Todd Davis

What's actually happening is that women are building a life. Men are waiting to do so until they find the right women. Thus, as they age, more and more women have built a life and expect the man to settle into it and that's unappealing, but so-too is her abandoning her "nest" to join him. The central problem is age, not income. The early years in a relationship are when a man confirms his worthiness by navigating their young marriage into a good situation. If, 20 years later, she earns more money, it doesn't undermine him because his status within the marriage is established. That entire stage is being skipped and instead, a man is dropping into the life of a fully mature woman and expecting her to contribute fully while taking a backseat on status and authority with a man that, frankly, she doesn't know well enough. A 19 year old woman can grant a man access or even authority over her finances because she doesn't have many. A 30 year old woman with a house? She can't responsibly do that. Worse, both situations invite distinct category of predators, and the 30 year old is likely more sensitive to that, though that's another matter. Ultimately, the hard reality is that if a man doesn't marry young enough to confirm his status by successfully shepherding them to success (even if, in some situations, the income comes through her directly) then he's unlikely to even attain it.

dont ever help anyone you know get a job at your job... literally ever

You might not like it, but this is what elite performance looks like.

President Trump please annex Montreal there's nowhere in America for broke artists New York is too expensive and Philadelphia is too bleak

What historical fact sounds fake but is true?

See when I say they’re morons this is the sort of thing I’m talking about: he literally just won seven Oscars for OPPENHEIMER, a movie with an almost entirely white cast.

Then and Now

never forget what the jacobins did to Louis XVII, he was just a child when they tortured him, he was only 10 when he died, and keep in mind this is just what wikipidia is willing to have up, imagine how much worse the full truth is.

I wrote a new piece about the Lend-Lease program to fully cover the subject and answer challenges and questions. In the eight decades since that final victory, a persistent Western narrative has emerged: one that credits American Lend-Lease material with tipping the balance in the Soviet Union's favour. This article challenges that claim directly. Lend-Lease was a genuine contribution, and to dismiss it as irrelevant would be dishonest. But the assertion that the Soviet Union could not have prevailed without it, a claim still echoed in Western popular histories, does not survive rigorous scrutiny. What follows is a four-part examination of Soviet industrial capacity, the chronological mismatch between aid delivery and the war's decisive moments, the internal transformation of the Red Army, and the broader strategic balance that made Soviet victory structurally inevitable long before American goods crossed the North Atlantic in meaningful quantities. PART 1 : Any serious engagement with the Lend-Lease debate must begin with chronology, because the chronology is damning to the maximalist case. The United States formally extended the Lend-Lease Act to the Soviet Union in November 1941, but the logistical reality meant that supplies in militarily significant quantities did not begin arriving until the latter half of 1942, and the programme did not reach its peak deliveries until 1943 and 1944. This timing is critical. The three battles that decided the war on the Eastern Front, Moscow (autumn-winter 1941), Stalingrad (autumn 1942 through February 1943), and the Kursk salient (summer 1943), were fought overwhelmingly with Soviet-produced weapons, Soviet-grown food, Soviet-mined fuel, and the blood of Soviet soldiers. To credit Lend-Lease with these victories is to confuse a supporting actor for the lead. The crisis that Lend-Lease was meant to address had already passed by the time the pipeline reached its stride. The Red Army that smashed Army Group Centre in 1944 was built on four years of catastrophic sacrifice and accelerating domestic production, not on American trucks and tinned beef. In the autumn of 1941, the Wehrmacht drove to within striking distance of Moscow. The Stavka's response, drawing on Siberian reserves, improvised fortifications, and the desperate resolve of a nation fighting on its own soil, produced the first major German strategic defeat of the Second World War. At this moment, total Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union amounted to less than 1% of what would eventually arrive. The Sherman tanks, the Studebaker trucks, the canned rations: none of this existed in meaningful quantities at the front when Georgy Zhukov launched his December counteroffensive. The first Arctic convoys had barely begun running. The Persian corridor was not yet operational. The Alaskan-Siberian air route (ALSIB) would not become functional until late 1942. Moscow was saved by Soviet soldiers with Soviet guns manufactured in factories relocated, in an astonishing feat of wartime logistics, east of the Urals. That relocation alone, arguably the greatest industrial migration in human history, is a more significant factor in Soviet survival than anything that crossed the North Atlantic in 1941 or early 1942. Stalingrad: The encirclement and destruction of Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus's Sixth Army at Stalingrad is universally acknowledged as the strategic turning point of the European war. By February 1943, when the last German survivors surrendered in the ruins of the city, Lend-Lease deliveries were accelerating but still represented a modest fraction of Red Army frontline strength. The T-34s that formed the walls of Operation Uranus's encirclement came from Chelyabinsk and Nizhny Tagil, not from Detroit. The aircraft flying close support were overwhelmingly Soviet-designed and Soviet-built Ilyushin Il-2s.