Stardew

Doors were supposed to close at 4 for the Turning Point event that had announced starting time at 5. I got in a few after 4 and this is the scene:

I was told to recreate it (unfortunately I don't have matching trousers or a carbine)

When people ask where to begin with Julius Evola, I do not indulge the modern habit of easing oneself in gently, as though one were approaching something delicate or accommodating. Evola is neither. He does not admit of gradual entry. He is to be confronted, or not at all. If possible, he should be read in the original Italian. A great deal of nuance is lost otherwise, and with a thinker like Evola, precision matters. From there, I direct them immediately to “The Path of Cinnabar,” his final major work and, in a real sense, his most revealing. It is not an autobiography in the conventional, sentimental sense; it is an intellectual map of his own formation, a retrospective ordering of his thought by a man who had already seen the arc of his life completed. It helps orient the reader before encountering the more demanding works, and it clarifies how his ideas fit together and evolve across time. Only then should one proceed to what may be called the “big three,” the central axis of his work: “Revolt Against the Modern World,” “Men Among the Ruins,” and “Ride the Tiger,” read in that order. This sequence is not arbitrary; it follows the unfolding of his vision from metaphysical foundation, to political diagnosis, to existential strategy in a world he had already judged to be beyond recovery. Some will suggest beginning with more accessible texts, such as “The Mystery of the Grail” or “Metaphysics of War,” on the grounds that they are easier entry points. There is some merit to that approach, but I do not think it is necessary. Evola, like Friedrich Nietzsche or Martin Heidegger, rewards direct engagement; one either understands him, because one has the capacity for what he is saying, or one does not. Once that foundation is in place, the rest of his work can be approached more freely. The exact order becomes less important, because the underlying framework is already understood. At that point, whether one turns to his esoteric writings, his political essays, or his cultural critiques is largely a matter of predilection rather than necessity.

I won't be voting with any MAGA candidates in November unless they denounce Trump's attacks on the Pope

Kilmeade: Where do you stand on the Dignity Act? Stephen Miller: "You know that this administration opposes amnesty… but I want to reframe this whole conversation… We want to have high-value migration, not low-value migration." "This old Washington conversation about amnesty is missing the whole point—the real conversation is how do we have an immigration policy that makes America stronger and more unified, not weaker and more divided." We need to be stronger to "win all these civilizational struggles against [our] adversaries around the world," Miller says, seemingly alluding to the war with Iran. Note, • Miller doesn't say explicitly the White House is against the bill. • Press Sec. Leavitt was asked about it earlier this week and didn't give a position either. • Kilmeade said a week ago that it was Trump himself who told him he wants an amnesty in the form of "long-term work visas." • Trump's insistence on giving amnesty to illegal immigrant farm and hotel workers fits into Miller's "reframing."

Religion stole my entire sexual prime. I didn’t have sex until my wedding night at 23. I didn’t have a real dating life until my divorce at 28. And I’m done pretending that wasn’t a tragedy.

"O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us!" — from the Memorare