Disappointed Optimist

BAP's solution is obviously absurdly unworkable, and he elides and diminishes that religious people have the most kids not out of wanton sex obsession but because they believe they are living for something greater than themselves. To have family is to serve God and their own legacy. But even though he's neglected this half of the equation, he has presented very clearly the other part that trads miss, which explains why so much of high acheiving Christian youth are having problems getting together in the first place: the suspicion and shaming of sexual energy, and the baseline anxiety that's replaced it across society. Monogamy and chastity were social structures designed to contain this energy in a healthy way, but the problem today is that across society, left or right, this energy has been pathologized and suppressed. You can't just say "don't have sex before marriage" when people don't even really want sex to begin with, or are uncomfortable expressing it if they do because it's considered shameful or sinful. This is especially the case with men, who are the initiating sex - if you rob men of their virility to avoid making women uncomfortable, you also take away the passion of women wanting become pregnant by them. BAP is correct that the desire to fuck is not a "logical" decision on the part of a woman; eros is impulse and instinct, it is unconscious and at its peak frankly reckless. The bottom line is we have become too hyper conscious of sexual expression and its consequences, and it's made everyone sexually neurotic and disconnected. This is why Sabrina Carpenter or Taylor Swift trying to act "hot" comes across awkward and sterile - their "seduction" is all too affected and forced, like a bad stripper, and their performances are a microcosm of the empty hypersexuality of the entire mainstream. This lack of energy is why there is less and less attraction between the sexes, and why contempt is growing in its absence. Life force itself is being neutered across the developed world, and if you don't address this none of the moral strictures meant to contain it will ultimately matter. We won't need them - we'll have all become pandas.

@PNACstreetgang @TwinkTheory Also when it comes to childhood, pre- and post-iPad is more meaningful than pre- and post-Facebook. I knew a decent amount of kids who had Facebook accounts very young, but the iPads only hit schools and working class families when we were around 11.

@TwinkTheory Sort of? I believe there is a meaningful distinction between a time when the internet merely existed versus social media’s total proliferation in society, but being born in the 00s is still cutting it close (t. Born 1995)

When people born after 2000 try to steal “we’re part of the last generation who grew up without technology” valor I’m like by the time you were 4 I was pretending to be 38 year old divorced women in Iowa in internet chat rooms please be fr. If you don’t remember the actual 90s you don’t remember pre internet, your brains were bathed in the tech goop from birth

@centristpeater The centre of Houston for some reason:

Asking my realtor how the schools are and if there’s a Holocaust museum within walking distance

@sneednahalba @eigenrobot Just give single men some city states to run

@bezos_killer @eigenrobot Trouble is that might make things a tad too conservative. My proposal is to limit the franchise to married women with children and 30+ incel men

ive known too many educated people to give this even the slightest credence. the chud veto is essential to our nation's survival

@sneednahalba @eigenrobot The chud veto is merely a counterbalance to mentally ill single people, restrict it to married couples and you win

@eigenrobot Surely there's a way to limit the franchise that preserves the C.H.U.D veto. Like normalising the idea with a Tribune of the C.H.U.Ds

@d08890 Very similar except I got 100% existentialist

@AryanEdLargeFan @wool1111 If you're fat 12 is do-able

@wool1111 I've been told stories that the old coal miners would drink 12 pints a night. That might have been an exaggeration but British boomers and pre-boomers drank absurd amounts by modern standards and the country was generally alright

this makes no sense at all since we now drink considerably less than when we were Top Nation

@real_lord_miles @_CultureCrusade You're not convincing anyone you're not also a foreign asset of some kind

@_CultureCrusade Don’t compare me to the Mossad agent Tommy Robinson

The trend of every bellicose Anglo on the right actually being Irish continues..

@canniballzx @AirRaidsRevenge @CatocatAnthony @maiamindel When was Hitler president of the United States of America?

@AirRaidsRevenge @bezos_killer @CatocatAnthony @maiamindel when was isis president of the united states of ameria

the founding fathers saw islam as a really cool foreign religion and catholicism as basically a mental parasite commanding a legion of violent fanatics

@ScipioAlpha Really they're lucky they've got half a chance to

"You're lucky we're not raping and pillaging you" isn't a very appealing argument.

@PantheraSteven @boswelltoday I don't think they'll avert it but I do think they'll know what side they're on which is good enough. As untrustworthy as the Reform leadership are I think they'll understand where things stand if it seriously kicks off.

@boswelltoday Have you come across the work of David Betz? He co-authoured a recent essay which paints a dark but likely accurate picture of where we'll be. Sometimes I lean towards the view of someone like David Starkey who thinks a right of centre government could avert internal conflict.

UK net migration, visualised as towns and cities 2005: Milton Keynes 🛣️ 2006: Luton ✈️ 2007: Plymouth ⚓ 2008: Swansea 🌊 2009: Colchester 🏰 2010: Aberdeen 🛢️ 2011: Portsmouth 🚢 2012: Newport 🌉 2013: Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon 🏞️ 2014: Hull 🐟 2015: Derby 🐏 2016: Nottingham 🏹 2017: York 🏛️ 2018: Wrexham 🐉 2019: Newry, Mourne and Down ⛰️ 2020: Inverclyde ⛴️ 2021: York 🏛️ 2022: Edinburgh 🏰 2023: Glasgow 🎸 2024: Coventry ⛪ That’s the scale.

Jim Hacker: Humphrey, we have to do something about Iran. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Prime Minister, the government is already doing a great deal. Jim Hacker: Such as? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Monitoring developments, coordinating with allies, reviewing contingency plans and expressing concern. Jim Hacker: That all sounds like nothing, Humphrey. Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, Prime Minister. In diplomacy it is vital to appear active without becoming involved. Jim Hacker: The Americans are bombing things, the Iranians are firing missiles, the Strait of Hormuz is practically closed and we’re… appearing active? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Precisely. Jim Hacker: Innocent people are dying, Humphrey! Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister. That is why the Foreign Office is drafting a very strongly worded statement about it. Jim Hacker: A statement won’t stop a war. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister, but it will ensure that we are on record as having been extremely concerned while it was happening. Bernard Woolley: If I may, Prime Minister — the Cabinet Office has identified six possible courses of action. Jim Hacker: Good! What are they? Bernard Woolley: We can condemn the escalation, call for restraint, urge negotiations, support our allies, assist defensive operations or participate directly. Jim Hacker: And what do they recommend? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Supporting our allies. Jim Hacker: That sounds suspiciously like participating. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh no, Prime Minister. Participating means fighting. Supporting merely means allowing others to fight from places that technically belong to us. Jim Hacker: Humphrey, if Iranian missiles hit one of our bases, we’ll be in the war anyway! Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister, but we shall have entered it with the invaluable diplomatic advantage of being surprised. Bernard Woolley: It’s generally considered the safest way to enter a war, Prime Minister. Jim Hacker: How on earth can that be safe? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Because if the war goes badly, we can say we never meant to join it. And if it goes well, we can say we were there all along.

@cezthesocialist What's the Green Party position on new railways btw?

that defeats the whole fucking point of the railway

@sneednahalba @CovfefeAnon What's the point of being 6'4 if everyone else is. No what you'd want to engineer is multiple classes of people who could all reasonably believe themselves to be the superior ones. Say for example you make all the short, not particularly attractive people the best athletes.

@CovfefeAnon Many have noticed this x.com/i/status/18307…

This is a big reason why liberalism has mandatory false factual beliefs about the heritability of positive and negative traits "Let's reward all negative traits and remove all punishments from them to make society better" has extremely obvious consequences for anyone who hasn't had progressive taboos drilled into his head from birth

@ironyisabich @SocialNomadRach I mean they are both essentially Tories, they're not "right wing" in the proper sense (I suppose excepting Umbridge's hatred of non-human beings) but they are the sort of people the Conservative party produced at that time.

@SocialNomadRach I find it a little funny that J.K. probably intended it to be the inverse, with Fudge and Umbridge being the stand-ins for the Right/Conservatives at the time. lol

It's both her and Fudge. Fudge is the dodgering liberal who still hasn't woken to reality, Umbridge is the leftist who uses the liberal to further exert cruelty, give free reign to crime and evil, and make things worse for society overall.

@aegeantart @BillTheKid1603 Even straight laced American conservatives would probably say 20 million deaths would have been worth it to PREVENT communism, which is the identical calculus

@BillTheKid1603 I mean I dislike him (and the prevalence Marxists have in academia) but I don't see what's that crazy about what he's saying. If one thinks communism means world liberation it makes sense.

He coined the term "long 19th century" these people are incredibly influential

@BenvenAnnunzio @OttoMatik22 I can believe that in the sense he wants to read proper arguments and analyses and is so bitchy because so much on here is genuinely worthless slop, but it's not like he doesn't contribute a lot of garbage that gets in the way of real discussion himself.

@OttoMatik22 What makes him great is that he's one of the few people on here truly interested in having actual discussions.

The great thing about BAP is you can disagree with him & he’ll like your post anyway.

@the_zython @SomethingMoreTh @morallawwithin It would depend on what came of that. Also yes Yarvin in this case is splitting hairs about the veil of ignorance when it's mostly inoffensive when it doesn't become a literal metaphysical belief.

@bezos_killer @SomethingMoreTh @morallawwithin x.com/the_zython/sta…

Pseudointellectuals *love* pointing out supposed metaphysical assumptions made in ethical/political work, because that’s the kind of thing the image of a smart person in their head does. And of course all they do is grope at irrelevancies.

@thotcrimes888 @CatocatAnthony @maiamindel Most Mossad members are very likely secular nationalists but sure, I'll agree they're dangerous fanatics, not sure how that implicates Catholics

@bezos_killer @CatocatAnthony @maiamindel More like Mossad?

@CatocatAnthony @maiamindel No, because I was already talking about violent Islamists, you just don't think they count for whatever reason

@bezos_killer @maiamindel The fact that you said "more than the Taliban?" instead of refuting that MAGA is like this just makes the point stand more.