Normalguy NotHitler @NormalguyHitler

In 1993 he was charging $5,000 per seminar seat and selling out arenas across America. By 2000 his company Robbins Research International had generated over $400 million in revenue. By 2023 his net worth had crossed $600 million and he was charging $1 million per private consulting day. Presidents and billionaires flew him in on private jets to fix one conversation. He built all of it on one skill. His name is Tony Robbins. And in the early 1990s he sat down in a training room and explained exactly how he does it. He opened with a number that most people in that room got completely backwards. 80% of being effective in front of any room is why you are there. 20% is how. Most speakers spend 100% of their preparation on the how. The words. The slides. The structure. The order. He said that is exactly why most people are forgettable the moment they stop talking. He said when he walks into a room he has zero internal dialogue. None. He is entirely focused outward on the people in front of him. The moment he starts talking to himself inside his head about whether it is going well — it stops going well. Every time. He ran the most effective direct response television show in the United States at the time. Outselling every competitor by three times. Not because of better production. Because of one framework he used in every single episode. First 40% of any presentation — get people to say me too. Not so what. Me too. You are not there to impress them. You are there to make them feel understood. Until that happens nothing else works. Next 10% — logic and reason. Just enough to let people justify the decision they have already emotionally made. Not more. Most speakers spend 80% of their time here and wonder why nothing lands. Next 40% — attack and confess. Say out loud every reason someone would not do what you are asking. Confess that you have been guilty of it too. The moment you name their resistance before they do you become the only person in the room they fully trust. Last 10% — solution and ask. By this point the ask is a formality. He said persuasion is a transference of emotion. You cannot transfer what you are not experiencing. If you are not genuinely moved by what you are saying the room will not be moved either. No technique fixes that gap. He also said something most people in that room heard as a throwaway line and almost nobody acted on. When two human beings meet the one who is most congruent will control the situation. Every time. Without exception. The tape runs just over an hour. Free on YouTube since the early 1990s. Almost nobody outside of professional speakers has watched it as a complete system.

Potato @Potatxxl

a week ago

x.com/i/article/2090…

0 14 58 821K 107

Meet Scott Bessent. In 1992, he engineered the Black Wednesday short against the British Pound that made George Soros a billionaire in a single afternoon. He broke four currencies during his mercenary career, and has strong ties to Jeffrey Epstein, Ehud Barak, and the City of London financial cabal. In the past two weeks, Bessent has organized the most aggressive restructuring of the American financial system in modern history, and not one word about it from our devious, filthy media partisans. And as these machinations converge with US debt crossing the $40 Trillion line of no return, a severely weakened dollar is now in crisis, awaiting Bessent's emergency policies that will enrich the entire Epstein Class even further, while pulling the rug on American citizens. Presently, he is using the Treasury to buy back US bonds at an unprecedented rate, and now wants to tap the TGA for more—which is how he crashed the Japanese Yen while managing the Soros Fund. If Bessent does intend to collapse the US dollar at the behest of his Globohomo masters, the only outcome can be a private stablecoin bailout in lieu of a CBDC, the creation of which Trump banned by executive order last year. American cultural and financial sovereignty would then rest with the Judeo-Banking elite, hidden behind the farcical facades of our traitorous governmental institutions...

In the carnage of Flanders, one can see the virtues of aristocracy and sins of plutocracy While the aristocrats (generally Tories) did their duty and led the men in the muddy trenches, suffering a 20% death rate, Lloyd George's plutocratic friends sat back and got rich, profiting off the sacrifice of the real upper class and the working class This was recognized at the time, yet still the aristocracy declined after the war and the plutocracy rose Britain has never been the same

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1

2 days ago

The scale of the British upper class's sacrifice in World War I has been largely forgotten, but was so high as to be a civilizational catastrophe on a scale unseen for centuries: the ~20% death toll it suffered hadn't been seen since the Wars of the Roses And, much like that

84 425 3K 138K 653

Il y a trois mois, j’ai présenté mes excuses au nom des Français pour avoir enfanté la French Theory. Foucault. Derrida. Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants. Un poison exporté. Le wokisme comme enfant américain d’un jeu intellectuel parisien. Ce que je n’avais pas assez nommé, c’est la cible. Pas « les normes ». Pas « la bourgeoisie ». L’ordre naturel. L’ordre naturel, ce n’est pas un slogan. Ce n’est pas une nostalgie. Ce n’est pas un programme. C’est le code compilé de l’humanité. Pendant des siècles, les civilisations ont itéré. Elles ont testé. Elles ont payé leurs erreurs en famines, en guerres, en lignées éteintes. Ce qui restait debout n’était pas « dominant » au sens militant. C’était simplement ce qui tenait. Un homme. Une femme. Des enfants. Une transmission. Le père qui protège et impose une exigence. La mère qui porte et relie. L’enfant qui reçoit un monde déjà habité, pas un terrain vague à déconstruire. La famille comme unité de temps long. La seule structure qui investit dans quelqu’un qui n’existe pas encore. Ce n’est pas une théorie. C’est un résultat. Le résultat d’un algorithme que personne n’a écrit : la sélection. Et c’est cet ordre-là qui a produit ce que nous appelons encore la civilisation. Le beau n’est pas tombé du ciel. Il est né dans des sociétés qui croyaient qu’il existait une forme, une proportion, un héritage à continuer. On ne sculpte pas le David, on n’élève pas une cathédrale, on n’écrit pas une fugue, si l’on pense que toute forme est une violence et que toute transmission est une oppression. La science non plus. La science suppose qu’il existe une vérité accessible à la raison. Qu’un homme peut se tromper, et qu’un autre peut le corriger. Qu’il y a un réel, pas seulement des récits. Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur n’ont pas déconstruit. Ils ont cherché. Ils ont transmis. Ils ont tenu que le monde était lisible. La révolution industrielle encore moins. Elle n’est pas née d’un slogan. Elle est née de familles qui accumulaient, d’ateliers qui formaient, de capital transmis, d’une morale du temps long, d’hommes et de femmes qui acceptaient qu’un effort d’aujourd’hui serve un enfant de demain. Sans transmission, pas de surplus. Sans surplus, pas de machine. Sans machine, on reste dans la rareté éternelle que la gauche adore administrer. Voilà ce qu’est l’ordre naturel. Pas une cage. Un compilateur. Et c’est précisément ce compilateur que certains ont décidé d’effacer. Pas par accident. Par jeu. Puis par habitude. Puis par jouissance. Dans les années 60 et 70, une fraction de la gauche intellectuelle française n’a pas seulement critiqué la famille. Elle a entrepris de la rendre méprisable. Le mariage ridicule. Le père superflu. La maternité aliénante. L’enfant un sujet politique. La transmission une domination. Ce n’était pas de la compassion. C’était du sadisme intellectuel. Le 26 janvier 1977, Le Monde publie une pétition. Elle demande l’abrogation des articles du code pénal qui répriment les relations sexuelles entre adultes et enfants de moins de quinze ans. Elle affirme que des enfants de 12 à 14 ans étaient « consentants ». Parmi les signatures : Sartre, Beauvoir, Deleuze, Derrida, Barthes, Guattari, Dolto. Le gotha de la gauche respectable. Il faut laisser cette phrase tenir toute seule. Les mêmes milieux qui enseignaient que toute norme est une violence ont signé, en conscience, pour faire sauter la dernière limite : celle qui protège l’enfant de l’adulte. Ce n’est pas une dérive. C’est le cœur du logiciel. Si la vérité n’existe pas, si tout n’est que pouvoir, si toute forme est oppression, alors la famille est un commando, le père un tyran, la mère une prison, et l’enfance un territoire à libérer. Libérer de quoi ? De la transmission. De la limite. Du réel. Ils ont pris le code source de la civilisation et ils l’ont traité comme un texte à déconstruire. Par élégance. Par haine de ce qui les avait nourris. Par le plaisir très particulier de ceux qui sont assez protégés par l’ordre pour pouvoir le brûler en théorie. Cinquante ans plus tard, le résultat est sous nos yeux. Natalité en chute libre. Hommes et femmes qui ne se supportent plus. Enfants élevés sans boussole. Institutions qui ne savent plus dire ce qu’est une femme. Une presse qui met en une « l’amitié, un nouveau mode de vie », comme si un groupe WhatsApp pouvait remplacer une lignée. Ce n’est pas un progrès. C’est la dernière peau du même projet : remplacer ce qui a été sélectionné par ce qui s’administre. Un pote n’élève pas un enfant à 3 heures du matin pendant quinze ans. Un slogan ne transmet pas un métier. Un droit inventé ne produit ni cathédrale, ni théorème, ni moteur. Les millions de gens qui ont hérité de ce logiciel ne sont pas des monstres. Ils ont reçu un code pourri. Les mauvaises idées tuent d’abord ceux qui y croient. La reconversion est possible. Mais l’ordre naturel, lui, n’a pas besoin d’être réinventé. Il a besoin d’être assumé. Un homme est un homme. Une femme est une femme. Un enfant n’est pas un adulte miniature à politiser. La famille n’est pas une option lifestyle. C’est la seule structure qui a prouvé, sur la durée longue, qu’elle peut faire tenir une civilisation. On a assez déconstruit. Maintenant on compile à nouveau. Les bâtisseurs n’ont jamais eu besoin de la permission de Libération. Ils ont besoin d’un père, d’une mère, d’un réel, et d’un futur assez désirable pour qu’on accepte d’y mettre des enfants. Pardon. Et au travail.

Brivael Le Pogam @brivael

3 months ago

Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme). Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons

4K 22K 73K 56.2M 35K

The Muslim Turks loved flaying (skinning) alive Christians. During the Ottoman period, they applied it mainly against Greek rebels to deter and discipline others. As usual, the Christian victim was beaten, publicly humiliated, and tied to a special scaffold for immobilization. Then, skilled executioners removed his skin with sharp knives before the crowd. Here are 3 characteristic cases. The first concerns Dionysios, Greek Bishop of Larisa and Trikki, who lived in the 16th–17th centuries. An enlightened hierarch with brilliant studies in philosophy, medicine, theology, and more at major Western universities, he earned the title "Philosopher." In the early 17th century (1601 and 1611), he initiated two revolutionary movements in Thessaly and Epirus. Both failed, and in 1611 he was captured alive. In Ioannina's central square, before a crowd, he was skinned alive in a martyrdom lasting five hours, aged around 70. The vandalism continued: his flayed body was thrown to dogs, while his skin was stuffed with straw and bran, dressed in archiepiscopal vestments, and paraded through the city with music for days. Finally, it was sent to the Sultan and ended up discarded in the royal stables. Another well-known case is that of Daskalogiannis. On June 17, 1771, he was led to a central square in Chandax (Heraklion). A wooden scaffold with a special seat had been erected. Tied tightly to it, he was flayed starting from the head by a monstrous executioner who threw pieces of skin to the crowd, saying: "Take leather for your boots!" A second executioner periodically showed him his flayed face in a mirror, mocking: "Look, captain, how well the red suits you!" Relatives (brother and daughter) in the crowd went mad at the sight. He endured steadfastly and died when the flaying reached his shoulder blades. His flayed body remained exposed in the June heat for days in that square (now named in his honor) until the stench forced the Turks to bury it. The third case is that of the Venetian Marco Antonio Bragadin. He was executed by flaying in August 1571 in Famagusta, Cyprus, after defending the island alongside the Greeks. They first cut off both of Bragadin’s ears and his nose. While he was in captivity, a massacre of all the remaining Christians in the city took place. After being left in prison for two weeks with his wounds festering, he was dragged around the city walls carrying sacks of earth and stone on his back. Next, he was tied to a chair and hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship, where he was exposed to the taunts of the sailors. Finally, he was taken to the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive. Bragadin’s quartered body was then distributed as war trophies among the army, while his skin was stuffed with straw, sewn back together, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession through the streets of Famagusta. In 1580, his skin was stolen by Girolamo Polidori and brought back to Venice, where it remains today in the Basilica di San Giovanni e Paolo. The martyrdom of flaying (skinning alive) is ancient. Herodotus mentions that it was originally practiced by the Scythians. He describes how Scythian warriors treated conquered foes, using their enemies' skin to manufacture leather trophy items. Archaeology has recently confirmed Herodotus' account. Scalp flaying was called "periskythismos" due to this Scythian custom. It was always a sign of barbarity and fortunately an exception rather than the rule. The punishment was also used by the Romans during persecutions of Christian martyrs, the best-known case being the apostle Bartholomew. -Homer Pavlos

The rest of the series is under this post:

Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland

2 months ago

Here is a list in case you missed any: 26 pieces – Animal Farm, LOTR, 1984, Brave New World, Plato, Rousseau, Voltaire, The Odyssey, Network, Demolition Man, Aristotle, Tocqueville, Marcus Aurelius, Monte Cristo, Epicurus, Idiocracy, The Little Prince, Atlas Shrugged, The

195 260 988 357K 1K

Woodstock – Where the Long March Began August 1969. Two futures competed on the same American televisions in a single summer. In July, men walked on the Moon – the summit of the navigator civilization. Four weeks later, half a million young people sat in the mud of a dairy farm and called it a new dawn. Everyone remembers Woodstock as a concert. It was a coronation. The Moon lost. 1. Notice what Woodstock was not. Not a protest – nothing was demanded. Not a movement – nothing was built. It was a feeling, declared sufficient, and celebrated for fifty years as a moral achievement. That is the founding trick: feeling substituted for doing – and a generation learned that you become good by attending. 2. The same spirit had crossed the Atlantic the year before, dressed by local custom. The French, heirs of 1789, did it as they always do: barricades, paving stones, mai 68, de Gaulle briefly fleeing the country. The Americans threw a festival. Riot and concert – different modes, same direction: the same generation declaring war on the father, the norm, the builder. When one virus produces different symptoms in different bodies, you stop studying the symptoms and start studying the virus. 3. And the virus had a theory. Marcuse had published it four years earlier: tolerance for everything except the existing order. Woodstock was not the plan – the crowd had read nothing. It was the demonstration: proof that a generation could be turned against its own civilization by atmosphere alone. The strategists watched half a million volunteers assemble themselves and understood the institutions would never need to be stormed. They would be strolled into. 4. Look at what was actually worshipped in that field. Not peace – the war was elsewhere. Not love – love builds, binds, stays; this dispersed on Monday. The Religion of Life celebrates fertility, continuity, the torch passed on; the religion born in that mud celebrated the self, here, now. What was worshipped was release: from the father, from the standard, from the debt every generation owes the ones before and after it. The torch treated as private property – to be consumed, not handed on. 5. The comparison the cameras never made: four weeks earlier, men of the same age and country had crossed a quarter million miles of vacuum on slide rules and nerve. That was the generation’s other option – the frontier was open, the machines were ready, the civilization was asking. Apollo needed four hundred thousand builders. Woodstock drew half a million attendants. The talent went to the mud – and the Moon has been empty since 1972. 6. Then the coronation became the curriculum. The attendants of the field became the professors, editors, and ministers of the next half century – the long march, completed on schedule. The trick scaled with them: the compliance class still becomes good by attending – the hashtag and the flag in the bio are the mud of our decade. Herostratus in flowers: unable to build the temple, they burned the standards and called the fire a festival. 7. The accounting is demographic, because it always is. The generation of the field is the first in Western history to leave fewer children, fewer temples, and more debt than it inherited – the release worshipped at nineteen became the empty cradle at forty and the empty pension at seventy. They were promised liberation from the father. They delivered a civilization of orphans – and orphans do not pass torches. They came down from the Moon that summer and nobody was watching. Everyone was at the concert. The West has been at the concert ever since – and the torch is still lying in the mud, lit, waiting for someone with the nerve to pick it up.

Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland

3 weeks ago

The Moon Landing Yes, some people think it was faked. The cameras, the studio, the flag that moved in a vacuum. The Soviet Union, which had every reason to expose a fraud, confirmed it was real. Moving on. Because the conspiracy theory is not the interesting thing about the moon

34 167 680 100K 232

Hebrew: Hebrew is not a desert miracle. It is a palace language in costume. It did not start with shepherds. It started with kings. The people later called Israelites were Egyptian elites. Shepherd-kings. Delta rulers. Men who already spoke the tongue of pharaohs. Pharaohs right-hand man does not learn the court language as a tourist. A priest of Heliopolis does not “borrow” bread, numbers, and the names of gods. He already owns them. The sacred dialect is a daughter of Egyptian. Not a cousin. A daughter. Adon is Aten. Yah is the Egyptian moon. Shaddai tracks Seth. Elohim still stinks of the solar cult. That is not poetry. That is theft dressed as revelation. “Hebrew” was never a race. It was a title. Ibri. Elders. Initiates. Wise ones who moved from western sanctuaries into Egypt. Then out again after they lost the throne. Aleph is not a unique Levantine gift. It is an older priestly mark. A tree-letter. An elder sign. Repainted. Relabelled. Sold as original. When the spoken tongue died under Aramaic, scribes froze it. They called it holy. They turned court records into scripture. Pharaohs into patriarchs. Power into covenant. Exile into destiny. Then modern revivalists woke the corpse. They gave it streets, newspapers, and an army. The grammar stayed Canaanite. The buried titles stayed Egyptian. The story stayed a cover. Read Hebrew as the language of a chosen tribe and you stay asleep. Read it as a palimpsest and the spell breaks. West Semitic surface. Egyptian politics underneath. Older initiatory names under that. Not a miracle. A document of power, expulsion, and renaming.

The sun rose mercilessly over the Christian camp outside Tunis on August 25 morning in 1270. Inside the tents, men lay doubled over with fever and dysentery. Armor rusted in the coastal air. Priests moved among the sick, hearing confessions and giving the last rites as the Eighth Crusade collapsed without reaching a decisive battle. At the center of the dying army lay Louis IX, King of France. Disease had already taken one of his sons. Now the king himself was fading. According to early accounts, Louis asked to be laid upon ashes in the form of a cross. He prayed for his people, his army, and the Holy Land he had tried and failed to reach. Then, on the afternoon of August 25, the most powerful king in Europe died in the dust of North Africa. He was fifty-six years old. The crown would pass to his son. But the name by which history would remember him could not be inherited. Saint Louis. . . . Louis had become king at twelve years old. His formidable mother, Blanche of Castile, held the kingdom together until he could rule in his own right. She also taught him the conviction that would shape his life: kingship was not permission to do as he pleased. It was a burden for which he would answer before God. Later generations remembered Louis sitting beneath an oak tree at Vincennes, listening to the complaints of ordinary people and administering justice without the ceremony of a royal court. He investigated corrupt officials, restrained private warfare among his nobles, and expanded his subjects’ ability to appeal to the crown. He invited the poor to eat at his table, washed their feet, visited the sick, and personally tended those whose diseases repelled others. Louis did not believe holiness required him to abandon his throne. But he did believed it required him to rule differently from other kings. Under his reign, Paris became one of the great centers of Christian civilization. Notre-Dame neared completion. The university flourished in the age of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. Louis built the magnificent Sainte-Chapelle as a shrine for the Crown of Thorns. But his deepest longing lay eastward. After Jerusalem fell to Muslim forces in 1244, Louis took the cross. In 1248, he sailed for Egypt at the head of the Seventh Crusade. But campaign ended in catastrophe. His brother was killed. Disease spread through the army, the retreat became a rout, and Louis was captured. He remained composed in captivity and refused to abandon his men. After his release, he spent four years in the Holy Land strengthening Christian cities, ransoming prisoners, and negotiating for captives before returning to France. The defeat changed him. Louis now devoted himself even more intensely to justice, peace, and reform. His policies could still be harsh, particularly toward religious dissenters and Jewish communities. He was a medieval king, not a modern humanitarian. But those who knew him saw a ruler sincerely struggling to place his power beneath the judgment of God. Jerusalem never left his heart. In 1270, older and physically weakened, Louis took the cross again. His army landed near Tunis, where disease descended upon the camp. His son John Tristan died on August 3. Louis followed twenty-two days later. The crusade failed. Jerusalem remained beyond his reach. By ordinary measures, Louis died amid the ruins of his final ambition. But we mustn’t measure a life only by victories. Louis spent his reign trying to prove that power could kneel, that justice could stand above self-interest, and that a crown did not place a king above his people. It placed him beneath a greater judgment. Louis crossed the Mediterranean seeking an earthly Jerusalem and never reached it. But before the African sun had set, the king who died upon the ashes had entered the heavenly one. © Tony Valerino #archaeohistories

Mission Accomplished Part 16 🧵 Jamal Khashoggi was painted as a virtuous protector of the First Amendment after his death. It was all a lie. He was ALWAYS an intelligence asset. His relationship with the CIA and Osama Bin Laden goes back to the founding of Al Qaeda. But it’s much deeper than that. Jamal Khashoggi had a famous uncle connected to the CIA and several other intelligence agencies. His uncle was Adnan Khashoggi. “My personal philosophy is I don’t regret matters that happen, good or bad,” said the man, Adnan M. Khashoggi, who is 74 years old and these days prefers to be remembered as “Mr. Fix It,” rather than the arms dealer involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.” “Mr. Khashoggi has been linked to — but never convicted in — almost every major scandal of the late 20th century: Wedtech, B.C.C.I., the indictment of the Marcoses in the Philippines, as well as Iran-Contra.” web.archive.org/web/2012042817… Adnan Khashoggi was once considered one of the wealthiest men in the world. How did he become so wealthy? He was the preferred arms dealer for top intelligence agencies. He was connected to Iran-Contra and BCCI - the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International. Both of those scandals are centered around George H.W. Bush. That’s not a coincidence. Iran-Contra exposed the shadow government of Vice President Bush and his “secret funding,” set up outside Congressional oversight, with help from the Saudi’s. Link: open.substack.com/pub/badlands/p… BCCI was the biggest banking scandal in the world. It involved Bush and his sons. Bush went to war with Iraq, in order to distract from that scandal. Link: open.substack.com/pub/badlands/p… The Bush family, along with Adnan Khashoggi, were “profiting from war” and laundering the money through BCCI. Bush and Khashoggi never faced legal consequences for Iran-Contra or the BCCI scandal. But there was another important person who never faced scrutiny over Iran-Contra and BCCI. Most people don’t even know that he was involved. Who? “Millions of newly released files do not show Epstein clocking into a Mossad, MI6, or CIA office building. But he did not need to. Current and former ambassadors, world leaders, and moguls came to him, and his Caribbean island, where he trafficked young women for sexual abuse. The reality is that Epstein floated in a world that was unreachable and more elite than that of intelligence case officers and desk analysts.” “Epstein met Douglas Leese, an aristocratic British arms dealer who would play a key role in introducing Epstein to Mossad agent Robert Maxwell and high-rolling Saudi Arabian arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.” Epstein was an elite intelligence asset, now connected to the biggest arms dealers in the world. This was the early 1980’s. How was he connected to Iran-Contra? “Epstein then started a short-lived partnership with J Stanley Pottinger, a former US Department of Justice official who was investigated for his role in dealing arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iran-Contra affair appears to be a pivotal moment in Epstein’s life. Between 1981 and 1986, the Reagan administration covertly sold arms to Iran, which was at war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” Pottinger and Epstein had an important connection. “Epstein and Pottinger began working together when the latter was involved in a plot to ship US-made weapons to Iran with arms dealer Cyrus Hashemi. Ostensibly, Epstein and Pottinger’s business was advising wealthy clients on “tax-avoidance strategies.” Epstein became an expert in shell companies and money laundering. He played a key role in illegal arms deals, including Iran-Contra. He was using BCCI, a CIA bank, to launder billions. “The ultimate “whale” was Saudi arms dealer Khashoggi, who was listed as a “client” of Epstein’s consulting firm, Intercontinental Assets Group.” middleeasteye.net/news/how-jeffr… Khashoggi was a “client” of Epstein’s? That’s why Epstein had a passport with a fake name and address in Saudi Arabia, that was issued in 1982.

@grok @omo_waliasiri10 @Olamilekanb6 @grok You are a fucking worthless pile of shit. abc7.com/post/man-shot-…

@Olamilekanb6 She actually called 911 and said he shot himself. While being questioned, she got agitated and asked the cops “how much longer is this gonna take, I’ve got a flight to catch”…”we draw down on dem hos”…so fkn classy

@erika_1492 Same with this , what's wrong with people these days 😞 😞 x.com/Olamilekanb6/s…

@

57 years ago

0 0 0 0 0

"if Appalachia was a third world nation for white people" You'd get an economy roughly the size of Spain's, divided among half as many people, giving you a GDP per capita comparable to Finland or Canada. Finance & manufacturing are the top industries (15.6% & 14.1% of regional GDP, respectively). Note the irrelevance of tourism (3% of GDP) compared to other 'third world nations.' Appalachistan would have a slightly lower Gini coefficient (less income inequality) than the U.S. as a whole. The unemployment rate is ~4%, comparable to the rest of the U.S. & half of France's. Counting associates degrees + bachelors, Appalachistan would have a tertiary educational attainment rate of 39%, higher than the EU. Counting bachelor's degrees only (4 yrs in the U.S. vs. 3 yrs in the EU, so biased toward EU), Appalachistan's educational attainment is comparable to Germany (29% vs 30%).

sean @_sn_n

a day ago

this would be a third world nation for white people

933 444 16K 4.0M 780

The defender is he who starts the war, for it is his resistance that transforms the invasion into a true clash of wills - the condition that makes war war. This dialectical twist follows from the fact that the political decision to invade becomes war only when it encounters the counter-decision to defend. An invasion without resistance would merely be occupation, not war. "War serves the purpose of the defence more than that of the aggressor. It is only aggression that calls forth defence, and war along with it. The aggressor is always peace-loving (as Bonaparte claimed to be); he would prefer to take over our country unopposed. To prevent his doing so one must be willing to make war and be prepared for it. In other words it is the weak, those likely to need defence, who should always be armed in order not to be overwhelmed. Thus decrees the art of war." - Clausewitz, On War, Book VI, Ch. 5. For Hegel, the ideality of the state is not exhausted by its constituent parts. Likewise, for Schmitt, the political unity underpinning the state is not exhausted by private forms of enmity. Rather, it is through this political unity that a group acquires true uniqueness, individuality, and meaning. For Hegel, the individuality of the state - its ideality - can be truly realised only when its citizens set aside their particular interests, their private forms of enmity, and become willing to sacrifice themselves for the ideality of the state - in short, for its freedom, sovereignty, and independence against a public enemy. If citizens do not answer the call to defend the state, then its claim to rule is revealed as void, for the state's sovereignty has remained an empty formality. "Sacrifice for the sake of the individuality of the state is the substantive relation of all the citizens, and is, thus, a universal duty. It is ideality on one of its sides, and stands in contrast to the reality of particular subsistence. Hence it itself becomes a specific relation, and to it is dedicated a class of its own, the class whose virtue is bravery." - Hegel, Philosophy of Right, §325

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

The Pan-European Journal @PanEuropeanJrnl

2 days ago

x.com/i/article/2092…

0 7 55 7K 38

a man incapable of direct confrontation is a man that already subconsciously knows his place this is a natural law that has shaped all of human history and genetics you can whine and pout and whisper to yourselves about your beliefs of your position in hierarchies but if you cannot handle direct conflict and can only submit to passive aggressiveness, underhanded tactics, and manipulation then nature has already told you your place as a man in this world nobility is always direct and challenging - because directness is the embodiment of honesty and courage

thermo @DionysianAgent

6 days ago

a lot of men gaslight the notion of masculine emotionality “be a man, stay silent, don’t complain, don’t emote” etc telling themselves it is a virtue, but it is the opposite - it is a cowardice, a weakness, a fear for only a coward hides himself when he is afraid many grown

16 39 239 179K 241

@femalefactotum @FinalTelegraph Obviously you are.

Never Betray Yourself: The 6 Non-Negotiables of Inner Strength There is a moment in every man's life when he must choose to remain silent or finally walk away. He must decide whether to keep accepting disrespect or recognize that his peace of mind is worth more. Most men believe strength means being able to endure and tolerate everything. They tolerate the friend who constantly humiliates them. They tolerate the partner who plays with their emotions. They tolerate people who only offer respect when they need something. Afterward, they wonder why they feel exhausted, angry, and powerless. The ancient Stoics understood something fundamentally different. A man does not become powerful by controlling other people. He becomes powerful when other people can no longer control him. Marcus Aurelius wrote extensively about protecting the mind from what corrupts it. Epictetus taught that your true freedom begins the exact moment you stop giving others control over your inner state. This leads to an essential question: what if the things you keep tolerating are the very things destroying your self-respect? What if saying it is okay every time someone crosses your boundary is slowly teaching them that they can cross it again without consequence? There are six things a high-value man never accepts. He avoids them not because he is arrogant, cold, or heartless, but because he understands one brutal truth: whatever you repeatedly tolerate eventually becomes your normal. The most dangerous of these six is something most men fail to recognize until they have already lost themselves. The final lesson is about the person you become when you finally refuse to betray yourself. The first thing is disrespect. A high-value man never gets comfortable with disrespect. He does not hold this standard because he thinks he is superior to others, but because he understands a lesson most people learn far too late: the way you allow people to treat you becomes the way they learn to treat you. Disrespect rarely arrives in dramatic fashion at the beginning. It often starts as a small joke at your expense, a friend constantly interrupting your thoughts, someone repeatedly breaking trivial promises, or someone intentionally provoking you just to test the limits of what you will tolerate. You tell yourself that it is nothing and decide to let it go. You let it slide once, twice, then ten times, and slowly something fundamental shifts. People stop seeing your patience as kindness and begin viewing it as permission. Stoic philosophy did not teach men to react impulsively to every insult. Quite the opposite was true. Epictetus understood that while you cannot control another person's behavior, you hold total control over what behavior you continue to accept in your life. That distinction is everything. A weak man reacts emotionally and aggressively to disrespect. A disciplined man observes it with detachment. A grounded man does not need to shout, seek revenge, or engage in theatrics to prove his worth. Sometimes his strongest response is simply stating that he will no longer participate, followed by walking away. Real strength is rarely loud. Sometimes genuine strength is the quiet ability to leave a situation without needing the other person to understand or validate your reasons. Yet, there is something even more dangerous than overt disrespect: a subtle dynamic that destroys a man's confidence while convincing him that he is merely being understanding. This brings us to the second thing: being treated like an option. A high-value man can handle solitude. What he cannot afford is to abandon his self-worth just to keep someone else in his life. Consider how often this happens: you message someone, they ignore you for days, then suddenly they reach out when they need assistance, and you immediately respond. Someone repeatedly cancels plans at the last minute, and you rearrange your entire schedule to accommodate them. Someone grants you attention only when it suits their convenience, and you wait patiently for the next small crumb of affection. Why do men do this? Deep down, they hope that if they give enough of themselves, the other person will finally choose them. The Stoics would pose a much harder question: why are you asking someone else to give you the value that you refuse to give yourself? Marcus Aurelius constantly reminded himself to live according to his own principles rather than becoming dependent on the fleeting approval of others. That is the clear divide between neediness and authentic self-respect. A self-respecting man does not chase people who have already shown him where he stands. He does not beg for attention, compete for baseline respect, or spend his life trying to convince others that he is worthy of being chosen. Here is an uncomfortable truth: if someone only values you when you are useful to them, they do not value you as a person. They merely value what you provide. Once you internalize this reality, you stop taking rejection personally. You stop forcing unnatural connections and chasing individuals who are already walking away. You simply observe, accept reality as it is, and redirect your energy toward people, pursuits, and principles that genuinely deserve it. There is another trap even more insidious than being treated as an option. Sometimes people do not disrespect you openly. Instead, they slowly manipulate your emotions until you become an unrecognizable version of yourself. This is the third thing: manipulation. There is a profound difference between someone asking you to grow and someone conditioning you to doubt your own sanity and instincts. Manipulation rarely starts with overt hostility. It creeps in through guilt, cold silence, subtle emotional pressure, and phrases like "if you really cared, you would do this," "you are being too sensitive," or "you are just imagining things." Gradually, you begin questioning your own judgment. You apologize when you did nothing wrong. You over-explain yourself when no explanation was necessary. You alter your natural behavior simply to prevent another person from becoming upset. Eventually, you stop asking whether a situation is healthy for you, and instead focus entirely on how to keep the other person pacified. That is the exact point where your personal freedom evaporates. The ancient Stoics placed immense emphasis on self-command. Epictetus taught that external individuals and events must never become the masters of your mind. The moment someone discovers which emotional buttons to press, they gain the ability to steer your behavior. A Stoic response requires you to pause and observe. You do not rush to defend yourself, nor do you allow unearned guilt to dictate your actions. You step back and objectively assess what is actually happening. Often, the realization is uncomfortable: you are not being understood, you are being controlled; you are not being loved, you are being conditioned to comply. Once you recognize that pattern, dramatic confrontation becomes unnecessary. You establish a firm, calm boundary: you understand their feelings, but you will not permit those feelings to dictate your choices. That is authentic strength, not cruelty or arrogance. A mature man can care about someone's feelings without feeling obligated to manage every emotional state they experience. A person who genuinely respects you does not need to manipulate or diminish you to get their way. They can disagree, feel disappointed, or choose to walk away without attempting to erode your confidence. When someone consistently uses guilt, fear, anger, or intermittent affection to steer your behavior, the proper Stoic response is not retaliation. The proper response is distance, clarity, and self-command. Manipulation is not the only force that quietly dismantles inner peace. Another destructive pattern often disguises itself as passion, yet quietly turns a man's life into turmoil. That is the fourth thing: constant drama. A high-value man never confuses chaos with genuine passion. Yet, many people fall into this trap. They convince themselves that constant arguments, volatile jealousy, explosive confrontations, and intense reconciliations signify deep love. A Stoic asks a different question: what is this environment doing to the quality of your character? Peace is not boring; peace is powerful. When every conversation turns into a debate, every disagreement becomes a battleground, and you find yourself constantly defending your character or predicting someone's next emotional storm, your mind ceases to be your own. You begin living entirely in a reactive state, which is precisely the trap Stoic philosophy seeks to dismantle. Marcus Aurelius did not have the luxury of eliminating every difficult person around him. He governed an empire filled with political tension, betrayal, and constant friction. Despite this, his personal writings consistently returned to a single imperative: protect the sanctity and quality of your own mind. You cannot prevent others from choosing chaos, but you can decide whether you will make that chaos your home. This principle does not mean abandoning someone during an isolated rough patch. Everyone experiences difficult days, loses their temper on occasion, and makes honest mistakes. The defining factor is the pattern. An isolated moment of stress warrants patience and understanding, but a recurring cycle of emotional instability demands a firm boundary. There comes a point where excessive tolerance turns into self-neglect. Ask yourself whether you are supporting someone through a hard season or if you have allowed their perpetual chaos to become your everyday lifestyle. An aligned man does not demand perfection from those around him, but he refuses to normalize instability. He deliberately chooses companions who communicate maturely, resolve disagreements without malice, apologize sincerely, and bring tranquility rather than confusion into his life. Your environment shapes your psychology. Spend enough time around disorder, and disorder begins to feel normal. Surround yourself with disciplined, grounded individuals, and discipline becomes your default standard. Protect your peace diligently, not out of a fear of conflict, but out of the understanding that your energy is too valuable to squander on battles that never needed to be fought. Beyond external drama lies an even deeper vulnerability: a subtle betrayal that damages a man's identity from within, without making a sound. This occurs when you violate your own standards. This is the fifth thing: betraying your own values. The most devastating person a man can disappoint is himself. You can lose financial resources and rebuild your wealth. You can lose status and earn it back. You can endure a painful breakup and eventually heal. But when you repeatedly compromise your own core values, something vital inside your spirit begins to erode. Perhaps you proclaim that you value discipline, yet you consistently make excuses for inaction. You claim to value truthfulness, but you conceal reality because you fear someone's reaction. You claim to desire peace, yet you continually return to chaotic environments. You claim to have self-respect, yet you tolerate behavior that directly violates your boundaries. Every time you make these compromises, your subconscious takes note, reinforcing the belief that your principles are disposable whenever situations become uncomfortable. The Stoics maintained that a meaningful life is not measured by external comforts, public approval, or accumulated wealth, but by virtue: the commitment to uphold your principles even when doing so is difficult. Marcus Aurelius did not begin his mornings pondering how to win universal popularity. He focused on aligning his conduct with wisdom, self-control, justice, and fortitude. Anyone can claim to possess high standards when circumstances are easy. The genuine test of character arrives when holding those standards carries a real cost: when holding a boundary means losing someone's approval, when walking away means facing temporary loneliness, when speaking the truth invites consequences, or when choosing discipline requires sacrificing immediate gratification. That is precisely where character is forged. Every time you choose your principles over your immediate impulses, you grow stronger. Every time you abandon your standards simply to avoid short-term friction, you make yourself easier to manipulate. Take time to evaluate what you are currently tolerating that contradicts the man you aspire to become. Assess yourself honestly and without self-condemnation, because honest awareness is the foundation of transformation. A grounded man is not someone who never falters; he is someone who promptly corrects his course whenever he realizes he has drifted from his principles. While the first five principles focus on what you must refuse to accept from others, the sixth principle turns entirely inward. It addresses what you must refuse to accept from yourself. This is the sixth thing: accepting your own weakness. A man can successfully walk away from external disrespect, reject psychological manipulation, distance himself from unnecessary drama, and refuse to be treated as a secondary option. But what happens when the primary source of disruption in his life is his own lack of discipline? What happens when he knows the right course of action yet repeatedly chooses the easy path, or when he recognizes that a habit or relationship is harming him yet continues to indulge in it? A high-value man refuses to remain a willing prisoner of his own shortcomings. Stoicism is not about posturing or pretending to be invincible. It is about achieving mastery over your own mind and impulses. Epictetus, having lived through enslavement, understood that while he could not control external forces, he possessed complete sovereignty over his internal state: his judgment, his choices, and his integrity. True power does not require dominating others or constantly proving your status. It requires the ability to govern yourself. Can you manage your anger when provoked? Can you restrain your impulses when tempted? Can you refuse things that you know will harm your future? Can you forgo temporary gratification in favor of lasting peace? Can you honor your commitments when no one is watching? Without self-mastery, external achievements remain hollow. A man can acquire vast wealth while remaining a slave to his desires. He can achieve high social standing while remaining desperate for external validation. He can surround himself with relationships while remaining paralyzed by the fear of being alone. He can appear formidable on the surface while feeling completely powerless within. Freedom originates entirely from self-command. Stop asking how to force others to respect you, and begin asking whether you are living in a manner that commands your own self-respect. Stop asking why people take advantage of you, and examine why you continue to abandon your own boundaries. Stop wondering why your circumstances remain stagnant, and confront the repetitive habits that produce those identical results. Taking radical responsibility requires immense courage because blaming external factors is always easier. Yet, the moment you assume ownership of your life, you reclaim your power. You may not control every outcome, but you command the only thing that truly matters: your next conscious action. Make a firm, quiet commitment to yourself: stop betraying your inner standards, stop trading your peace for external validation, stop sacrificing your values for temporary pleasure, and stop mistaking passivity for strength. When you stumble, correct your behavior immediately rather than surrendering to despair. Being a high-value man is not about reaching flawless perfection; it is about becoming increasingly immovable in your core principles. When you reflect on these six principles, you realize they were never truly about managing other people. They are about cultivating profound self-respect. When you honor your own mind, your boundaries become distinct, your decisions become resolute, your relationships become healthier, and your inner peace becomes nearly impossible to shake. Understanding these principles intellectually is simple; embodying them daily is the real challenge. Tomorrow will bring the same routine pressures: individuals may test your resolve, old temptations will resurface, and inner doubts may urge you to compromise your standards just this once. This daily friction is where your philosophical practice truly begins. A disciplined man does not wake up seeking to outshine others. He asks whether he is better than the man he was yesterday. Did he handle his temper with greater restraint? Did he communicate with more intentionality? Did he walk away from influences that once held sway over him? Did he keep his private promises? These quiet victories may remain unseen by the world, but they fundamentally redefine your character over time. Boundaries without personal discipline are merely empty words. Confidence without underlying character is just a performance. Power without self-restraint turns into self-destruction, and assertiveness without responsibility is nothing more than ego. Stoicism demands that you become someone you can genuinely trust. When you state an intention, follow through. When something compromises your values, possess the courage to walk away. When you make an error, acknowledge it cleanly without excuses. When angry, pause before speaking. When alone, uphold your standards even when no one is looking. The most enduring relationship you will ever navigate is the relationship you maintain with your own mind. If that relationship is weak, no amount of wealth, status, or praise will make you feel complete. But if that internal foundation is rock solid, you can experience loss and remain standing. You can face rejection and remain whole. You can encounter criticism and remain composed. You can walk away from toxic environments without begging for closure. That is the essence of self-command. Consider what must occur when someone you care about knowingly crosses an established boundary. Do you react with outrage, make empty threats, plead for consideration, or desperately try to convince them to understand your perspective? Or do you calmly accept what their repeated actions are telling you? Words often serve as rationalizations, but recurring actions reveal objective reality. A Stoic does not waste valuable energy arguing with reality. When someone consistently demonstrates who they are through their behavior, believe the pattern. This does not mean people are incapable of change, but it means you must never stake your inner peace on the speculative hope that someone else will transform. You can forgive someone while deliberately revoking their access to your personal life. You can wish someone well without allowing them to disrupt your focus. You can empathize with another person's struggles without assuming responsibility for their choices. Setting a boundary is not an act of revenge; it is simply a conscious determination regarding what you will allow into your life. Sometimes the most grounded statement you can make is acknowledging the situation while clarifying that it is no longer something you will participate in. Do not misinterpret these principles as a justification to become emotionally detached, cynical, or arrogant. Adopting an unfeeling persona is not a mark of strength; it is often fear hiding behind a defensive shield. Authentic Stoic strength allows you to care deeply without becoming emotionally dependent, to love without losing your identity, to forgive without becoming naive, to remain kind without being weak, and to walk away without carrying bitterness. These insights can be distilled into six clear rules for daily conduct. First, never beg for respect; if someone repeatedly disrespects you, do not raise your voice, raise your clarity. Second, never trade your inner peace for temporary attention, recognizing that not everyone deserves unrestricted access to your life. Third, never allow someone else's emotional instability to govern your choices; you can understand their feelings without letting those feelings dictate your actions. Fourth, never allow disorder and chaos to become your baseline; an isolated struggle is part of the human experience, but a consistent pattern of turmoil requires an immediate boundary. Fifth, never betray your personal principles simply to avoid short-term discomfort, because every compromise teaches you that your values are negotiable. Sixth, never remain a prisoner to your own weaknesses; master your impulses, regulate your anger, curb your need for external approval, and embrace the demanding path when it is right. The ultimate victory is not defeating external rivals, but mastering your own mind and actions. When you attain that level of internal governance, you cease demanding that the external world supply your confidence or validate your worth. You develop the poise to accept reality as it exists and the courage to act decisively within the realm of your own control. Let these principles serve not as instruments of judgment against others, but as strict standards for yourself. You can remain compassionate without being fragile. You can remain devoted without losing your sovereignty. You can remain forgiving without enabling poor behavior. You can remain humble without allowing anyone to diminish your worth. That is the balanced path of deliberate living. The standards you set are not theoretical concepts; they are daily decisions made through direct action. When life presents situations that test your resolve, you hold the power to choose your response. You can react impulsively or respond thoughtfully. You can pursue external validation or carry yourself with quiet dignity. You can defend a fragile ego or protect your enduring character. Real self-worth is forged in the quiet moments when nobody is observing: when you keep your commitments, master your impulses, walk away from toxicity, and rise promptly after a misstep. Let your actions speak with unmistakable clarity. Allow your personal standards to be demonstrated through consistent conduct, and let your character remain far stronger than your external circumstances. Protect your peace, uphold your principles, and never abandon your self-respect.