the material. He walks in having already built a mental model of it.

That's step one. But it's not the move that makes it unfair.

The first prompt he runs across all of it:

"What are the 5 core concepts this week's content is built on, and how do they connect to what I studied last week?"

Not summarize. Not define. Connect.

NotebookLM pulls threads across everything he uploaded simultaneously. It surfaces relationships between ideas that would take a normal student weeks of review to notice. He gets that map before the lecture even starts.

Then he runs the prompt that does most of the work.

"What would I need to genuinely understand about this material to be able to teach it to someone with zero background in this subject?"

That question is doing something most students never force themselves to do. It exposes exactly where his understanding is solid and exactly where it's hollow. The gaps show up immediately, and he spends the rest of the 90 minutes filling only those gaps.

Not reviewing what he already knows. Only fixing what he doesn't.

The final prompt is the one that separates context stacking from every other study method I've heard of.

"What question could a professor ask about this material that would expose a student who understood the surface but missed the underlying logic?"

He's not studying for the exam he expects. He's studying for the exam designed to catch people who only think they understood it.

By the time he sits in the lecture hall, the professor is not teaching him anything new. The professor is confirming what he already mapped, filling in a few details, and occasionally surprising him with something he didn't anticipate.

That surprise is the only thing he writes down.

Most students leave a lecture hoping the material will eventually click.

He walks in with it already clicked, and uses the lecture to find out what he missed.

That's not a study hack. That's a completely different relationship with learning.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihteshamali]

A professor quit a high-paying consulting job to teach math to seventh graders in a New York public school, and what she saw in that classroom launched the most important research on human achievement of the last 30 years.

Her name is Angela Duckworth, and the question that haunted her from day one was deceptively simple: why do some kids succeed and others don't?

It wasn't IQ. She could see that immediately. Some of her sharpest students were underperforming. Some of her slowest were grinding past everyone else. The variable she couldn't name was right in front of her face and it took her a decade of research at Penn and Stanford to finally pin it down.

Here is what she found, and why it should change how you think about every hard thing you are trying to build.

She started by going back to a famous experiment from the late 1960s. A Stanford psychologist named Walter Mischel brought four-year-olds into a small room one at a time, placed a marshmallow in front of them, and told them he had to leave. If they waited until he returned, they'd get two marshmallows. If they couldn't wait, they could ring a bell and eat the one in front of them right now.

Most kids lasted about thirty seconds.

But what happened over the next decade is what made Mischel's study famous. When he tracked those same children down years later, the ones who had waited the longest had SAT scores 210 points higher on average than the ones who rang the bell immediately. Self-control at age four predicted academic outcomes that most educators couldn't explain even after years of watching the kids up close.

Duckworth was fascinated but she was after something deeper. Self-control explained part of the picture. It didn't explain everything. She thought about her own career early, scattered, unfocused by her own admission and compared it to people she knew who had found a mission at twenty-two and never let go of it. They weren't smarter than her. They weren't working harder than her in any obvious sense.

They had something else.

She called it grit. And the definition matters, because the word has been diluted into a motivational poster cliché that misses the point entirely.

Grit, in Duckworth's framework, is not toughness. It is not working long hours. It is not refusing to quit when things get hard, although that is part of it. Grit is the combination of passion and persistence aimed at a single long-term goal over years and sometimes decades. The passion part is often misunderstood. She does not mean excitement or enthusiasm. She means the sustained fascination with a specific problem. The thing you keep returning to even when you don't have to.

She built a twelve-question test to measure it. The Grit Scale. And then she took it into the field.

At the University of Pennsylvania, students with high grit scores earned higher GPAs than their peers, even when those peers had entered college with stronger test scores. At the National Spelling Bee, grit scores predicted which children survived to the later rounds more accurately than hours of practice alone. But the finding that stopped the room every time she presented it came from West Point.

Every year, West Point runs thousands of incoming cadets through a brutal summer training course called Beast Barracks. The military had developed its own complex evaluation tool called the whole candidate score to predict who would make it through. It factored in academic grades, physical fitness, leadership potential. Admissions teams had been refining it for years.

Duckworth gave her twelve-question grit test to over twelve hundred cadets as they arrived.

Her test outpredicted the whole candidate score.

The cadets who dropped out weren't the weakest physically or the least intelligent academically. They were the ones who scored lowest on passion and persistence toward a long-term goal. The ones who made it through were the ones who had a reason to be there that was bigger than any single difficult day.

The finding that most people miss when they hear about this research is the distinction Duckworth draws between motivation and volition.

Motivation is wanting something. Volition is the ability to keep moving toward it when the wanting isn't strong enough to carry you on its own. You can be extremely motivated to build something and still quit at the first serious obstacle because you never developed the second thing. The marshmallow kids who waited the longest weren't the ones who wanted two marshmallows more desperately. They were the ones who had learned to redirect their attention, to think abstractly about the goal, to make the immediate discomfort feel smaller than the long-term payoff.

That skill is trainable. That is the part that almost never makes it into the summary.

Duckworth's research shows grit is only faintly related to IQ. There are brilliant people with almost no grit and ordinary people with extraordinary amounts of it. The raw intelligence gets you to the starting line. What happens after that is almost entirely determined by whether you have the combination of a goal worth caring about for years and the discipline to keep working toward it on the days when nothing is going well.

Her TED Talk on this has been watched over 17 million times, which means the idea has clearly landed somewhere real in people. But the part that usually gets quoted is the definition. The part that actually matters is harder to talk about.

You cannot manufacture grit by deciding to be grittier. What you can do is find the problem you are genuinely willing to be obsessed with for a decade. Not excited about. Obsessed with. And then build the systems around that obsession that make daily persistence the default, not the exception.

The marshmallow test did not sort brave children from cowardly ones. It sorted children who had already learned that discomfort is temporary from children who hadn't learned that yet.

Every gritty person you have ever admired figured out one thing the rest of the room hadn't: the goal on the other side of the hard stretch is more real to them than the discomfort standing between them and it.

That is not a personality type. That is a decision, made early and remade every day.

[John Ʌ Konrad V @johnkonrad]

What if America is already far richer than anyone in the swamp is allowed to admit?

What if the real drag on the Republic isn’t taxes, isn’t debt, isn’t even the deficit, it’s Europe?

What if NATO was never a mutual defense pact, but a 75-year subscription America forgot to cancel?

What if “burden sharing” is the most expensive euphemism in the English language?

What if the City of London cabal is draining our banks?

What if the advice from globalists is terrible advice that’s costing us big?

What if every European basing agreement, every forward-deployed brigade, every Ramstein runway, every Aviano hangar, every Souda Bay pier is a tax American workers pay so Berlin can run a welfare state and Paris can run a 35-hour week?

What if foreign aid to Europe isn’t aid, it’s tribute, flowing the wrong way?

What if transporting the vast majority of trade on European owned ships costs more than we realize?

What if the NGO archipelago in Brussels, Geneva, and The Hague is just a money-laundering loop where US taxpayer dollars get rinsed through a “civil society” conference and returned as lectures about our democracy?

What if the UN isn’t a parliament of man, it’s a Manhattan timeshare with diplomatic plates, an accounting black hole, and a Human Rights Council chaired by people who’d jail you for tweeting this?

What if “the rules-based international order” was always code for: Americans build it, Americans pay for it, Americans bleed for it, and Europeans grade it?

What if $36 trillion in debt looks a lot smaller the second you stop underwriting a continent that sneers at you in three languages?

What if you zeroed out the Europe line, the NATO line, the UN line, the NGO line, and woke up tomorrow in a country with the fiscal headroom to rebuild every shipyard, every foundry, every rail line, and every Navy hull we’ve let rot since the Cold War ended?

What if American tourists went to American cathedrals, American opera, American museums, American cities instead.

I’m not saying I believe all of it.

I’m saying maybe, just maybe, we could pay down all our debt and wouldn’t have to pay taxes at all if we cut Europe loose.

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@Cowboyneek @JebraFaushay Umm...Those are Hitler Youth.

[GohanSaru2 @GohanSaru2]

@thesigmamindset The super rich families won't let their kid hang around with this guy's kid.

[🇺🇸🇺🇸DADA🇺🇲🇺🇲 @BredsguardDalen]

A home lie detector robot. What could possibly go wrong? Maybe we need this for Congress.

[toddstarnes @toddstarnes]

JUST IN: 🚨🚨 We now have a sitting member of Congress officially calling on Majority Leader John Thune to be removed from power.

"We should call on Thune to step aside," @RepJohnRose tells Todd Starnes.

[John Ʌ Konrad V @johnkonrad]

@DataRepublican Ouch! Brutal. Lethal takedown!

Next question is a simple one for Brad’s publisher @EvansRyan202

Why is @WarOnTheRocks Doxxing veterans?

[Stephen Miller @StephenM]

There are no words to describe this horror.

[Attorney General Pamela Bondi @AGPamBondi]

Today, @thejusticedept unsealed an indictment charging 30 more people who took part in the attack on Cities Church in Minnesota.

At my direction, federal agents have already arrested 25 of them, with more to come throughout the day.

YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you.

This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith. 🇺🇸

[I am Ken @Ikennect]

You be the judge!
Is this the best pizza commercial you ever saw?😂