Holy shit Pope Leo XIII was based.

I mean, I knew, but I didn’t know. In his encyclical on socialism:
- Sounds downright Tea Party-ish in his defense of private property
- Identifies the root of socialism as greed and love of money, any claims to empathy are just a pretext
- Identifies that the true goal of socialism is to destroy the family

"I killed many of my children to slightly alter the odds of one of my children getting a disability. Praise me."

Look, there’s no ifs or buts. This is just pure evil. End of civilization

https://twitter.com/noor_siddiqui_/status/1907178921315250630

Agamemnon sacrificed just one child and his family and nation were cursed over several generations.

We deserve every punishment

I think the whole concept of a "personal essay" in a college application is ridiculous, you’re 17, you have nothing interesting to say about yourself, and I don’t know what colleges "expect" but I can’t help but be struck at how female-coded this response is (and how male-coded the original essay is)—and I assume it’s accurate because I assume most university admissions officers are women and you have to write something really female-coded to appeal to them. PS @zach_yadegari it’s "rite of passage" not "right of passage"

So Marine Le Pen is sentenced to
- "Ineligbility" (unable to run for elected office) for 5 years with "provisory execution" (meaning the sentence must be served even during appeal--inexplicable, the judge only said "it appears necessary" to impose provisory execution)
- 100 000 euro fine
- 4 years imprisonment, with the first two years to be served under house arrest and the remainder suspended Just pure banana republic stuff.

"supremely authentic culture, with its deep roots and ancient connection to the land."

Almost all Palestinians are Ottoman Arabs who arrived in the late 19th & early 20th c to take advantage of economic opportunities created by Jewish settlement (it was a deserted dump before)

https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1905227685946945731

I encourage Ms Johnstone to sample the "authentic culture" of the Palestinians by walking around Ramallah with her head uncovered without a male guardian.

JFC

As someone who grew up here, the switch in popularity from soccer to rugby is absolutely 100% linked to race. Once soccer became seen as a sport for Africans high-SES French people gravitated to rugby.

https://twitter.com/real_comfyfren/status/1904261942656594371

It's just a fact. The "vibe" of the sport changed. The 1998 World Cup win was the last time the entire country was united behind the team, and the government tried to sell it as a win for diversity.

Here’s the thing about morning routine porn:

- Men have convinced themselves that if they get the morning routine right it will give them the "momentum" to carry on through a productive day and not relapse to porn/vidya/acedia

- This is a trick. The real purpose of this mind virus is so when you fail at some part of the routine (which is why the routine has to be absurd and complicated) you then have a mental "excuse" to jerk off all day (literally or figuratively). "Oh well, I tried, but today I just didn’t get the right conditions. I’ll try again tomorrow."

- Obviously tiktok hustlers feed this delusion with "I own (lease) a Lambo and this is my morning routine in the LA mansion I rented for the day" slop content

- Obviously the whole conceit is BS and a mind virus. There’s no such thing as "momentum." What there is is the decision to make difficult choices every moment of every day and when you slip up getting up RIGHT AWAY and not making EXCUSES about how you’ll get it just right TOMORROW.

Stay strong out there, men "Brushing my teeth in the morning saved my life"

Ok here’s the TRUTH about women that blackpill incel merchants won’t tell you.

Everything about this is fundamental and you have to understand all parts and how they fit together.

1. Women are intuitive. Their mind unconsciously collects aggregates tons of signals about men to produce a verdict attractive/not attractive. THEY DO NOT FUNCTION ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE/FACTUAL CRITERIA LIKE MEN. They are "vibe" oriented but the vibe is not just pure irrationality, it’s a product of their intuition subconsciously taking a very large range of criteria into account.

1a. This accounts for the "ick" phenomenon but ALSO accounts for the fact that women can inexplicably get smitten for a guy who normally wouldn’t be in their league. This is an equally real phenomenon but somehow it doesn’t have a name & isn’t talked about by blackpill merchants.

2. There is MUCH GREATER VARIATION among women than among men in what they find attractive. What one woman finds repellent the other may find attractive and vice versa (perfect example: body/facial hair).

3. You cannot trust what women say about what they say they’re attracted to or not. It may be a shit test but most often it’s due to 1. Even if they mean it, that’s not how their intuitive brain works. And because of 2, even if one particular woman with strong self-knowledge says something accurate *about herself* you can’t generalize to women in general.

4. There’s a famous French comedy movie titled "It’s Better To Be Rich, Handsome, And In Good Health Than Poor, Ugly, And Sick" This is obvious. But once we’ve said that, does that mean you must blackpill unless you’re Brad Pitt? Ridiculous.

5. If you want to get a 5/10 or above, you gotta have SOMETHING. You gotta have, or develop, SOMETHING that makes you stand out or be interesting or attractive or high status. There’s no free lunch.

5a. But the good news is that "something" can be A LOT OF THINGS because of 1 & 2. There’s a good probability that you can develop SOMETHING that SOME women will find quite attractive. It can be humor or rizz or a clothing style or a sexy hobby (@alpharivelino) or a niche interest or a talent. There’s lots and lots of potential things that SOME women will find attractive. Eg card magic in every poll is rated as cringe, nerdy, sad, etc. I have a friend who’s a 7/10 card magician and I have watched him MELT hot women at parties with simple card tricks. He’s short and very shy and nerdy. His live-in gf is a 10/10 former model from Brazil.

6. This is fundamentally why the blackpill merchants are evil: it’s about WHAT YOU HAVE, NOT what you don’t have. In other words, NOTHING IS A DEALBREAKER. If a woman says she won’t date a man under 6’, even if she means it, if she meets a man who has A THING that rizzes her, she will forget about her 6’ rule. It’s about what you have, not what you don’t have. You can be short and get beautiful mid gf. You can be poor and get beautiful mid gf. Etc etc. Obviously these things don’t help you BUT THEY’RE NOT DEALBREAKERS

7. What this all means, I’m afraid, is that you do have to work on yourself, and that’s harder than chugging blackpills all day. You have to simply forget about the weaknesses you can’t change and identify one or two strengths and work on them and get out there and accept that, JUST LIKE CHAD, you will get more "no’s" than "yes’s". But if you DO work on yourself THERE IS HOPE

Fin. I literally had an example of this just today. My wife and I were watching the F1 Grand Prix. There was a shot of Alex Albon’s girlfriend and I commented on how shockingly hot she was.

Her: "Well, he *is* quite attractive."

Me: "What? No he’s not."

Her: "Yes he is!"

I drop the subject.

After the GP Albon is interviewed.

Wife: "See? He’s got such a beautiful smile!"

And I noticed it’s true. Albon isn’t conventionally handsome but he has a great smile.

He has a THING.

Your thing can be anything.

Straight into my fucking veiiiiiiiiins Uh, buddy, no. I would know. Not true. Sadly.

I don't know how you can read the writings of Jefferson and Franklin, or of the Yankee abolitionists before and during the Civil War, or the late 19th progressive movement, and not conclude that hyperliberalism/"wokeness" is fundamentally an Anglo-Protestant movement. Yes, America is fundamentally an Anglo-Protestant nation...and inside it are two wolves

This thread zeroes in on the key issue that immigration advocates constantly dodge: welcoming immigrants helps one group of people *and hurts another group of people*.

Pointing out that it’s good to help people, even, or even especially, if they are strangers, is neither here nor there.

It’s also bad to hurt people, even, or even especially, if they’re your fellow citizens!

My fellow citizens of the working and middle classes who are hurt by immigration are, both figuratively and literally, MY NEIGHBORS. And if we’re going to pull out flowery Christian language, can I just point out that the lower-SES half of the native citizens of the West are called THE FORGOTTEN MAN? THEY are the Samaritan, ie the outcast, the one who is never taken care of, the downtrodden, even the scapegoat, since we’re told that the only reason they have grievances is they’re nazis, violent, bigoted, etc.

The point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that you should help the person God actually puts in front of you.

Augustine opens his discussion of the ordo amoris by making this point.

The WHOLE POINT is that if you engage in the kind of performative telescopic pseudo-empathy that libs traffic in, you’re doing it wrong. This is not some esoteric interpretation. Jesus tells the parable talking to Pharisees, whose main trait in the gospels is precisely constant virtue signaling about abstract things while failing to exercise charity in their actual daily lives and personal interactions.

This was a fascinating read. One learns: (1) the Church’s care for migrants is primarily directed at Catholics (ordo amoris); (2) there are three limiting factors for immigration: the host population must AGREE; "the sovereignty of the state must be respected" (must be done legally); it cannot deplete "the national wealth"

papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12exsu…


In other words the Church wishes countries generally had more generous immigration policies but it believes that those countries should FREELY CHOOSE TO DO SO, not that people are allowed to sneak in, breaking the law, and then their governments should be morally blackmailed into not doing anything about blatant law-breaking.

Can't believe I'm doing this...

The History of the Roman Salute, a thread. 🧵 Elon Musk did a Roman Salute. This is different from a Nazi salute. With the Roman Salute you put your hand to your heart before extending your arm.

Uh, yes.

French historian Pierre Milza likes to talk about how his Italian parents wouldn’t allow him to speak Italian in the house because they wanted him to assimilate into French culture.

Losing your original language and adopting a new language is an obvious criterion of assimilation.

Our standards have fallen so low that we’ve forgotten what assimilation looks like, let alone promoting or enforcing it. Here's why this bait is so revealing: if immigrants really were coming here out of love of the country, and not pecuniary motives, they would naturally WANT to do these things. Countless historical examples can be found.

This is THE key teaching of The Graph.

Libs don’t have "excessive empathy" or "misplaced empathy" or even "pathological empathy" as you sometimes hear, they are filled with hate.

They are filled with HATE, and it is this hate which causes them to disingenuously PERFORM empathy in their weird, over-the-top way. They do this:
1. To maintain their self-image as "a good person" (phrase they repeat very often)
2. Because self-righteousness provides addictive endorphin hits
3. To weaponize their self-righteousness against their (perceived) enemies

How do we know this is true?
• They constantly fail Turing Tests (have no idea how conservatives, minorities, etc. actually think) because they don’t have actual empathy, they’re just projecting
• They’re filled with anger and bitterness which comes out very easily (not kindness and butterflies as they constantly shout)
• The empathy immediately stops when it requires they make any actual effort or contribution or sacrifice in real life (libs have the lowest rates of volunteering, giving to charity)
• Very high rates of conflict with family, friends (strange for an empathetic kind person, makes sense if they’re actually just an asshole)
• They constantly advocate for policies that hurt people they’re ostensibly meant to help & don’t change their mind when the evidence is in (Parable of the Motorcycle Helmet)

Whatever is closest to the center they hate most, therefore they hate
1. Themselves, most of all
2. Anyone like them (race, or class, or whatever)
3. Anyone who reminds them of their inadequacy (people who are successful or rich or handsome or wholesome or just happy) Other images which distill leftism:

Reading Pierre Milza’s biography of Mussolini. Milza is part of that rare and endangered species, the honest lib. He writes that he wrote this book in part in reaction to "Marxist-influenced Anglo-Saxon historiography." May report back. Main takeaway so far (I’m early, he’s still a socialist journalist): he was a genuine "intellectual." Not in the sense that he produced heavy tomes of philosophy, but in the sense that he read them avidly, understood them, thought about them, cared deeply and was influenced by them.

Wages of a high-trust society: in 18th century Paris random people could walk into people’s private homes to check out their art collections. All you needed to do was give a small tip to the valet who would let you in. Entire sections of tourist guides (already popular before then) were dedicated to this, with sections like "Mr So-and-So, rue de la Blabla, great collection of miniatures" Including very wealthy and important people. Memoirs and letters from the time confirm that this was absolutely done.

(Source: Pierre Gaxotte, Paris au XVIIIème siècle) An English traveler to Paris reports that people of all classes mingle in the streets of Paris "but the horse and foot guards do their duty so well that everywhere the most perfect order reigns … One can walk about as safely as in one’s home"

"It’s called EMPATHY! It’s called being a GOOD PERSON!"

"Lol, you got mugged? You little bitch. What are you gonna do, cry?"

https://twitter.com/alexnpress/status/1856893921391210827

Also, even if I’m not afraid, I understand how elderly persons, or women, or children, might be.

You know, literally empathy.

I cut off links with The Atlantic when they fired Williamson, but there's something truly disgusting about the way he uses a "I'm a hillbilly too!" shtick to constantly shit on his own people. Minstrelsy. Repellent.

https://twitter.com/RachaelBL/status/1835673100261757050

It's also a damn waste of really good writing talent.

For those who are wondering: yes, it is true, and denied by no historian of the period, that in June 1940 Hitler made a sincere offer of peace and rapprochement to Great-Britain.

Even apart from the fact that after Munich and everything else it was quite rational to doubt Hitler's sincerity, there is a simpler and much more fundamental reason why neither Winston Churchill, nor any other prime minister of the United Kingdom, could have taken this offer: ever since it emerged as a coherent state, the overriding security imperative of the British government has been to prevent, at all costs, the appearance of a hegemonic power on the European continent.

Take it from a Frenchman.

Us and our cousins fought centuries of war--literally, centuries of war--because of this.

They fought us in the Hundred Years' War. They fought us in the Thirty Years' War. They fought us in the Nine Years' War. They fought us in the War of Spanish Succession, during which Lord Marlborough--of whom Churchill was a direct descendant and biographer--and French armies tore up half of Germany chasing each other. They fought us in the War of the Austrian Succession. We fought them in the War of American Independence. And, of course, they fought us in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars--25 years of almost uninterrupted war.

Americans, even history nerds, don't understand history, because they are too young. History is the unfolding, over centuries and millennia, of the inner logic of nations and geography. History was in Churchill's blood, quite literally. In his bones. He understood perfectly well what every British statesman understood in June 1940, which was that the Fall of France had turned Germany into an existential enemy of the British Empire.

For a small island nation that imports most of its food, division on the European continent is a matter of survival, in the way that anti-nomad walls are a matter of survival for any Chinese empire.

Churchill would never have done it. Chamberlain would never have done it. No plausible occupant of Churchill's seat would have done it, and if he had, he would have immediately been overthrown by Parliament and replaced by, well, Churchill.

The alt history that Buchanan and others fantasized about was never, ever, ever going to happen. Bonus: