el mascot

music, poetry, arts

[Flashallmight @Flashallmight]

Andrés Iniesta - 2008/09

[🕊️ @MagicalXavi]

Xavi Hernandez - 2008/09.

https://t.co/41YBUKWPUn

[Noodle Neymar @NjrdasilvaFC]

Three players?! That’s cute.

How about an hour of players?!

[Abraham Okah(info hub) @AbrahamOkah2]

Another Goldmineeeeeee

Advanced CapCut Course from start to finish and professional Video Editing 🤭

You’re welcome!

https://t.co/mYtvVDKLmQ

[Peter Agboola @baba_Omoloro]

Open your browser and type https://t.co/pJw8AXTZLR, then search for https://t.co/TmcVzJpbNo.

Don't thank me; we are together in this learning forward process.

"If we must fail, let us fail forward."

[nana aba @thenanaaba]

https://t.co/LVSZLeDs1C

[Team DREAMVILLE @TeamDreamville]

I hope we get another J. Cole freestyle before The Fall-Off drops 😤 https://t.co/1vWLnXxDAE

[First Class 🏁 @1DJFirstClass]

I Know Andre 3000 Don’t Rap Anymore But His Verse On “Sixteen” Belongs In The MoMA 🔥⛽️

[el mascot @mascot_el]

@pickinshub class

[Faithfulness Okom @AttorneyF_]

I went back to Luke this morning just to revisit the story of Christmas… and Luke 2:7 hit me like an arrow to the chest:

“She gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.”

We romanticize that line so much that we forget how brutal it actually is. If the gospel narrative is true, then that’s not a cute nativity detail. That is the most explosive statement in human history.

The God who created galaxies entered His own creation… and there was no room for Him.

No royal welcome, no palace, no safety, no honor, not even a bed. He comes into the world He made, and the doors are closed in His face.

This is the single greatest scandal of Christianity: God doesn’t supervise salvation from a throne. He steps into it. He doesn’t arrive in glory. He arrives vulnerable. He doesn’t come intimidating humanity into submission. He comes as a child who can’t even hold His own head up. If you were inventing a religion, this is not the story you’d write.

Luke is quietly showing something staggering about God’s character:
He wins, not by force, but by love.
He saves, not by domination, but by self-giving. He comes close, not as a King demanding space, but as a Savior entering even when there is “no room.”

And that manger isn’t sentimental. It’s confrontational.

It confronts our pride, cos humanity has always had space for power, wealth, celebrity, and status… just never space for God unless He serves our plans.

It confronts our illusions of strength cos God is showing that real power isn’t the ability to crush. Real power is the courage to empty yourself for the sake of others.

It confronts religion, cos God bypassed temples and elites and arrived where animals feed… then announced His coming not to emperors, but to shepherds.

Luke 2:7 tells us who God is.

He is not distant, He is not indifferent, He is not cold sovereignty. He is the God who chooses weakness so He can stand with the weak. He is the God who walks into human pain instead of observing it from afar. He is the God who would rather be rejected with us than reign without us.

If this verse is true, Christianity isn’t just another belief system. It’s a radical claim that the deepest power in the universe is love; not might, not fear, not spectacle.

So yes… this verse broke me today.
Because if this is who God is… then hope isn’t sentimental. Grace isn’t theoretical. And Christmas isn’t “cute.”

It’s God stepping into history quietly…
exposing us gently… and saving us completely. Luke 2:7 isn’t a children’s story. It’s a revolution.

Merry Christmas 🎄❤️

[dele osunmakinde @deleosunmakinde]

Here are seven things Paul told Timothy that every young minister must know. This is apostolic formation.

1. Your calling is real, but it must be stewarded
Paul reminds Timothy that ministry is not a feeling or a title. It is a deposit.
“Do not neglect the gift that is in you” 1 Timothy 4:14.
Calling unattended decays. Grace ignored leaks. Gifts grow only when exercised with discipline. A young minister must know that ordination is not arrival. It is responsibility.

2. Character outruns charisma every time
Paul does not tell Timothy to impress people. He tells him to be an example.
“Be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” 1 Timothy 4:12.
Before you lead publicly, you must govern privately. Before you command platforms, you must command appetites. Ministry collapses first in secret before it fails in public.

3. Doctrine matters more than gifting
Paul warns Timothy that right passion with wrong doctrine is still dangerous.
“Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them” 1 Timothy 4:16.
Many anointed people have ruined souls because they treated doctrine as optional. Power without truth produces confusion. Fire without structure becomes wildfire.

4. Suffering is part of the job description
Paul never sold Timothy a glamorous gospel.
“Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” 2 Timothy 3:12.
If a young minister thinks resistance means error, he will quit too early. Opposition does not always mean you are wrong. Sometimes it means you are aligned.

5. You must rightly handle the Word, not merely quote it
Paul raises Timothy beyond sermonising into precision.
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God… rightly dividing the word of truth” 2 Timothy 2:15.
The Word is not noise. It is architecture. A minister who cannot divide Scripture will confuse covenants, mix audiences, and burden believers with what Christ already fulfilled.

6. Guard what has been entrusted to you
Paul speaks like a custodian training another custodian.
“O Timothy, guard what was committed to your trust” 1 Timothy 6:20.
Not every trend deserves your attention. Not every revelation deserves your pulpit. A young minister must learn that discernment is not suspicion. It is stewardship.

7. Finish well matters more than starting loud
Paul writes to Timothy as a man who has run his race.
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” 2 Timothy 4:7.
Ministry is not a sprint of excitement. It is a long obedience in the same direction. Many start with noise. Few finish with integrity. Paul trained Timothy to be among the few.

In summary
Paul did not raise Timothy to be famous.
He raised him to be faithful.
He did not prepare him for applause.
He prepared him for endurance.

Every young minister must know this.

[el mascot @mascot_el]

@ASAKESZN 19

[Sir Dickson @Wizarab10]

Contentment is an underrated virtue. There is so much power in contentment. Being able to live your life freely without comparing yourself with those who have more and not being envious nor covetous is power.

Paul said in Phil 4:12(AMP)
I know how to get along and live humbly [in difficult times], and I also know how to enjoy abundance and live in prosperity. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret [of facing life], whether well-fed or going hungry, whether having an abundance or being in need.

If you keep comparing yourself with those above you or those who have more, you'll never be satisfied. The problem with that is, you'll keep living life on new targets, of which failure to achieve would drive you to depression.

Jesus said in Luke 12:15(NIV)
Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.

The problem with pinning your happiness on worldly possession is that, you'll always remain thirsty for more. If you put your validation in other people seeing you wealthy, you'll keep going back to them for it. Thirsty!

Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4:13-14(KJV):
Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

The validation you're seeking from outside, you'll find it in Christ. There is a vacuum in life that only Jesus can fill. That is why Jesus said in Matt 11:28-30(NIV):
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

You cannot do this life alone.

If you're rich, it is important to stay humble and honour God with your riches. Do not think others are not working hard enough that is why they barely where they are. Be kind to the poor and extend grace to those beneath you.

In 1Tim 6:17(NKJV), the scripture says:
Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

The grace of the Lord be with you 🙏🏾

[el mascot @mascot_el]

I'm in a car, and one guy on a phone call just said "Nyame mu y3 d3, but wiase mu nso ny3 bad"

boys tear chain oo

[Yishan @yishan]

When people are suffering because the cost of living is too high, and you (as a policymaker) intend to spend public money to fix this, there are two main routes:

- subsidize demand, or
- subsidize supply

Subsidizing demand is "give people money to pay for the expensive thing."
Subsidizing supply is "give producers money to build out capacity to make more of the expensive thing."

These routes represent a difference between (to use coarse-grained terms) current Western liberal thinking and Chinese socialist thinking.

Subsidizing demand causes inflation if the expensive thing is expensive due to insufficient supply. The number of people who will have access to this thing will not go up, because the actual amount of supply stays the same. Prices eventually rise to reflect the inflation (speed depends on implementation of the subsidy).

Subsidizing supply increases the amount of the expensive thing being produced, reducing its price and increasing availability. More people are likely to have access to it because now there's more of it and it costs less to buy.

There are probably broader considerations involved that professional economists take into account but these dynamics seem relevant for our current economic situation.

A few weird things seem to be involved in this situation in our present cultural moment:

1) Western liberal elites don't like subsidizing supply because subsidies for producers often feels like giving money to owners, or capitalists, or rich people. Why would you give money to the capitalist owner of the factory instead of to the common man?

2) American elite thinking tends to focus on "virtualized" things (like prices) while Chinese elites think more about "real atoms" (actual goods). Hence, viewing the prices of things as being too high leads to favoring virtualized solutions like helping with the price (give more virtualized money to bring down the virtualized price). Thinking about the amount of physical goods leads to thinking about how to make more of the physical good (build more factories).

3) There is this idea that you don't want to "crash prices" through "overproduction." In the West, classical micro-economic incentives lead producers to make a profit-maximizing amount and that it's bad to disturb that; only occasionally disruptive exogenous events result in large changes to supply and deflationary drops in pricing.

There isn't much thought given to the idea that "price collapse" also lowers the cost of the good as an input into other things, as well as (in the case of widely-consumed goods) effectively lowering a tax burden on the population. China seems to think this way, and so subsidizes massive "overcapacity" which results in both everything that uses that good as an input becoming more economically viable, and people who consume it having more money for other things.

The above idea is not obvious so I will give three examples:

1) The idea of asteroid mining and bringing back billions of tons of some valuable metal (nickel or gold or platinum), worth "trillions of dollars." Someone always points out that it'll "crash the price" (it will); this statement shows an inability to separate the virtualized idea of a price from how it represents the cost [to produce/acquire] - in fact it would be bringing trillions of dollars of value to the entire economy, as now there's a lot more of the metal to use, and everyone who uses it to produce something useful has lower cost of production and more downstream products (value) can be made.

2) In my own industry (global reforestation) I hear a similar objection to the idea of enabling much larger scales of sustainable timber: wouldn't it collapse the price of timber? Yes, and that's a good thing: now there's more timber for everyone to use and it's cheaper so more products become economical to make.

3) Finally, the "peace dividend" over the past 30 years where the proliferation of mobile phones made cameras, gyroscopes, and batteries far smaller and cheaper due to forcing producers to scale up production: this is what enabled the drone industry to develop as an economically viable product.

The difference is that the West (to the extent that it remains laissez-faire) only allows these exogenous shocks or market trends to periodically drive down prices by expanding supply - the cause is unpredictable, whether it's discovery of a new source, business model, production methods, etc.

Even the phrase "price collapse" sounds horribly negative and conversation-ending. But if you want to "lower taxes" on your citizenry you can either
a) lower taxes revenues, or
b) find a way to make something that everyone buys cost a lot less

Examples of things that would essentially be a massive tax break for the citizenry if they went through a "price collapse":
- housing
- health care
- education
- fuel
- ... you get the idea

Current Chinese socialism is focused on increasing material wealth for its citizens, and so uses industrial policy to greatly increase production capacity - not just through subsidies, but also via competition: producers are given money to build more factories, but also forced to compete so that they innovate on efficiency and cost. If you give every producer money but tell them only a couple will win, you get a lot more stuff made and it gets better-cheaper-faster.... sooner.

They are essentially accelerating the long-term deflationary effects of capitalism through socialist planning.

But this is not a post about socialism!

That's just the name for it, because the big idea that everyone has missed is that "Chinese socialism" is nothing like what it took from the West - the common moniker is "socialism with Chinese characteristics - but I prefer to think that the degree of distortion from having to translate between such alien cultures and language resulted in so much leeway for re-interpretation that what China ended up with was nothing like what Western socialists had in mind, it's like a Panda Express version of socialism: unrecognizable to people familiar with the authentic original, but optimized for its local conditions.

After all, western conservatives - although apt to implement subsidies for producers ("giveaways to the rich") - still stop short at telling the producers to produce more than the profit-maximizing amount - they assume that the profit-maximizing amount is the "right amount" to be produced for the market. There is not as much thought given to "what are the downstream effects if 10x as much is produced and the price trends towards zero?" Bringing up "it would collapse the price for X" is enough to end most discussions.

(Of course, you do see some modern tech barons thinking this way, and it's part of the galaxy-brain/megolomanical thinking where one company might intend to dominate or reshape an entire ecosystem, but we are mostly talking about non-technocratic Western policymakers right now)

So instead the West contents itself with incremental reduction of prices (cost) through piecemeal innovation and competition, rather than targeted identification of areas where driving down a cost deliberately as close to zero as possible might have some kind of macro effect on society, and then implementation of industrial policy intended to achieve this effect.

This is not socialism, because if it were really socialism (as the West understands it), at least some branch of the extreme Left in the US or EU would be advocating for it. And the Right won't brook quite that much market intervention: it prefers to just deregulate to accelerate the incremental price reductions - you know, regular ol' capitalism.

Here is the point: the argument about whether China is socialist (communist) or capitalist is wrong. It is not either of those things - they are both Western ideas. It is a secret third thing.

Now I am not sure exactly what it is - because I am steeped in American culture while having cultural access via my Chinese ethnicity - I can only tell you that it's not one of those things.

It has something to do with a practical materialism, where "materialism" is not the word with the connotations of "shallow and liking money" (though Chinese people do love money), but rather a concern with real atoms, real things, the real physical world.

It is not as though China has no art or culture or life of the mind, but that there is a profound recognition (perhaps even an overcorrection from being humiliated by "culturally inferior" barbarians) that if you haven't mastered the physical world, nothing else matters. And so it's not about the price, and thus virtualized measures like "GDP" - it's about how much real physical stuff you're making.

For the tech people, it's a bit like counting productivity by Lines of Code (LOC). Writing more code means more productivity, right? Whereupon great programmers turn out to improve functionality by deleting Lines of Code, and so have "negative productivity."

The same glitch exists in GDP, because with Mississippi having a GDP per Capita of $53k and Chongqing having a GDP per Capita of $14k...

Well, you can increase GDP by making incrementally more stuff

And you can increase GDP by giving out subsidies so everyone pays more for the same stuff

But if you figure out a way to make the same stuff for way way cheaper super fast, you'll crater nominal GDP even while real economic welfare rises.

Statistical agencies typically try to correct for quality/price changes like this and can account for it incrementally, but if you simply don't care about GDP as a measurement at all and are using some secret third thing to guide your policymaking towards the idea of "make as much stuff for as many people as possible" I guess you might even end up driving GDP towards zero along with your prices while your people mysteriously get rich.

Anyhow, you might think this is a critique of American policy or something but really it's just a message for the new socialist government of New York City: if you want to drive down cost of living for New Yorkers, don't spend precious public dollars subsidizing goods. Figure out a way to spend it on increasing production capacity so that you can "collapse prices" because then everyone can afford it and have more.

Remember: secret third thing.

[el mascot @mascot_el]

@EdenCharles8 top guy

[el mascot @mascot_el]

thanks my Gee.
you are too kind

[Eden Charles @EdenCharles8]

Happy Birthday to two great guys @YawGyegyefo11 and @mascot_el. Top Guys! God bless you guys. More money, good health, more women. #1111

[Eden Charles @EdenCharles8]

Happy Birthday to two great guys @YawGyegyefo11 and @mascot_el. Top Guys! God bless you guys. More money, good health, more women. #1111

[Cabinet Master @starbwoy_Ijoe]

Contact Me for Kitchen Cabinet like this on 0240961414