Recent well liked threads

@daniel_corcos @user3425664 @gdemaneuf When you are publishing a new assay, it’s common to nerf the conclusions so as to not invite controversy that would delay the publication of your commercial product.

Anyone with an ounce of logic can see they intentionally omitted an alternative hypothesis right here.

@daniel_corcos @user3425664 @gdemaneuf If you’d like more examples of Politically sensitive papers Nerfing the data-
Here are 3 to consider.

anandamide.substack.com/p/nerfing-the-…

anandamide.substack.com/p/nerfing-the-…

anandamide.substack.com/p/nerfing-the-…

पंचमुखी क्यों हुए हनुमानजी..?? दो मिनट की ये कहानी रौंगटे खड़े कर देगी..अंत तक जरुर पढ़े🧵

लंका में महा बलशाली मेघनाद के साथ बड़ा ही भीषण युद्ध चला. अंतत: मेघनाद मारा गया। रावण जो अब तक मद में चूर था राम सेना, खास तौर पर लक्ष्मण का पराक्रम सुनकर थोड़ा तनाव में आया।

रावण को कुछ दुःखी देखकर रावण की मां कैकसी ने उसके पाताल में बसे दो भाइयों अहिरावण और महिरावण की याद दिलाई। रावण को याद आया कि यह दोनों तो उसके बचपन के मित्र रहे हैं।

लंका का राजा बनने के बाद उनकी सुध ही नहीं रही थी। रावण यह भली प्रकार जानता था कि अहिरावण व महिरावण तंत्र-मंत्र के महा पंडित, जादू टोने के धनी और मां कामाक्षी के परम भक्त हैं।

रावण ने उन्हें बुला भेजा और कहा कि वह अपने छल बल, कौशल से श्री राम व लक्ष्मण का सफाया कर दे। यह बात दूतों के जरिए विभीषण को पता लग गयी। युद्ध में अहिरावण व महिरावण जैसे परम मायावी के शामिल होने से विभीषण चिंता में पड़ गए।

विभीषण को लगा कि भगवान श्री राम और लक्ष्मण की सुरक्षा व्यवस्था और कड़ी करनी पड़ेगी. इसके लिए उन्हें सबसे बेहतर लगा कि इसका जिम्मा परम वीर हनुमान जी को सौंप दिया जाए।

राम-लक्ष्मण की कुटिया लंका में सुवेल पर्वत पर बनी थी। हनुमान जी ने भगवान श्री राम की कुटिया के चारों ओर एक सुरक्षा घेरा खींच दिया। कोई जादू टोना तंत्र-मंत्र का असर या मायावी राक्षस इसके भीतर नहीं घुस सकता था।

It started with a warning.

Ukraine wiped out 40% of Russia’s bombers in a surprise strike—and Steve Bannon says the U.S. is now on the brink of getting dragged into World War III.

But the media shrugs. The public sleeps.

Then Bannon went nuclear—calling for two brutal consequences for Senator Lindsey Graham upon returning home from Ukraine.

🧵 THREAD

Steve Bannon didn’t waste time with pleasantries.

Speaking with Chris Cuomo, he opened with a dire warning: the United States is heading toward a global catastrophe, and most Americans have no idea how close we really are.

“Chris, we’re being sucked into a kinetic Third World War right now, that’s going to dwarf the 20th century’s First and Second World War. Inextricably we’ve been drawn in every day,” Bannon said.

The trigger, he argued, was Ukraine’s recent and audacious drone strike deep inside Russian territory—an operation that reportedly destroyed 40% of Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers.

According to Bannon, the attack wasn’t just bold, it was reckless.

“They attacked part of the strategic triad of the Russians… They took out 40% of Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers. This is something Curtis LeMay would never think of.”

But what stunned Bannon even more than the scale of the strike was what didn’t happen: there was no warning.

“What the Ukrainians did, and what the White House has said is that they never got a heads up,” he said.

“It was audacious, it was bold—but we’re sponsoring this. We’re funding it. We’re cutting deals. And now they’re dragging us in.”

That, Bannon warned, could have consequences far beyond Eastern Europe.

“Did they think they can go in and really attack into Russian territory and drag us into conflict with Russia that could metastasize?”

For context on Ukraine’s surprise attack in Russia

Russia's Pearl Harbor: Ukraine Wipes Out Nuclear Bombers in Massive Surprise Attack on Air Bases
vigilantfox.com/p/russias-pear…

Ukraine's Spiderweb Drone Attack on Russia :

Why just a day before Istanbul peace talks?

Was it aimed to hurt Russia or to Provoke Putin?

Trump vs Europe: Who will get $ 1 trillion opportunity in Ukraine?

One need "peace", Other needs war.

Read this thread till the end👇

Western media sold Spiderweb as a major Russian defeat—"Russia lost everything", they claimed.

Reality?

Russia retaliated within 72 hours:
Over 150 Ukrainian military locations hit
2,000+ Ukrainian soldiers killed
Ukraine’s logistics and power infrastructure targeted

Zelensky knew this would happen.

It happened at the time when peace talks were supposed to start in Istanbul.

Why Zelensky risked peace talks?

The operation wasn’t a spontaneous strike. It was planned over 18 months and launched days before a high-stakes ceasefire negotiation in Istanbul.

Why now?

Peace kills war profits.

A ceasefire would freeze Western weapons deals, loans, and media narratives propping up Zelensky.

Europe’s real GDP is shrinking when adjusted for inflation. In 2024:

Germany: +0.2% GDP, but 2.9% inflation → net negative

France, Italy, UK facing similar stagnation

Massive civil unrest from farmers, workers, students and immigrants.

The only growth industry left: Arms.

Only topic left to control all civil unrest is War.

🧵Thread

The TMC govt is leaving no stone unturned to turn the life of a 22-year-old college student, Sharmishta Panoli, into a ‘living hell.’

It is doing so to appease its Muslim vote bank, which has taken serious offence to the victim's video targeting Pakistan.

(1/n)

Mamata Banerjee, in an act of clear overreach, sent its police force 1500 km away to Gurgaon to arrest the young Hindu girl and bring her to Kolkata.

A local court rejected her bail petition and sent her to judicial custody for 2 long weeks.

According to the victim’s lawyer, Sharmishta is not doing well physically amid unhygienic conditions at the Alipore women correctional home.

opindia.com/news-updates/s…

(2/n)

In the meantime, the police force and the TMC govt turned a blind eye to the rape, death and ‘Sar Tan se Juda’ threats unleashed against Sharmishta Panoli online by Muslim social media users.

A few examples are included here -

(3/n)

The illusion was never built on a single lie — it was built on decades of coordinated events, each one reinforcing the last. - Edward Snowden

A Thread Exposing the Hidden Agendas Behind World Events🧵

1. The Moon Wasn't the Lie. The Footprints Were.

The Moon Landing Cover-Up

🔹 The moon landing wasn’t a scientific breakthrough. It was a Cold War performance. In 1969, the U.S. didn’t just race to the moon — it raced to control the narrative of global dominance through televised spectacle.

🔹 Decades later, the evidence has disappeared— telemetry data vanished, technology “lost,” and no return mission in over 50 years. This wasn’t a leap for mankind. It was the opening act in a decades-long theater of control.

2. 9/11 — A Catalyst for Control

🔹 9/11 wasn’t just a terrorist attack. It was a turning point in manufactured consent. In one morning, fear rewrote laws, erased rights, and justified endless war. The real collapse wasn’t just steel and concrete — it was public discernment.

🔹 From building demolitions to vanishing black boxes and untouched passports, the inconsistencies were never answered, just buried. The question was never “What happened?” It was “What did they need to happen — and who benefited?”

🚨 RLUSD: The Trojan Horse That Could Break XRP 🧵

1. The RLUSD Launch Isn’t Just a Stablecoin Drop
Ripple’s new stablecoin, RLUSD, is set to go multi-chain — launching on Ethereum and XRP Ledger.
Sounds bullish? Maybe not for $XRP holders.
Here’s why RLUSD might be the biggest existential risk to XRP yet.

2. Ripple Is Repeating Tether’s Playbook
Remember USDT?
It was born on Bitcoin’s Omni layer, but guess where it lives now?
TRON.
Why?
Because market makers want speed and low cost — and they don’t care what chain they use.

3. What If RLUSD Finds Its Home Outside XRPL?
Ripple says RLUSD will live on multiple chains.
But DeFi is on Ethereum.
Speed is on Solana or even Tron.
Liquidity moves to where trading demand is.
If RLUSD succeeds outside XRP Ledger… what’s left for XRP?

🇷🇺🚨🇺🇦 SUMY OFFENSIVE: RUSSIA GOES FOR THE JUGULAR

Ukraine propagandists are awfully quiet about the advance of Russian forces in Sumy.

This is a WAR OF ATTRITION — and Russia is pushing HARD.

🧵Here's what you need to know👇

INCURSION DOUBLES IN SIZE

🪖Russian-controlled area in Sumy expands to 235 km2 in just one week.

🔸Shocking visuals confirm—Russian forces have secured the high ground to the north of Sumy

🔸Sumy is now vulnerable to relentless Russian artillery strikes

🔸Even if Russia doesn’t storm Sumy, Ukraine will be forced to divert troops from Donbass and other fronts

🇷🇺🇺🇦 The Crimean Kerch bridge

Why is it so important to Kiev? What do the Ukrainians see in trying to destroy a civilian infrastructure.

For PR points? Or plain jealousy of their incapability to compete with Russian engineering.

1/7 🧵

The Kerch bridge is the longest bridge in Europe, spanning 18km between mainland Russia and Crimea.

Built between 2016-19. It was an engineering marvel and one of the most resilient civil engineering achievement of Russia.

2/7

Why do the Ukrainians hate it?

The Ukrainians claim Russia uses it for operations on the front lines but that's a lie ever since late 2022.

Ever since the fall of Mariupol the Russian army shifted it's logistics to mainland railway systems built in the Donetsk region.

3/7

8 Greatest Laws I know at 40, I wish I knew at 20:

1.

2.

3.

CS Lewis, Tolkien, and Chesterton were all inspired by one writer

His works shaped Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, and countless other tales

Here’s the writer behind the writers —

And his books that inspired the greatest thinkers of the 20th century…🧵

George Macdonald was a 19th century author

He was a pioneer of the fantasy genre, and a personal mentor to Lewis Caroll

On the surface, he wrote simple children stories

But his worlds were also imbued with a hidden genius

Macdonald had a special influence on CS Lewis, who wrote:

“I have never concealed the fact that I regarded Macdonald as my master”

He helped inspired both Chronicles of Narnia, and also Lewis’ return to the faith

Chesterton and Tolkien shared similar praise…

Baixa massa muscular leva a uma vida bem mais curta e extremamente menos saudável.

Abaixo deixarei minhas 15 melhores dicas pra ganhar músculo como uma máquina:

1. Pare de beber álcool.

2. Sua dieta deve ser rica em proteínas.

Sem proteína suficiente, não há crescimento. Ponto.

3. Ovos e carne vermelha são super alimentos.

Ricos em proteína, creatina natural, vitaminas e minerais que suportam o ganho muscular.

4. Treine 3-4x por semana apenas.

Isso já é mais que suficiente pra construir músculos.

Nem eu não treino 5x na semana, eu trabalho demais e seria inutil.

5. Faça o mais difícil primeiro.

Procrastinando pra ir? Treine de manhã.

Antes que sua mente crie desculpas.

1/ As more people awaken to the realization that the twentieth century was not a march of progress toward a utopian end of history but a carefully managed illusion, the official narrative begins to unravel.

Beneath its polished veneer lies a record not of moral clarity but of deception, betrayal, and orchestrated catastrophe. Among these illusions, none is more sacrosanct, more zealously defended, than the myth of the Second World War, the so-called “Good War.”

But what did that “Good War” truly achieve? In the words of Patrick J. Buchanan, whose reflection is shown below, the Second World War extinguished the last embers of Western ascendancy. All the great houses of continental Europe fell. The empires that once ruled the globe vanished. Birthrates collapsed. Peoples of European ancestry have been in demographic decline for generations. The spiritual confidence that once drove the West was replaced by exhaustion and disinheritance. The Allies may have won on the battlefield, but the civilization they claimed to defend did not survive the victory.

With this in mind, it becomes easier to understand why a serious body of historical work emerged after 1945 and was immediately subjected to suppression, censorship, and denunciation. These books, written by generals, diplomats, journalists, defectors, and independent historians, challenge every sacred premise of the official narrative.

For decades, they were buried or discredited by a powerful alliance of media monopolies, academic gatekeepers, and elites and institutions motivated by a wide range of financial, political, and ethnic interests, and often by their convergence, all determined to preserve the mythology of the “Good War.”

Only with the rise of social media and the weakening grip of legacy power structures has this alternative historiography begun to reach a broader audience. Its revival is not accidental. It reflects the slow collapse of the ideological consensus that once rendered dissent unthinkable.

To continue laying waste to the phony narrative, we must turn to the books that have dared to question it. In the thread below, I will be examining books that explore the origins of the war in Europe and the political decisions in Great Britain that helped transform a regional conflict into a global catastrophe, one that has shaped and continues to shape the political, demographic, cultural, economic, and moral character of a Western world in decline.

2/ The first serious fracture in the orthodoxy
surrounding the Second World War came not from a dissident writer or political radical, but from within the British academic establishment itself. In “The Origins of the Second World War,” published in 1961, A. J. P. Taylor, then the most widely read historian in Britain, offered a meticulous, document-based account that contradicted nearly every moral and strategic justification used to explain the outbreak of war in 1939.

Taylor did not write as some sort of partisan ideologue. He was a liberal, a former supporter of the League of Nations, and a staunch opponent of fascism. Yet his research led him to a deeply uncomfortable conclusion: that Hitler did not plan a world war, that he was often improvisational and opportunistic, and that the road to war was paved largely by diplomatic blunders and deliberate misjudgments in London and Paris.

Taylor’s thesis directly undermined the “Eternal Nuremberg” interpretation of history that had come to dominate Anglo-American public life—the notion that the war was the result of a premeditated and uniquely evil conspiracy. Moreover, Taylor showed that Hitler’s aims, particularly from 1933 to 1939, were not significantly different from those of previous German statesmen: the reversal of Versailles, the recovery of lost territory, and the reintegration of Germans stranded in foreign states by postwar border arrangements. The evidence for this lay in the archives themselves. Taylor carefully studied internal German memoranda, the minutes of cabinet meetings, and diplomatic telegrams, finding no coherent long-term plan for world conquest.

Instead, he showed that Hitler’s decisions were often made late, subject to change, and reactive to the moves of other powers. For example, the remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936 was conducted with fewer than 30,000 lightly armed troops, many of them instructed to retreat at the first sign of French resistance. Hitler took that gamble only after being assured that the Western powers were distracted and unwilling to act. Similarly, the Anschluss with Austria in 1938 was not imposed by military invasion but welcomed by vast crowds and arranged with the cooperation of pro-German factions within Austria itself.

Taylor argued that the final crisis came in March 1939, not because of Hitler’s escalating aggression, but because of Britain’s uncharacteristic and poorly calculated guarantee to Poland. This move, made in response to Germany’s absorption of the remaining Czech lands after the collapse of Prague, committed Britain to defend Poland’s borders, borders that had been drawn arbitrarily by the Versailles Treaty and which included millions of Germans under foreign rule, especially in the so-called “Polish Corridor” and the Free City of Danzig. Taylor emphasized that Germany had made repeated proposals for negotiation on Danzig, including autonomy under German protection and the construction of a road and rail link between East Prussia and the Reich. Poland refused all overtures, relying on British backing. Britain, in turn, offered a blank check it had neither the intention nor the military capacity to honor, and which effectively ended any hope of peaceful settlement.

One of Taylor’s more striking revelations was that Hitler had not expected Britain to declare war over Poland, and that his staff had drawn up a range of alternative plans that included prolonged talks, joint commissions, and guarantees of minority rights. Taylor noted that Hitler did not order total mobilization or shift the economy to a wartime footing in 1939. The Wehrmacht itself was underprepared for prolonged hostilities. The decision to invade Poland was not part of a global design but a response to a local impasse, one made irreconcilable by British guarantees.

Relatedly, he also demonstrated how France, paralyzed by internal division and political instability, essentially followed Britain’s lead while possessing far less strategic interest in Eastern Europe. The diplomatic drama was not one of appeasement failing to contain aggression, but of incompatible ultimatums, nationalist posturing, and bluff diplomacy turned deadly.

The academic and political reaction to Taylor’s book was swift and punitive. Though written in a restrained tone, and grounded entirely in publicly available government documents, the work was denounced as irresponsible, dangerous, and even treasonous. Taylor lost editorial positions and speaking engagements. His public standing was damaged, and major media outlets attempted to cast him as sympathetic to Hitler, despite his long history of “anti-totalitarianism.” Yet the book could not be dismissed outright. Its prose was lucid, its reasoning meticulous, and its evidence drawn entirely from the official archives of Britain, France, and Germany.

By refusing to mythologize the war and instead treating it as a tragic outcome of failed diplomacy and misjudged alliances, Taylor restored history to its proper terrain: a human record of choices, mistakes, and consequences. He showed that the war was not a moral necessity, but a political catastrophe, one that might have been avoided had European leaders acted with prudence instead of pride. His book remains a landmark, not for what it says about Hitler, but for what it exposes about the democracies that claimed to oppose him.

3/ If A. J. P. Taylor reopened the question of who wanted war, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof expanded the dossier. A former Bundeswehr general and military historian, Schultze-Rhonhof brought to the table what Taylor lacked: fluency in German primary sources, an intimate knowledge of military strategy, and access to materials either ignored or suppressed in Western academia. In “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers,” he offered one of the most exhaustive chronological reconstructions of the years leading to the Second World War, grounding his conclusions not in polemics but in state papers, newspaper records, diplomatic correspondence, and official archives.

His central thesis was stark but carefully built: that the war was not a single act of German aggression, but the culmination of complex and deliberate provocations by multiple states, with Britain, Poland, and even the United States playing more active roles in provoking the final conflict than is commonly acknowledged. Schultze-Rhonhof showed that far from planning a war of conquest, Hitler’s foreign policy through much of the 1930s remained cautious, reactive, and limited in scope. Until late 1938, the German government’s strategy focused overwhelmingly on revising the Versailles boundaries, especially in regions with clear ethnic German majorities, while avoiding any confrontation with the Western powers.

A major portion of the book is dedicated to the Polish government’s intransigence during the Danzig crisis. Schultze-Rhonhof documented how Poland, under Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły and Foreign Minister Józef Beck, rejected every single German proposal, including extremely moderate ones that would have returned Danzig to Germany while preserving Polish access to the sea and full economic autonomy in the corridor. Hitler even offered international oversight of the rail corridor and guaranteed Polish sovereignty elsewhere. These proposals were not vague or informal; they were transmitted repeatedly through diplomatic channels and backed with detailed memoranda. Yet Poland, counting on the Anglo-French guarantee, refused all negotiations.

The author also placed heavy emphasis on the role of the Polish military in escalating tensions. From early 1939 onward, Polish forces were mobilizing along the German border, conducting raids into German territory, and persecuting the ethnic German population within Polish-controlled areas. Schultze-Rhonhof cited dozens of documented cases of physical violence, property confiscation, and local pogroms against Germans in the months before the invasion, acts largely ignored by British media at the time. The German invasion, he argued, came not in a vacuum, but as a response to escalating hostilities and the total diplomatic deadlock created by Polish confidence in British support.

Perhaps most controversially, the book catalogued Anglo-French behavior during the summer of 1939, arguing that Britain’s war guarantee to Poland in March was given not to preserve peace but to ensure that Germany would be trapped in a two-front war. According to the documents cited by Schultze-Rhonhof, the British cabinet knew they had no means of projecting power east of France, yet extended a commitment they could neither enforce nor withdraw. Instead of deterring Hitler, this guarantee emboldened Poland and removed all incentive to negotiate. Simultaneously, both Britain and France increased pressure on the Soviet Union for a military alliance, which resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only after Western overtures had failed.

In terms of structure, Schultze-Rhonhof’s book is methodical. It begins in the early 1930s and tracks each nation’s foreign policy chronologically—Germany, France, Britain, Poland, the Soviet Union, and the United States, treating them as active participants rather than passive observers. He highlighted lesser-known events such as Czech-Polish clashes, Polish territorial ambitions in Czechoslovakia following Munich, and French incitement against Germany in Eastern Europe. His contention was that Britain’s policy shifted from appeasement to provocation not in response to German aggression, but in accordance with deeper, and historic geopolitical aims, namely, the containment and destruction of Germany as a continental power.

Though Schultze-Rhonhof’s findings were based on publicly available records, the reception of his book was predictably hostile. Major publishers refused to handle it in English. The German media either ignored or vilified it, despite the author’s reputation as a respected former general. Academic reviewers dismissed it without direct engagement, relying on insinuation rather than refutation. The book circulated primarily through small presses, translated editions, and online platforms, kept alive not by institutions, but by readers seeking a fuller understanding of the war’s origins.

“1939: The War That Had Many Fathers” is not an exercise in apologia, but a clearheaded study in the tragic arithmetic of power, diplomacy, and mutual distrust. Its message is clear: the war could have been prevented. What brought it into being was not merely one man’s ambition, but the compounded folly of multiple governments, and the triumph of rigidity over reason.

NEW: Today, we sent the first rescissions package to Capitol Hill.

This package contains BILLIONS in wasteful foreign aid and federal funding for NPR and PBS.

Here’s just some of the waste, fraud, and abuse identified: 🧵

$67,000 for testing insect powder nutrition on children in Madagascar.

$33,000 for “Being LGBTI in the Caribbean.”

$643,000 for LGBTQI+ programs in the Western Balkans.

$567,000 for LBGTQI+ programs in Uganda.

1/

🚨🚨🚨🚨THIS IS A THREAD YOU DO NOT WANT TO MISS 🚨🚨🚨🚨

A thread 🧵 about the corrupt and dishonest United Nations.

This thread will offer just a small glimpse into how disingenuous, corrupt and dishonest the United Nations is when it comes to transparency and accountability. I’m going to focus on just one thing that really says it all.

I would urge EVERYONE to read this and share it everywhere.

2/

Kurt Waldheim was the Secretary General of the UN from the January 1st, 1972 to December 31st, 1981 (9 years and 364 days).

Now interestingly, Kurt Waldheim was also a Nazi. He served from the end of 1941 through to the end in 1945, and ended his service as first lieutenant.

3/

While stationed in the Soviet bloc in 1944, and working within the propaganda intelligence bureau, Waldheim reviewed and approved a packet of antisemitic propaganda leaflets that were to be dropped behind Soviet lines, one of which ended: "Enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over."

He was a Special Missions Staff Officer, and was responsible for the forceful removal of Jews from Greece and several other countries to concentration camps and their deaths in 1944.

in general, gen z culture doesn’t have a norm for greeting/acknowledging people they don’t already know. Their custom is headphones/eyes down until engagement is required. It’s a “don’t speak unless spoken to” culture. This of course feels dehumanizing to anyone older

https://twitter.com/pbprot/status/1929872248795435422

I think this comes from a combination of screen-habituation (chronically staring at something that never “looks back” at you), social anxiety from lack of practice in the public square, and a new norm around not “bothering people” (inserting yourself into anyone’s social space)

Because gen z has normalized near-constant device use, the assumption baked into many of their interactions seems to be: “Everyone is already engaged with what they want to be engaging with (whether that’s media or people), so it’s rude to interrupt.”

Só não sou libertário porque sou católico, já os libertários podiam ser católicos se lessem São Tomás de Aquino.

A seguir, exponho os principais erros do libertarianismo e a resposta da doutrina católica tradicional para o mesmo problema, com explicações teológicas, filosóficas e morais, apoiadas em autores católicos:

1. Erro fundamental: Liberdade como princípio absoluto

Doutrina libertária:

O libertarianismo vê a liberdade individual como um valor supremo, ou mesmo absoluto. Toda a moral e organização social devem, segundo essa visão, submeter-se ao princípio da não-agressão (non-aggression principle), onde qualquer interferência, mesmo legítima, do Estado ou da comunidade, é vista como injusta.

Doutrina católica tradicional:

Para a Igreja, a liberdade não é um fim em si mesmo, mas um meio ordenado ao bem. A verdadeira liberdade é a liberdade para o bem, isto é, a capacidade da vontade de escolher o que é conforme a lei natural e divina.

São Tomás de Aquino:
“Libertas est facultas voluntatis et rationis ordinata ad bonum.”
(A liberdade é uma faculdade da vontade e da razão ordenada ao bem.)
Suma Teológica, I-II, q. 17

Leiam também o meu post sobre liberdade individual para melhor aprofundamento. Fundamental.

Assim, o uso da liberdade fora da ordem do bem (para o pecado ou para a destruição da ordem social) não é legítimo. A liberdade sem referência à verdade e ao bem é licenciosidade, não liberdade.

2. Erro: Negação da lei natural e da moral objetiva

Doutrina libertária:

O indivíduo é o árbitro último da moral, desde que não agrida fisicamente outros. Isto resulta num relativismo moral prático. A autoridade pública ou religiosa é vista como opressiva se impuser qualquer padrão moral comum.

Doutrina católica tradicional:

A moral é objetiva, fundada na lei natural, inscrita por Deus no coração humano. O Estado tem a obrigação de promover o bem comum, incluindo o bem moral, e de reprimir o mal, especialmente se este ataca as bases da sociedade (como a blasfémia pública, o aborto, a pornografia, etc.).

Papa Leão XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum (1888):
“A liberdade, longe de ser um direito de fazer tudo o que se quer, é antes o poder de agir segundo a reta razão; e esta é a verdadeira liberdade da pessoa.”

Santo Agostinho:
“A lei não é feita para reprimir a liberdade, mas para a tornar livre.”
De Libero Arbitrio

3. Desconsideração do pecado original e da natureza decaída do homem

Doutrina libertária:

O libertarianismo, tal como concebido pelos seus fundadores (como Murray Rothbard ou Ludwig von Mises), parte de uma visão otimista e rousseauniana do ser humano: o indivíduo é racional, autossuficiente e naturalmente pacífico. A ordem social pode emergir espontaneamente da livre interação de indivíduos autónomos e contratantes.

Assim, dispensa-se a autoridade, a correção moral externa e o papel disciplinador do Estado, porque se presume que o homem, deixado livre, agirá com razoabilidade e justiça. O mal é visto como exceção ou resultado de interferências externas (especialmente estatais), e não como algo inerente à natureza humana.

Doutrina católica tradicional:

A Igreja ensina que o homem está ferido pelo pecado original, o qual afetou a inteligência, a vontade e as paixões. O ser humano, sem a graça e sem freios sociais e morais, tende para o erro, o egoísmo e o pecado. Portanto, é necessário haver:
•autoridade legítima (para conter o mal),
•lei moral objetiva (para orientar a conduta),
•e ordem política estruturada segundo os princípios cristãos.

Concílio de Trento:
“Por um só homem entrou o pecado no mundo, e pelo pecado a morte; e assim a morte passou a todos os homens, porque todos pecaram.”
Sessão V, Decreto sobre o Pecado Original

São Tomás de Aquino:
“O homem, após o pecado original, necessita de governo para refrear os impulsos desordenados da concupiscência.”
Suma Teológica, I, q. 96, a. 4

Papa Leão XIII, Diuturnum Illud (1881):
“Se o homem estivesse apto a governar-se a si mesmo perfeitamente, sem cair no erro, não seria necessário o poder civil. Mas, por causa da inclinação ao mal, é necessário que exista quem o refreie.”

A desconsideração do pecado original leva, portanto, a uma visão antropológica falsa, que deifica a liberdade humana e nega a necessidade de mediações morais e sociais.

Slokas which a Hindu should know

Important prarthana slokas which everyone should know & to be taught to our kids.

1. Morning sloka

When you wake up, look at your hands & chant

कराग्रे वसते लक्ष्मीः करमध्ये सरस्वती
करमूले तु गोविन्दः प्रभाते करदर्शनम्

2. Morning prayers to Bhoomi Devi

समुद्रवसने देवि पर्वतस्तनमण्डले ।
विष्णुपत्नि नमस्तुभ्यं पादस्पर्शं क्षमस्वमे ॥

3. During bath

गङ्गे च यमुने चैव गोदावरि सरस्वति ।
नर्मदे सिन्धु कावेरी जलेऽस्मिन् संनिधिं कुरु ॥

4. Tulasi Devi pradakshina 3 times

प्रसीदा तुलसी देवी
प्रसीदा हरि वल्लभ
क्षीरोदा मदनोबुधे
तुलसी त्वाम नमम्यहम्

5. Pradakshina to Ashwattha tree 7 times

This man cracked the psychology of shopping.

Retailers like Walmart & Costco redesigned their entire stores around his findings.

Here’s how Paco Underhill learned to control what you buy without you even knowing it:

In the 1980s, Paco Underhill noticed something that would spark a revolution in retail.

Shoppers’ behavior inside stores was filled with patterns, small, often unnoticed actions that determined whether they’d make a purchase or walk away empty-handed.

He started studying people, cataloging thousands of hours of in-store video footage, and digging deep into the “why” behind every decision.

From the direction people turn when entering a store to the amount of space between aisles, every detail impacts their decision to buy

Do you have fond memories of summer camp as a child? Playing outside? Making new friends? Learning new skills?

Do you remember during summer camp when grown men would dress in tutus and dance in your face? Or the time where the unicorn staff welcomed you to camp with rainbow and song?

You don’t? You must’ve never went to Camp Brave Trails then… 🧵

“Camp Brave Trails blends the best of traditional summer camp with an LGBTQ+ twist. We’ve done away with gender-segregated spaces, restrictive dress codes, and the need to explain your identity. Instead, we focus on friendship, personal growth, and, of course, having an absolute blast!”

And get this! The camp is SPECIFICALLY for minors! Ages 12-17 years old. 🧵

Here are some of the workshops you can take at Camp Brave Trails. 🧵

The Wall Street Journal just published the FDA's Opinion piece-length rationale for banning talc.

I was happy to see they were citing studies, but after I read the studies, I was dismayed:

The FDA fell victim to bad science, and they might ban talcum powder because of it!

🧵

The evidence cited in the article is

- A 2019 meta-analysis
- A review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
- A 2019 cohort study from Taiwan

Let's go through each of these and see if the FDA's evidence holds water.

The first piece of evidence they cite is a meta-analysis, and it's a doozy.

The study includes 27 estimates of the observational association between talc use and ovarian cancer rates.

Three estimates come from cohort studies. Those are fine. The problem is the 24 other studies.