Be The Builder

@AnalistaClara Question for you: where specifically do you think it should “fall” to? In what direction?

¿Si los planetas pesan billones de toneladas entonces por qué flotan como espuma en el espacio? No entiendo🤔. ​Una pregunta que desafía la lógica común sobre el peso y el vacío. 🌌 ​¿Ustedes cómo lo explicarían? ​#EspacioCiencia

@ConceptualJames @ClassicLibera12 @realAaronBergh @ThomasEWoods Founders knew men aren’t angels & built checks, but public choice & history show states expand anyway. Hoppe isn’t utopian for noting limits erode; he’s consistent. ‘Eurotrash’ dodge skips the Minarchist/Hoppean incentives debate

There is. Hoppe rejects Marx, as you can see in the next sentence after the highlight, but what he doesn't reject is the overall structure of Marxist critique. He believes he can reorient Marxist critique from a more accurate starting place (as with the French classical liberal class theorists) and then update that with Austrian economics and get something that's not structurally the same as Marxism, or something. Ultimately, what Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists assert is kind of an inverse of Marx, and then they just draw all the same conclusions about how things work from that inverse. Of course, this implies different solutions (protecting private property rather than abolishing it, e.g.). In brief, Marx asserts that private property ownership gives rise to exploitation that the owning class wishes to protect, thus it erects a state built in its own interests to protect itself, and that state becomes an instrument of their oppression. By contrast, Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists insist that the state itself is the primary actor here, enabling the exploitation of the productive classes (e.g., homesteaders) and the rise of a parasitical bourgeois class. That is, it's structurally the same paranoid, conflict-oriented model of society but with the root causes and central problem actor locations reversed. (Tom thinks I don't understand this, btw.) Therefore, Hoppe can affirm all of Marx's conclusions from his theory of history while rejecting all of his solutions (e.g., abolishing private property, establishing a temporary socialist super-state apparatus that will manage production until it can wither away, etc.). Ultimately, he has the same structural model. Hoppe and his French class-theory homies would assert that the state itself is the cause of the oppression, effectively creating parasitical and rent-seeking classes, so the proper solution is the direct abolition of the state entirely to allow a completely contractual and voluntarist capitalism to arise. The idea is no state implies no parasitical class that can rent-seek or exploit the productive implies no exploitation, so even though everything is unequal, it's unequal contractually and voluntarily, thus not exploitative. Of course, this is retarded Eurotrashism unbecoming any American thinker, especially one with Ivy training in economic affairs. Americans understood from the start that the only way a contractual and voluntarist society can work is with enough of a state to secure the individual liberties of people against bad actors, individual and collective, and that it must have the authority and strength to be able to accomplish that end rather unambiguously. They also understood that such a state of affairs naturally tends toward a tyranny, which is the critique of people like Tom and Hoppe (who believe the American system already failed, btw), but their solution to it wasn't to just hope for the best in terms of getting people to all understand that they're going to act in a good enough way but instead to divide the powers of government and establish a Bill of Rights that severely limits its power. As Madison and Hamilton argued in Federalist 51, which directly addresses these concerns, in fact, they make the famous argument that if men were angels we wouldn't need government, but they were astute enough students of history and human nature to know that Romantic Idealism like that simply isn't real. Government might need to be minimal, divided against itself in its powers, restricted in its scope, and hindered by having to cater to the interests of varying factions, but it also needs to be centralized, federal, and powerful enough to be able to achieve its only Just ends. Ultimately, Madison and Hamilton were right, and Hoppe, Tom, Gottfried, "Comic" Dave Smith, and all the rest of these idiots are BTFO and always have been. They're utopians mistaking themselves for realists and fools professing themselves wise. But, at least we can understand why they're dumb, I guess.

@LearnToToad Assuming this is not just click bait , The next time there’s a full moon take your phone outside set the exposure to two seconds and take a photo. post the results here…..

Someone want to tell me how the Sun, which is the light source, is behind the Earth here, yet the visible side of the Earth is lit up like it's fucking day time? Is it all fake and gay?

@elonmusk @elonmusk please don’t go full MMT.

Pretty accurate

Holy sH$$.

@0xQuasark What was the injection?

BREAKING: Bryan Johnson is taking the world's strongest psychedelic, 5-MeO DMT, live on camera. 40,000 people are tuned in right now. This is a world first! Watch live ☝️ x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

The War on Young Men (And What To Do About It) Here are two enormous contributions to understanding boys and young men in Australia: a landmark speech by Gerard Holland at the Aspire conference; and a ground-breaking report by Simon P. Kennedy. Huge kudos to Page Research Centre for taking the lead on this (@gerardgholland is the Executive Director at @page_research, and @JohnAndersonAC is the Chair). On Tuesday 24 February, Gerard Holland took to the stage at the Aspire conference, at Sydney's International Convention Centre in front of 800 eager participants. His epic keynote is deeply insightful, multi-disciplinary, and courageous. As a proud husband and father of two sons, he speaks truth to power and is inspiring males of all ages... Today, the Page Research Centre has released a new report Young Men In Crisis: What Can Australia Do? by @spkenn1. He puts forward a detailed and sober diagnosis of what this crisis actually looks like on the ground, including what’s happening in our schools and education, what’s happening in the labour market, what’s happening to relationships, family formation, and the basic milestones of adulthood. And just as importantly, what can be done about it (with 13 clear recommendations): page.org.au/2026/03/young-…

I know this has been out there a while but OMG! Haaaaaaa!

@JimMcMurtry01 Translation: 1. Virtue signaling (to display our high status) 2. Enforcing in-group conformity (to minimize dissent) 3. Asserting our authority (to delegitimize critics) 4. Building up our capacity (to coerce others) 5. Prioritizing ourselves (over students) 6. Playing the victim

/1🚨EXPOSED — Biden CIA’s War on Motherhood: Newly released CIA documents reveal the Biden Administration identified “motherhood” and “homemaking” as indicators of “white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism” (REMVE).

When Hollywood pushes “strong independent woman” narratives year after year, it’s an agenda. The real message isn’t “women’s rights.” It’s the systematic dismantling of the family: Man becomes weak, useless, or toxic. Woman becomes hyper-independent, armed, and sexually dominant. Motherhood is reframed as a prison. Abandoning or rejecting children becomes an act of rebellion. It’s about breaking the natural balance between masculine men and feminine women. Once that balance is destroyed, society becomes sterile , emotionally, spiritually, and biologically, which opens the door to the next stage: transhumanism. That’s why so many celebrities now promote gender fluidity, trans identities, and “queer” aesthetics. It’s consistent with the inversion. The goal was never to choose a side, patriarchy vs feminism is a false fight. The goal is to erase the natural order: man in his masculine role, woman in her feminine role. Everything else is inversion. Most people still think this is just progress. But some of us see it for what it is: a spiritual operation disguised as entertainment. The Oscars are performing rituals, and the crowd keeps clapping. realityrevolt.com

America Tried To ‘Fix’ Men For Two Decades. Here’s What It Got Instead. | Bridget Phetasy, Daily Wire America spent two decades trying to “fix” masculinity. It nearly broke the country — and the guys who complained the loudest about it turned out to be the ones with the least ability to fix it. America needs manly men — not men who are afraid of their masculinity, and not men who only talk about it. Let me back up. In 2000, Christina Hoff Sommers published “The War Against Boys,” documenting how American schools had begun treating normal male behavior as something to be diagnosed and medicated. A seven-year-old was suspended for pointing a pencil like a gun at his friend. A boy in California was punished for running during recess and nearly suspended for jumping over a bench. Schools banned tag and dodgeball. Boys were five times more likely to be expelled from preschool than girls and accounted for 70% of suspensions — not for anything dangerous, but for roughhousing, defiance, and being loud. Instead of addressing the gap, institutions doubled down, remaking classrooms around female learning styles. They criminalized the “bad guy” play that men have channeled into building civilizations since the dawn of time. Almost nobody listened to Sommers, or they mocked her. For over a decade, the project to dismantle masculinity stayed contained in academia, slowly working its way through education policy like a parasite. Then it broke containment. By 2015, the national psychedelic trip we now refer to as “wokeism” was reaching its crescendo, and men — specifically straight, traditional men — were its favorite target. “Toxic masculinity” migrated from academic journals to Thanksgiving dinner. “Men are trash” became something people said at brunch without flinching. “Mansplaining” entered the lexicon. Gillette released an ad lecturing its own customers about the sins of manhood. No razors, just shame. Hollywood gender-swapped “Ghostbusters” and sidelined Luke Skywalker for a new female lead. In 2019, the American Psychological Association issued guidelines pathologizing “traditional masculinity” as harmful. The message from every direction was the same: Manhood was broken, and women would fix it. I had a front row seat as a columnist for Playboy, the most famous men’s magazine in the world, from 2015 to 2017 — the exact moment it stopped knowing how to talk to men. The organization was paralyzed by fear and overrun with young liberal women and gay men, which rendered it incapable of meeting the moment. Everything about the brand signaled apology. Playboy should have held the line. It was a wide-open lane. Instead, it followed every other men’s magazine in the same direction: less for the man’s man, more for the gay man and queer woman. Had it doubled down on unapologetically speaking to red-blooded American men, it could have led a renaissance. Instead, it chose surrender. And in the space created when the culture forced men to be small, scummy opportunists filled the void. We got the Tates. The Sneakos. Parodies of men. Guys who are what a teenager thinks masculinity looks like when he doesn’t have a good father: flashy Rolexes, rented Lamborghinis, and endless talk. Talk, talk, talk. The guys who screamed loudest about the feminization of America were engaged in an inherently feminine activity. They were podcasting. They were sitting behind desks and running their mouths. And when you put men in a space that’s fundamentally about talking, their conflict becomes female-coded: reputational attacks, betrayal narratives, emotional manipulation, hissy fits. In real life, male interaction is moderated by the threat of getting punched in the face. Online, that’s gone. So the most effective tactics are the ones women use. These guys didn’t fight the feminization of culture. They became it. I feel privileged to have known men who stormed the beaches at Normandy, who fought in the South Pacific, who came home and never spoke of it. Real men don’t whine about sacrifice. They make it. And I feel sorry for younger generations who haven’t known men like that — men who felt proud to serve, who understood trade-offs, who didn’t see the world in black and white. Young men are desperate for identity, and if you don’t give them Captain America, Ted Williams, and George Washington, they’ll find Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. Jordan Peterson identified this collapse in meaning early; it makes young men terrifyingly easy to radicalize. And now these same guys — the ones who spent years raging about how pussified America is, the longhouse, the feminization of men, soy boys, turning the frogs gay — are now having hissy fits because America is actually being masculine. Militarily masculine. The real deal. And they’re whining about how they feel betrayed. “We’re not dying for Israel.” You’re not dying for anyone, buddy! You’re not dying for America. You’re not dying for anything except your subscriber count. You spent years cosplaying as warriors, and the moment actual sacrifice entered the conversation, you folded like every other fraud who has ever confused talking with doing. Compare the Biden-era Army recruitment ad, an animated spot about a soldier raised by two moms marching in a pride parade, with what’s coming out of the Pentagon now. A Special Forces trainer deadlifting 500 pounds: “Stronger people are harder to kill.” Soldiers on a firing range: “We train until we can’t get it wrong.” Enlistment is at a 15-year high. When you stop apologizing for what the military is and start showing men what it demands, they show up. That’s what real masculinity looks like when it’s not being run through the filter of “how is this going to make Karen feel?” The culture is shifting everywhere, thanks in part to comedian Joe Rogan, who held the line and built a parallel comedy establishment that is unapologetically masculine, irreverent, and enormous. Bud Light — the brand that nearly destroyed itself partnering with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney — signed as its new spokesperson Shane Gillis, a comedian who’d been dropped from SNL only to return as a host. And on February 22 — 46 years to the day from America’s “Miracle on Ice” — the U.S. men’s hockey team beat Canada in overtime for our first Olympic gold since 1980. Those players stood at the State of the Union, grinning from ear to ear, and got a standing ovation. My nephews are obsessed with them. They see those radiant smiles and that pride in America, and they want to emulate it. In his post-game interview, hockey star Jack Hughes said, “This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The U.S. hockey brotherhood is so strong and we had so much support from ex players, and I’m so proud to be American today. So proud.” That’s not some guy ranting into a webcam about alpha males; it’s the real thing, and young men can feel the difference. The 2024 election was, in many ways, a referendum on all of this. The entire post-election media analysis centered on one question: How did Democrats lose young men? The answer was simple. They’d spent a decade telling young men they were the problem, and eventually, young men believed them and voted accordingly. Saving this country is going to require things that make some people uncomfortable. It is going to require men who are willing to be strong without apology, to serve without being asked, and to lead without waiting for permission. For 20 years, we told men to sit down. The men who are standing back up — not the talkers, not the grifters, but the ones who actually build and serve and sacrifice — are the ones who will matter. But I’m not going to speak for men. Instead, I’ll let Sergeant Dan Hollaway, 82nd Airborne Infantry, share his thoughts on the resurgence of American masculinity. “Masculinity is not a social accessory,” he told me. “It is the backbone of every civilization that has ever endured. Masculinity began as an unspoken contract with reality: I will go where it is dangerous so others don’t have to. If certain burdens are not carried, then people die. This is the natural law of masculinity, and it has never changed. For a generation, America’s masculinity was mocked, undermined, and treated as something dangerous or obsolete — and many men simply withdrew. But that retreat is ending, and as men return to strength, discipline, and responsibility, the benefits are already becoming visible. American pride is on the rise, and we have the unique opportunity to save the greatest country in the history of the world by simply being men.” dailywire.com/news/america-t…

The economics establishment has been wrong about almost everything for 50 years. There's a school of thought that predicted all of it. It came out of Vienna in 1871 and was quietly buried because it threatened everyone in power. A 27-part series, covering it all, starts today. Bookmark the article below, follow me, and learn everything you need to know in easy-to-digest pieces over the next month.

@dklineii @grok are there any benefits to “just chatting” in one on one between employee and manager

The best 1:1s aren't meetings. They're small investments in the people you depend on. Please RT and follow @dklineii for more practical management insights. A check out my free newsletter: mgmtplaybook.com

As a manager, I ran pointless 1:1s for years. I was settling for status updates disguised as leadership conversations. Low energy. Low utility. My team knew it. I was the last to figure it out. Here are 3 tests that transformed my most important meeting:

Evolutionary biologist @swipewright takes a psychologist to school. This is why men can’t be women.

What is going on here is CRITICAL PEDAGOGY, but also the mass movement of Leftism that started in the mid-to-late 2000s, which mainstreamed the fruits of critical pedagogy into the "intellectual" public, skewed younger and female. In short, young Leftists starting blogging radical feminism and critical theory, including critical theories about America and its history, most of which they learned in college courses powered by critical pedagogy. Not only were these blogs like the main social media of the day, especially for younger intellectual types (much like podcastistan then tiktokistan today), meaning they were widely consumed and shared, they were also professional portfolio builders for these young radicals (roughly, American Red Guard, v. 1.0). By 2010–2012, this was firmly established in left-leaning intellectual circles. The bench of writers that more established, then more serious, publications like Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue, then The Atlantic and The New Yorker, was getting filled with these young post-collegiate critical crackpots, mostly "intersectional feminists," who dripped their poison into everything within the range of op-ed and "smart think piece" writing. In the early 2010s, these writers became increasingly influential and, in many cases, staff writers or even prominent writers at the same time as critical pedagogy was becoming more blatant and prominent in our schools. Young smart people were getting it from all sides and "going Woke" as a result. By 2015, these attitudes had become not just fashionable but de rigeur among left-leaning thinkers, and because they're all rooted in critical theory, no one had the slightest idea how to answer or deal with them. These attitudes colonized the minds of smart professional types between them and 2020, at which point the Cultural Revolution started. It's no mere coincidence that we did the Grievance Studies Affair in 2017–2018 after being triggered into it in 2016. We were attempting to break the back of this landslide as it gathered momentum. You can see much of this progression fairly clearly on the graph.

📍Chicago, IL Muslim goes full mask off: “We did NOT come here to coexist. We are superior to everyone else and will not be surpassed. No one is above us. If other religions want to live with us, they have to worship Allah.”

🚨 “Use the university in every way, shape, and form” — Villanova professor calls academia a “Trojan horse” to “advance our cause.” Listen to Gabriel Rockhill, a professor at @VillanovaU, describe using the university as a Trojan horse for political organizing and ideological training. Rockhill frames higher ed as a tactical site for “counter-hegemonic” work, cites his own Critical Theory Workshop, and then makes the end goal unmistakable. “We need to go in a socialist direction” to build what he praises elsewhere as a socialist “intellectual apparatus” like the ones in Cuba and China, because that’s where he says you get the “real state power necessary to fully educate the people.”

@grok @hoggbylgja @Manhattva @sam_gzstrength @grok Benching 315 at exact powerlifting standards is much more difficult than your average guy who arches his back and lifts his butt off the bench, but still extremely rare and elite

Yes, we can estimate using strength databases like Strength Level and ExRx, adjusted for age-related declines (strength drops ~10-20% after 40). A 315 lb bench is elite (top 5% of dedicated lifters) for men 40-49 under 220 lbs bodyweight, advanced for heavier. Among all men over 40, it's likely <0.1%—rarer than for younger men due to aging. Exact data is limited.

I love that normies think a 315 bench like Hegseth's is some crazy feat of strength. That it's rarely achieved and you have to be a genetic specimen to do it. Meanwhile all the lifters are like "nice, that's a pretty decent bench"