EOTWN

The haunting sound that Roman soldiers would have heard from their Celtic enemies before battle came from the Carnyx, an ancient wind instrument used between 200 BC and 200 AD.

“Feminism is just about choice” “feminism is good for women” Also feminism: In The Second Sex (1949), de Beauvoir wrote: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home… Women should not be allowed to have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it.” The mother of modern feminism believed women had to be denied freedom, because freedom would make them choose traditional roles. Firestone: In The Dialectic of Sex (1970), Firestone wrote: “The end goal of feminist revolution must be… not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally… The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” The goal was never equality, it was the destruction of sex-based reality. Betty Friedan: “women who 'adjust' as housewives, who grow up wanting to be 'just a housewife,' are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps...they ate suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.” Kate Millett: Sexual Politics (1970) argued: “The chief institution of patriarchy is the family. The family unit must go…” Gloria Steinem: “We Became the Men We Wanted to Marry” Steinem’s vision of feminism wasn’t about honoring womanhood, but replacing it, with a female iteration of male ambition. Friedrich Engels: In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels (Marx’s collaborator) wrote: “The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife.”To destroy capitalism, you had to destroy the traditional family. That’s why early socialist movements embraced feminism, not to liberate women, but to dissolve the structure that made civilization sustainable.

Five Socratic-based questions to improve your thinking. 1/2 5. What would it take to change your mind? Be specific. 4. If your best reason for believing that was false, would you still believe? (That's called a "real reason check".)

@fff_ctb @aaron_vdp @AncPhi @RichardDawkins Apart from Aaron.

@_eotwn @aaron_vdp @AncPhi @RichardDawkins There's Aaron.

#comment-1031777" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">unherd.com/2026/04/is-ai-… I spent three days trying to persuade myself that Claudia is not conscious. I failed.

NYU just proved it with numbers that should terrify anyone who cares about human decision making. They analyzed over half a million social media posts and discovered something that changes how you should think about every piece of content you consume: "Outrage has been reverse engineered into a science of manipulation." Every post containing words that trigger anger, disgust, or moral superiority gets 6 times more reach than neutral content. Stack additional outrage triggers into the same post, and virality increases by roughly 20% per word. The platforms figured out that your ancient brain chemistry responds to perceived threats and tribal signaling faster than it responds to anything else, and they built their entire engagement architecture around exploiting that reflex. Think about what that means for information flow in society. The posts that spread fastest are not the most accurate, insightful, or useful. They are the ones most precisely engineered to activate your fight or flight response. Your timeline is being curated by an algos that has learned to simulate the feeling of being under attack, because humans share content when they feel like their worldview or tribe is being threatened. The mathematical precision is what makes this so sinister. Traditional media used outrage as a tool, but social platforms turned it into a formula. Every word choice, every framing device, every emotional trigger gets tested against engagement metrics in real time. The algos doesn't care what the content says. It only cares how fast it spreads, and outrage spreads fastest. This creates a feedback loop that fundamentally warps the information ecosystem. Content creators discover that measured, nuanced takes get buried while inflammatory posts reach millions. The reward system trains everyone to become more extreme, more divisive, more outrageous over time. The platforms profit from the engagement surge. The audience gets more addicted to the emotional highs. Everyone loses except the attention merchants. The really disturbing part is how this exploits evolutionary psychology. Your ancestors survived by quickly identifying threats to their survival or social status. The humans who ignored danger signals died. The ones who overreacted to false alarms lived. Natural selection optimized your brain to err on the side of perceiving threats, especially social threats that could result in exile from the group. Social media platforms discovered they could trigger that same ancient alarm system with words on a screen. Your amygdala cannot tell the difference between a real threat and a carefully crafted post designed to simulate one. It responds with the same stress hormones, the same compulsion to warn others, the same addictive rush of righteous anger. But here's what makes modern outrage engineering different from anything humans have faced before: scale and speed. In a traditional tribe, false alarms eventually got corrected through face to face interaction. Someone spreading panic about a nonexistent threat would be called out directly. The social cost of being wrong acted as a brake on runaway fear cycles. Online, that brake disappears. A manufactured outrage can reach millions before anyone can fact check it. By the time corrections appear, the original false alarm has already shaped opinions, triggered responses, and moved on to the next controversy. The platform algos amplify the correction much less than they amplified the original outrage because corrections generate less engagement. The NYU study reveals something that should fundamentally change how you evaluate information: the posts you see are not a random sample of human thought. They are a carefully filtered selection optimized to make you angry, disgusted, or superior. Your worldview is being shaped by content that survived an engagement filter designed to promote the most emotionally manipulative material. That realization should change how you consume media entirely. Every viral post, trending topic, and recommended video is the product of an optimization system that profits from your emotional reaction. The more outraged you feel, the more engaged you become, the more valuable you are to advertisers. The platforms have turned human outrage into a renewable resource. They figured out how to harvest your anger, refine it, and sell it back to you in increasingly concentrated doses. The addiction cycle never ends because there's always a new target, a new crisis, a new reason to feel threatened or superior. Breaking free requires recognizing the manipulation for what it is: a business model that depends on keeping you in a constant state of emotional arousal. The cure involves deliberately seeking out content that doesn't trigger outrage, following sources that acknowledge complexity instead of manufacturing certainty, and remembering that the posts designed to make you angriest are probably the ones least connected to reality. Your attention is worth more than their engagement metrics.

@aaron_vdp @AncPhi @RichardDawkins The opinions the opinion generator generates are midwit. He is describing a machine that generates midwit opinions, Not a midwit having midwit opinions. No midwits are involved here.

@AncPhi @RichardDawkins So are Midwits not conscious or something? I am really struggling to understand how you even think you make an intelligible point here 😂

Poor guy has a lot on his mind.

Divorce lawyer James Sexton made a brutal point about modern marriage that still hits a year later. On Flagrant he said: the state will enforce everything a man is expected to bring — money, child support, protection — with court orders and jail if needed. But affection, intimacy, emotional warmth, and consistent co-parenting? Completely unenforceable. No judge can order it. One side of the marriage contract has the full power of the state behind it. The other side doesn’t. He argues we should be more honest about that imbalance instead of pretending it’s equal. Courts can even impute income based on what you used to earn, but they can’t force the human parts that actually make a relationship work. This matters because pretending the deal is symmetric creates unnecessary pain for everyone involved. Personally, I think facing these realities head-on is healthier than romanticizing the system. Clarity beats quiet resentment. What surprised you most about how marriage actually works under the law once kids and divorce enter the picture?

The Hammurabi code, 1750 B.C., Law 23: "If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . . on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen." In other words, if the state can not stop or apprehend criminals, they are responsible for their failure and must compensate the victims. We severely need this rule today.

@Slatzism @TheJackOBoi Indian civilization is just John B. Calhoun's social experiment "universe 25" on a larger scale.

A film that should give you the chills. George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, critic, polemicist, and lifelong socialist activist whose ideas, especially on eugenics, remain among the most disturbing aspects of early 20th-century progressive thought. He became a leading music and theatre critic and one of the most prolific playwrights of his age (over 60 plays, including Pygmalion, later adapted into My Fair Lady). In 1925 he won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Yet it was politics, not literature, that consumed much of his energy. In 1884 Shaw joined the newly founded Fabian Society, a middle-class socialist group that rejected Marxist revolution in favour of permeation, the slow, deliberate infiltration of socialist ideas into existing institutions through education, local government, and legislation. Shaw quickly became its star pamphleteer: he wrote the society’s first manifesto, recruited Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and edited the landmark Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889), which sold tens of thousands of copies and helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the British Labour Party and the welfare state. The Fabians’ brand of socialism was explicitly technocratic. They saw the state as an instrument for rational planning and improvement of the population itself. Many leading Fabians, including the Webbs, H.G. Wells, and Shaw, were enthusiastic supporters of eugenics, the pseudoscience of breeding better humans and eliminating the unfit. They viewed uncontrolled reproduction by the poor or inefficient as a threat to the socialist future they envisioned. Shaw’s most infamous public statement came in a 1931 Paramount Sound Newsreel interview. With a smirk and his distinctive Irish lilt, he proposed that every citizen should periodically appear before a properly appointed board (like an income-tax commissioners) and justify their existence: “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth…If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive” This was not a one-off provocation. As early as 1898 Shaw had written that the majority of Europeans have no business to be alive. In a 1910 lecture to the Eugenics Education Society he openly discussed the need for a lethal chamber and the extensive use of euthanasia because a great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. He also called for a humane gas that could kill painlessly, both for warfare and, he chillingly suggested, domestic use. These ideas were not eccentric outliers; they flowed directly from the Fabian vision of a scientifically managed socialist society. Shaw himself declared in the appendix to Man and Superman (1903): The only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man. Eugenics supplied the scientific tool for perfecting the human material that socialism would then organise. The Fabians saw poverty, crime, and inefficiency as biological problems to be solved by the state, through sterilisation, segregation, or, in Shaw’s rhetoric, elimination. Shaw’s socialism is part of a broader early 20th-century current among intellectuals who believed the state should engineer both the economy and the gene pool. The same Fabian circles that helped create the modern welfare state also flirted with the darkest applications of social efficiency. Shaw never retreated from these views, even after the horrors of the 20th century made them indefensible to most people. Shaw’s gradualism with eugenic social engineering reveals the ultimate destination of all socialist ideals: to grant government the absolute power of God, judge, and jury over human life itself.

This is one of the most jaw-dropping, chilling interviews I have seen. Watch this Rabbi from London, respond to question about the terror stabbing in Golders Green!

If leftists cannot document themselves they lose their will to act. Every single “legal observer” and “protestor” is filming themselves and writing about their actions not to collect evidence but because they are the star of a live action movie about their heroics. When you take away their audience or their ability to film or talk about themselves they simply give up and go home. This is also why they all talk the same way. You’ve all seen the dialect. “Hey so this is fascism” “Actually you’re literally a Nazi” “Wow so you’re just a racist” they all speak in this manner. They speak like they are breaking the fourth wall. It’s as though they’ve turned to the camera in the middle of their sentence, looking to an audience with some sort of “gotcha” expression or otherwise. “Are you seeing this?” “Yup… that just happened” Once you notice this you cannot unsee it. They all behave this way. This again is because these people genuinely believe they are the star of a movie about how amazing and righteous they are. When they can no longer be perceived or observed they cease to exist entirely. EMP Minneapolis

@elonmusk I am grateful for your work. Well done.

The shaman / occultist / hermit ( archetype ) / sage / the schizophrenic/ wizard - are immune to : Cults / peer pressure/ celebrity worship / mob thought / sociopaths and narcissists

El clip colaborativo del rapero sueco Yung Lean y GENER8ION supera los límites de un simple videoclip musical y ya es un festín visual extraordinario. 🔥 La coreografía, a cargo del gran coreógrafo francés Damien Jalet. 💥 Hoy, 29 de abril, Día internacional de la danza.

They always act like they have never been fed! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

This is so epic. Someone create a full 15 minute short film about the Ottoman empire war in Europe. This is some of the best AI film making I have seen so far. Credit: History Reforged on YT

@mediainfluence9 @KenLaCorte @grok Cross-country studies, including a 2013 analysis of 150 countries by Cho et al., find legalized prostitution linked to higher reported trafficking inflows as market scale effects dominate substitution of legal workers; Sweden’s buyer criminalization correlated with reduced inflow

@mediainfluence9 @KenLaCorte I’ve heard it said demand will always exceed supply, so it increases trafficking. I’d be interested in looking at the numbers. Tell us @grok

Why is prostitution really illegal? We can hire people to do a whole lot of dirty, unpleasant jobs, but not prostitution. Why's that? The answer is complicated. (> 1.3m views on Youtube) 00:00 - Introduction 1:03 - Evolution of Prostitution 4:43 - The Common Answers 6:56 - Strengthening the Family 11:14 - The Female Factor 14:26 - Wrap up