Nathan Rose

[Shahriq Khan @RealShahriqKhan]

When I was Muslim, I never asked who built the golden calf. I just knew it was a sin in the desert.

Then I read both accounts and one detail stopped me cold.

In the Bible, the man who builds the golden calf is AARON. Moses’ own brother. The first high priest. Exodus 32:4.

He gathers the gold, melts it, shapes the idol. And when Moses confronts him, he gives the weakest excuse in scripture: “I threw the gold in the fire and out came this calf.” As if it made itself.

Bro. The Bible just put the worst sin in the camp in the hands of the holiest man in the camp.

You would NEVER write that if you were protecting your prophets.

Now read the Quran. Surah 20. Aaron is cleared. Innocent. He tried to stop it. The blame goes to a mystery man called “al-Samiri.” The Samaritan. Surah 20:85.

You know what shook me? The Bible incriminates its own high priest.

The Quran writes him an alibi and invents a villain.

One reads like an honest record. The other like damage control.

And there’s a second problem with that villain. “The Samaritan.” But Samaritans didn’t exist in Moses’ time.

The city of Samaria wasn’t founded until about 500 years later, under King Omri. 1 Kings 16:24.

It’s like putting a Texan at the Last Supper.

Now, some Muslim scholars push back — they say “Samiri” means something else. I’ll be fair, that argument exists. But their own classical commentators read it as “the Samaritan” for centuries.

The defense only works by re-translating away from how the tradition always understood it.

I used to say the Bible was corrupted. But the Bible is honest enough to say the high priest built the idol.

Only a book honest about how bad we are could point me to a Savior real enough to fix it.

The Bible never flattered Aaron. It didn’t flatter me either. It just told me the truth, and handed me Jesus.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@MikeWingerii Check Blue Letter Bible. I don't think it has Passion Transmutation.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@Wade_Burleson @drivinginkorea @tomascol Saying someone did eisegesis in a place isn't saying it's the kind they are.
It's pretty important not to respect the scholar more highly than the author. The scholar's admitted guesses shouldn't be guiding theology where even his translations don't give such latitudes.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@MikeMainsMusic Drifter at the top.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@jchasedavis Careful, might get suspended by the PCA with words like these.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

A farmer dies in April 2026.

His son inherits the farm. The farm has been in the family since 1847.

The farm consists of: 300 acres of grazing pasture, a farmhouse built in 1892, a barn, a milking parlour, two tractors of varying ages, a Land Rover that runs about 70% of the time, and a herd of 180 Hereford-cross cattle.

On paper, the farm is worth approximately £3.2 million. This is because land near him has been bought recently by a London hedge fund looking for carbon credits, which has dragged the comparable value of every field within forty miles upward to a number nobody local can justify.

In cash, the farm produces a profit of about £28,000 a year in a good year. In a bad year it loses money. The son also works as a fencing contractor three days a week to keep the operation viable.

The inheritance tax bill on a £3.2 million estate, even at the reduced 20% rate, comes to approximately £140,000 after the increased threshold is applied. The son does not have £140,000. The son has never had £140,000. The son has £4,200 in his current account and an overdraft.

The son sells 60 acres to a developer to pay the tax. The developer puts solar panels on the 60 acres. The remaining herd cannot be sustained on the reduced land. The herd is sold. The barn becomes a holiday let.

A different family eats Brazilian beef this Christmas without knowing why the price went up.

The Treasury collects £140,000.

The land never produces British food again.

[Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas]

1. Get married.
2. Have kids.
3. Don't let the government educate them for you.

We win in one generation.

[Douglas Wilson @douglaswils]

Because we have larceny in our hearts, we call it greed when someone wants to keep the money he made, and we don't call it greed when we want to take it from him (Rules for Reformers, p. 173).

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

US fertility reached 1.57 last year, the lowest ever recorded, and the WSJ explanation is "uncertainty about finances, relationship stability, and the political climate"

my great grandma had eleven children during the second world war, in a country being bombed, in a house with no running water, on rations.
poor people have always had kids. the poorest people on earth right now still have kids and the financial excuse is a story we tell ourselves because it makes us feel good and the real one is unbearable

the real mechanism is that we got rich enough to redefine children as an expense instead of the point. somewhere in the last fifty years the cultural goal inverted and a child stopped being what life is for and became a line item competing with the lifestyle. once you frame it that way the math never works, because the math isnt supposed to work. that's the point

we are living in the richest moment in human history and we decided to use the surplus to buy ourselves out of the future. the most prosperous civilization that has ever existed is committing demographic suicide at the altar of personal optimization and comfort, and the official line is that we cant afford it

the birthrate is a lagging indicator of a civilization that forgot why it was alive

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@michaeljknowles @conservmillen Michael, I am as much of a Calvinist in regards to salvation, election, predestination, etc as one can be. And I agree with you that pushing "faith alone" is unhelpful because it so nearly opposes a more explicit proof text. Our works do not "merit" is the main protestant point.

[Aakash Gupta @aakashgupta]

Let me explain exactly why every new subdivision in America looks like the top photo, because the math is wild.

A mature tree increases a home's value by 7 to 19 percent. On a $400,000 house, that's $28,000 to $76,000. A single shade tree produces the cooling equivalent of ten room-size air conditioners running 20 hours a day. One tree on the west side of a house cuts energy bills by 12 percent within 15 years. The bottom photo is worth more, costs less to live in, and sells faster. This has been documented by the University of Washington, Clemson, Michigan State, and the USDA. The data is not in dispute.

Removing those trees saves the builder roughly $5,000 per lot. Concrete trucks need twice the dripline radius of every standing tree. Utility trenches need flat ground. A bulldozer flattens 200 lots in an afternoon. Preserving trees adds weeks and thousands per home.

So the developer pockets $5,000 in savings and the buyer eats $50,000 in lost value for the next two decades. The person making the decision and the person paying for it have never been in the same room.

The Woodlands, Texas is the proof of what happens when they are. George Mitchell bought 28,000 acres of Houston timberland in 1974 and preserved 28% as permanent green space. He forced McDonald's to build behind the tree canopy. That McDonald's became one of the highest-volume locations in Texas. The first office building, designed to reflect the surrounding forest so you couldn't see it from the street, leased completely.

The Woodlands median home price today: $615,000. Katy, a comparable Houston suburb that clear-cut: $375,000. Named #1 community to live in America two years running.

Fifty years of data. The trees are worth more than removing them saves. Developers clear-cut anyway because they sell the house once and leave. You live in it for 30 years.

[Joe Rigney @joe_rigney]

In which @DavidAFrench comes out as a Rainbow Christian Nationalist.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@Sacerdotus @WWUTTcom He also had sisters, I'm not aware of any uses of that for mere close (or even distant) relations.

[The Rabbit Hole @TheRabbitHole]

Democrats in 1776: Let’s use slaves to increase our electoral power without letting them directly vote.

Democrats in 2026: Let’s use illegal aliens to increase our electoral power without letting them directly vote.

[Lauren Chen @TheLaurenChen]

No one on the left in 2012 believed in open borders, transing kids, or abolishing the police/prisons.

This is an attempt to rewrite history to hide how quickly you've become radicalized.

It's not working.

[Christian Heiens 🏛 @ChristianHeiens]

The math behind this is actually really fascinating, and it explains why the Left has to rely so much on institutional capture and mass migration to remain alive.

The children of Liberals adopt their worldview 89% of the time, while Conservatives see their kids adopt theirs 81% of the time.

But this advantage on the Left is dwarfed by the fact that they’re essentially an anti-catalyst movement.

We know that women have kids at a higher rate than men across the board, but Conservative men have kids at a higher rate than even Liberal women.

This means that ~59% of Conservatives become parents, while just ~31% of Liberals do.

That’s almost a 2X fertility advantage.

And when you multiply those numbers by the ideological detainment rate on both sides, you see that:

59% x .81 = 47.8
31% x .89 = 27.6

So that rounds to a minimum of 48 Conservative-aligned children per 100 Conservative adults, compared to a minimum of just 28 Liberal-aligned children per 100 Liberal adults.

Conservatives are reproducing their worldview at ~70% higher rate per adult than liberals.

And this is a minimum estimate because all our math here assumes that both the Conservable and Liberal families had only one kid, but we know Conservatives on average have much larger families.

The Left can’t compete with this organically, so they have to essentially steal the children of Conservatives through the education and media system (which they’ve all ideologically hijacked) and import new voters who will make up for their own collapsing birthrates.

If you ended all immigration and dismantled their dominance over education, the Left would be extinct in 20 years.

[Joe Rigney @joe_rigney]

Children are greater than equal.

It’s time to fight for their right to their biological mother and father.

It’s time to End Obergefell.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@elonmusk @AGPamBondi charge her with treason and sedition.

[Nathan Rose @Nateofrose]

@elonmusk Charge her with treason and sedition.

[Allie Beth Stuckey @conservmillen]

This is just another example of the psychological operation targeting women’s empathy for nefarious ends. Propagandists know it is human nature to feel more deeply for someone who is attractive than someone who is not.

It’s actually very sick. You can have compassion and state your position without this blatant manipulation. How utterly disrespectful