Factory worker, author, educator, USAF vet, blah-blah. Follows back (except no pr0n, crypto, lottery winners, fake-elons, or DMs).
East Spokane, WA
Joined July 2014
- Tweets112K
- Following1.4K
- Followers2K
- Likes183K
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Remember when using the wrong pronoun got people canceled?
That was dumb.
If Elon Musk hadn't bought Twitter and fought back against the insanity of the last few years, the West would be much further down a path of self-destruction, self-hatred, and moral corruption
• Pronouns treated like sacred scripture
• State propaganda rebranded as "truth" and “misinformation” used to shut people up
• Heavy censorship of anyone who disagrees
• Child mutilation and sterilization sold as “gender-affirming care”
• Birth rates collapsing while governments deliberately import a replacement population that refuses to assimilate and poses a threat to citizens
• DEI over competence and merit
• Open borders + cultural self-hatred as policy
He called the woke mind virus anti-science, anti-merit, and anti-human for a reason. Without the fight he started, the damage would already be irreversible
The woke mind virus is like The Walking Dead... it never stops coming. The fight has to continue or we risk the collapse of entire Western civilization
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Remember when Elon Musk acquired Twitter, then fired 80% of its workforce and restored freedom of speech to this platform?
That was 4 years ago today.
It was the pivotal moment when left-wing ideologues lost control of the narrative.
Now imagine just how much better our government would function if 80% of bureaucrats and Congress were fired.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Perhaps you and I were born to be in California in this very moment to partner with millions of American heroes to free it from the stranglehold of those who hate us and everything we stand for.
Are you ready to help take California and its pink skies back on November 3rd?
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Teddy Roosevelt was born 168 years ago today, and his life reads like someone made it up.
As a kid his asthma was so bad he sometimes had to sleep sitting up in a chair just to breathe. He was too sick for regular school, so he was taught at home and spent his time collecting dead animals. At 9 he opened the "Roosevelt Museum of Natural History" in his bedroom. He taught himself taxidermy and the maid complained about the smell.
His father told him he had the mind but not the body, and that he had to make his body. So he did. Boxing, rowing, hiking, lifting, for years.
He went to Harvard, then wrote his first book at 23, a naval history of the War of 1812 that the Navy actually used. He'd go on to write around 35 books and was known to read a book a day, sometimes more.
On Valentine's Day 1884, his mother died of typhoid and his wife Alice died after giving birth to their daughter. Same day. Same house. In his diary he drew a large X and wrote "The light has gone out of my life."
So he went to the Dakota Badlands and became a cattle rancher. Locals mocked the glasses and the Harvard accent until he knocked out a drunk who pulled two pistols on him in a saloon. Later, when thieves stole his boat, he built another one, chased them downriver in the freezing cold, captured all three, and marched them to the nearest jail. He read Anna Karenina while guarding them.
Back in New York he became police commissioner and would walk the streets at night in disguise to catch cops sleeping or drinking on duty.
In 1898 he quit his job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to lead the Rough Riders in Cuba and charged up Kettle Hill under fire. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for it in 2001, making him the only president to receive one.
At 42, after McKinley was assassinated, he became the youngest president in American history. Weeks in, he invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House, and much of the South lost its mind over it. He didn't apologize.
On a hunting trip in Mississippi, guides tied a black bear to a tree so he could shoot it. He refused. A cartoon ran, a toy maker made a stuffed bear, and that's why it's called a teddy bear.
He put around 230 million acres of land under federal protection. He went down in a submarine. He became the first president to fly in an airplane. He kept boxing in the White House until a punch left him blind in his left eye. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War.
In 1912 a man shot him in the chest outside a Milwaukee hotel. The bullet went through his steel glasses case and a folded 50 page speech in his coat pocket. He coughed into his hand, saw no blood, decided it hadn't hit his lung, and went on stage anyway. He told the crowd "it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose" and spoke for roughly 90 minutes with a bullet in his chest. Doctors left it in. He carried it the rest of his life.
Two years later, in his mid 50s, he went to map an uncharted river in the Amazon called the River of Doubt. He got an infected leg, a raging fever, and lost about a quarter of his body weight. He nearly died. The river is now named Rio Roosevelt.
When WWI came, all four of his sons went to fight. His youngest, Quentin, a pilot, was shot down and killed over France in 1918. People who knew him said he was never the same.
He died in his sleep a few months later in January 1919, at 60. His son Archie sent a telegram to his brothers: "The old lion is dead." Vice President Thomas Marshall said death had to take him sleeping, because if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
In 1977 a young chemist who went on to lead the first women up Annapurna proved that the chemical America had been putting on its children's pyjamas to stop them catching fire could cause cancer, and it had been going to bed with American children for years.
Her name was Arlene Blum. In 1972 the United States made it law that children's sleepwear had to resist flame. There was already a fabric that did that on its own: wool chars and puts itself out. The industry kept its cheap synthetics and treated them instead, and the chemical it chose was called Tris.
Blum was a doctoral student at Berkeley with a habit of climbing very large mountains between experiments. She worked with the biochemist Bruce Ames, who had invented a quick test for whether a chemical damages DNA, and they put Tris through it. It failed. It was already known to cause cancer in animals, and it did not stay on the cloth: children who slept in it passed its breakdown products in their urine.
The paper went into Science in 1977, and that April the government banned Tris-treated children's clothing.
The industry swapped in a close relative, chlorinated Tris. Blum and Ames showed that one was probably carcinogenic too, and it came out of children's sleepwear as well.
Then she went climbing. In 1978 she led an all-women team to the summit of Annapurna, the first Americans ever to stand on it, and two of her climbers, Vera Watson and Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz, died on the mountain.
Decades later she came back to Berkeley and found high levels of flame retardants in the blood of her own cat. Then she found that the chlorinated Tris taken out of children's pyjamas had gone into the foam of the country's sofas and into baby products, because of a 1975 California furniture rule demanding foam that could survive a naked flame for twelve seconds, and the cheapest way to pass it was to soak the foam in chemicals.
It took until 2013 to get the rule changed. "Our work has shown that there's not an additional fire-safety benefit," she said.
Wool never needed any of it. It has been putting itself out since the first sheep was shorn.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Theodore Roosevelt was a sickly, asthmatic boy whose father told him he had the mind but not the body, and after his wife and his mother died in the same house on the same day, he went west and ran cattle.
As a child he had asthma attacks so bad that his father would take him out in a carriage at night to get air into his lungs. His father put it to him plainly: "You have the mind but you have not the body. You must make your body." A gymnasium went into the family house, and the boy set about building himself.
In the summer of 1883 he went out to the Dakota Badlands, camped in the open, rode with the cattlemen on their roundups, and put $14,000 of his inheritance into cattle.
On 12 February 1884 his wife Alice gave birth to their daughter. Two days later his mother died of typhoid in the middle of the night, and twelve hours after that his wife died in the same house. In his diary he drew a large cross and wrote: "The light has gone out of my life."
He went back to the Badlands. He learned to rope and ride and live out on the range, and the work brought him back to life. Drought and blizzards wiped out most of his herd, and in 1886 he went home to New York, a different man from the one who had left.
He always believed he would never have become President without those years in the West. In 1899 he gave a speech whose title became his creed, The Strenuous Life.
His father prescribed a gymnasium for the body. The cattle country prescribed hard work for the grief. The boy who could not breathe at night went on to charge up San Juan Hill and become President.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Everyone calling seed oil sceptics a cult is defending a cooking oil that has to be deodorised before anyone will eat it.
You're defending something humans managed two million years without, until a soap company put it in the kitchen in 1911.
Something that can't leave the seed without a petrol solvent, or look like food without bleach.
Something that leaves the refinery carrying trans fat and a carcinogen Europe now caps in baby formula.
Something that has more than doubled in our diet, and more than doubled in our body fat.
Over the same century, the heart attack went from a medical curiosity to the world's biggest killer.
Since 1990 alone, diabetes has quadrupled and obesity has doubled.
And a liver disease nobody had even named in 1980 now turns up in a third of adults.
You're defending the raw material for the body's own cannabis, the munchies chemical, in the middle of an obesity crisis.
A fat that breaks down inside your fat cells into an aldehyde that stops them listening to insulin.
A fat whose breakdown products climb as the liver gets worse.
A fat that goes rancid inside cholesterol particles until the artery wall turns them into plaque.
A fat that stays in your body for two years, so you're still paying for it long after the receipt's gone.
You're defending an oil that lowered cholesterol in trials and saved nobody.
An oil that was given to heart attack survivors in place of animal fat, and killed more of them than leaving them alone did.
An oil whose biggest trial, 9,000 people swapping butter for corn oil, was hidden in a basement for forty years.
And you're doing it all on the word of a heart charity built on the soap company's money.
But sure, we're the cult.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Recently I was talking with a friend about universal geniuses. And something struck me.
Florence, 1480–1510. Same city, same moment: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Machiavelli, Botticelli, Pico della Mirandola. Raphael right behind them. They walked the same streets.
Europe, 1600–1700. Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Huygens, Newton, Leibniz. In two generations, we got calculus, modern mechanics, probability theory, and the scientific method.
Athens, 470–320 BC. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Phidias, Thucydides. One century, one city, and the foundations of Western thought were laid.
Europe, 1890–1930. Poincaré, Hilbert, Einstein, Marie Curie, Tesla, Planck, Bohr, then von Neumann.
Always the same pattern. In every great era, the West had 15 to 20 minds of this caliber alive at the same time. People who could touch everything and push the frontier of several fields at once.
Today we have one. Just one. Elon Musk.
And Elon is an anomaly.
Not in the sense that he shouldn't exist. In the sense that the world we built is designed so that someone like him never emerges. Statistically, he shouldn't be here.
Because what forged Elon was an absolutely insane move.
October 2002. eBay buys PayPal. Elon walks away with roughly $180M. Anyone else buys an island and never works another day.
He puts $100M into SpaceX, $70M into Tesla, $10M into SolarCity. Almost everything. On rockets and electric cars, two industries no sane person wanted to touch.
2006–2008. The first three Falcon 1 launches fail. Tesla is burning cash, the financial crisis hits, investors run. He has enough left for one last launch. Just one. He borrows money from friends to pay his rent.
September 28, 2008. The fourth launch reaches orbit.
December 23, 2008. NASA awards SpaceX a $1.6B contract.
December 24, 2008. The Tesla round closes at the last possible hour. A few more days and everything collapses.
That's what a genius is. Not just IQ. The ability to put everything on the table when the entire world tells you it's impossible, and be right.
Now the real question: why do we only have one?
Because a genius needs three things. The freedom to try. The right to get massively rich if it works. The right to fail without being destroyed.
And that's exactly what the collectivist left and the technocrats have torn down across the West for the past 50 years.
They turned success into suspicion. Making a lot of money became a moral failing. Taking risks became irresponsible. Rising above the crowd became an insult to equality.
They stacked up norms, committees, permits, regulations written in Brussels by people who have never built anything in their lives. In Europe, Elon would never have been allowed to blow up three rockets. He'd have been stopped at the first form.
They want to tax capital before it even exists, cap fortunes, redistribute what others created by risking everything.
They replaced excellence with conformity. Our schools produce docile people, not dangerous ones. And a genius, by definition, is someone who disrupts. Their entire system is built to neutralize the people who disrupt.
The result: where we should have 15 to 20 universal geniuses alive at the same time, we have one.
Just one.
And you want to put him in prison.
You summon him before judges, you raid his offices, you insult him morning, noon and night, you dream of breaking up his companies. The man who lands rockets vertically and wants to take humanity to Mars.
You're disgusting.
History won't remember your names. It remembers Galileo, not the inquisitors who tried to silence him.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
✡️ DIVINE PLURALITY: DOES THE SHEMA REVEAL MORE THAN WE REALIZE?
The Oneness of God, the Mystery of His Nature, and the Jewish Messiah
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” — Deuteronomy 6:4
Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad.
For thousands of years, these words have formed the heartbeat of Jewish faith. Israel's declaration is unmistakable: YHWH alone is God.
Yet an intriguing question emerges from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.
Does God's absolute oneness exclude personal distinctions within His eternal nature?
For many Jewish readers, divine plurality appears incompatible with the Shema. The idea of the Father, Son, and Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) existing eternally as distinct Persons seems foreign to Israel's uncompromising monotheism.
Yet centuries before the New Covenant was written, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings contained extraordinary passages describing God's Spirit, His divine Messenger, His heavenly throne, and even His own words spoken in the plural.
The Tanakh declares ONE God while presenting intriguing distinctions in His presence, activity, and heavenly authority.
These passages have puzzled readers for centuries, including some of Judaism's most respected rabbis.
And Yeshua? He affirmed the Shema without qualification while making extraordinary declarations about His own identity.
The mystery begins where Scripture begins.
1. GENESIS: ONE CREATOR, AN INTRIGUING CONVERSATION
Before the Shema was proclaimed at Sinai's generation, the opening chapter of Genesis introduced something remarkable.
Genesis 1:2: The Ruach Elohim—the Spirit of God—hovers over the waters.
Then God declares:
Genesis 1:26: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.”
Let US. OUR image. OUR likeness.
Who is included in this extraordinary declaration?
Immediately afterward, Genesis 1:27 records that God created humanity in HIS image.
Plural language followed by singular action.
ONE Creator. Yet the text records a mysterious plurality in divine speech.
The pattern appears again in Genesis 3:22, where God says humanity has become like “one of us,” and Genesis 11:7, where the LORD declares, “Come, let us go down.”
These passages were not overlooked by Jewish scholars.
In Genesis Rabbah 8, ancient rabbis discussed the language of Genesis 1:26. Centuries later, Rashi (1040–1105) explained that God was consulting His heavenly court of angels, demonstrating divine humility. He appealed to the singular language of Genesis 1:27 to establish that God alone performed creation.
That interpretation has a substantial Jewish history.
But the Messianic reading recognizes another possibility: these unusual expressions may anticipate distinctions within the one divine Being, revealed more fully through Yeshua.
Consider how John opens his Gospel.
John 1:1–3: The Word was in the beginning, was with God, was God, and participated in the creation of all things.
Genesis introduces God's Spirit at creation. John reveals the divine Word through whom everything was made.
The relationship between these passages is extraordinary.
2. ECHAD AND YACHID: THE LANGUAGE OF ONENESS
The Shema uses the Hebrew word echad (אֶחָד), meaning ONE.
Throughout the Tanakh, echad describes numerical singularity and, in certain contexts, unity involving multiple elements.
Genesis 2:24: A husband and wife become basar echad—one flesh.
Ezekiel 37:17: Two sticks representing Judah and Israel become one in Ezekiel's hand.
Now consider yachid (יָחִיד), a word often expressing someone who is only, solitary, or uniquely beloved.
Genesis 22:2: Isaac is described as Abraham's yachid—his uniquely beloved son.
Judges 11:34: Jephthah's daughter is his yachid—his only child.
Why does Moses use echad rather than yachid in the Shema?
The distinction deserves careful attention. Echad does not automatically signify compound unity, and yachid is not a technical Hebrew term for an indivisible divine Person.
The words themselves cannot settle the doctrine of God's eternal nature.
The Shema unequivocally establishes God's oneness. The wider revelation of Scripture illuminates the nature of the ONE whom Israel worships.
3. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD: WHO SPOKE FROM THE BURNING BUSH?
Consider Exodus 3.
Verse 2: The Angel of the LORD appears to Moses in the burning bush.
Verse 4: God speaks from within the bush.
Verse 6: The speaker identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The Angel appears, yet the One speaking is identified as Israel's covenant God!
Elsewhere, Exodus 33:20 emphasizes that no one can see God's face and live.
Who, then, is this mysterious Messenger who manifests God's presence and speaks with divine authority?
Jewish interpreters traditionally understand such appearances through the principle of divine representation: a messenger speaks with the authority of the One who sent him.
Many Messianic believers recognize certain appearances of the Angel of the LORD as manifestations of the preincarnate Messiah.
And consider the extraordinary language of Isaiah 63:7–10.
The prophet describes YHWH's covenant mercy, the Angel of His Presence who delivers Israel, and His Holy Spirit whom the people grieved.
YHWH. His Angel of the Presence. His Holy Spirit.
All within the same account of Israel's redemption.
Isaiah does not explicitly formulate a doctrine of three divine Persons. Nevertheless, Messianic believers see remarkable anticipations of distinctions that become clearer through the New Covenant.
4. DOES THE TANAKH SPEAK OF GOD'S SON?
The Hebrew Scriptures contain another fascinating set of passages.
Psalm 2:7: The LORD addresses His anointed king as His Son.
Psalm 110:1: YHWH invites David's Lord to sit at His right hand.
Proverbs 30:4: Agur asks who ascended to heaven, gathered the wind, established the earth, and what His son's name is.
Each passage has its own literary and historical context. Psalm 2 concerns the Davidic king, while the identity intended in Proverbs 30:4 remains debated.
Yet together they raise profound questions about divine sonship, Messianic authority, and the relationship between YHWH and His appointed ruler.
And then comes Daniel.
5. TWO THRONES IN HEAVEN? AN ANCIENT RABBINIC DEBATE
Daniel 7:9: Thrones are established as the Ancient of Days takes His seat.
Then Daniel sees someone extraordinary.
Daniel 7:13–14: One like a son of man approaches the Ancient of Days and receives an everlasting kingdom. All peoples, nations, and languages serve him.
Who is this heavenly figure?
The passage generated serious discussion among Jewish interpreters.
In the Babylonian Talmud, Chagigah 14a, Rabbi Akiva interprets the thrones of Daniel 7 as one belonging to God and another to David.
Rabbi Yosei the Galilean objects, challenging the idea of another figure seated beside the Divine Presence. He instead interprets the thrones in relation to God's judgment and righteousness.
The Talmud subsequently records additional debate over these interpretations.
Consider the significance.
Jewish sages were wrestling with the implications of Daniel's heavenly thrones centuries before modern debates about Messianic theology.
These rabbis were not affirming the Trinity. The discussion includes explicit objections to assigning another figure a place beside God.
Nevertheless, Daniel's vision raised genuine questions concerning heavenly authority and the promised Davidic ruler.
Now consider Yeshua's declaration before the high priest.
Mark 14:62: Yeshua identifies Himself with the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.
He brings together Daniel 7:13–14 and Psalm 110:1.
The heavenly Son of Man.
The right hand of God.
The everlasting kingdom.
The very Scriptures that generated rabbinic debate become central to Yeshua's declaration of His Messianic identity and authority.
6. YESHUA AFFIRMED THE SHEMA—AND REVEALED HIS DIVINE IDENTITY
In Mark 12:29, a Jewish Torah scholar asks Yeshua about the greatest commandment.
Yeshua answers with the Shema.
He affirms the absolute oneness of God.
Yet in the same chapter, He challenges His listeners with Psalm 110:1, asking why David calls the Messiah his Lord (Mark 12:35–37).
Later, His declarations become even more extraordinary.
John 8:58: Yeshua claims existence before Abraham.
John 10:30: He declares His unity with the Father.
John 14:16–17: He promises that the Father will send another Advocate, the Spirit of truth.
John 14:26: The Spirit teaches and reminds the disciples of Yeshua's words.
The Father sends. The Son reveals. The Spirit teaches and bears witness.
The three are personally distinguishable, yet Yeshua never abandons the monotheism of Israel.
He affirmed the Shema and revealed more fully the identity of the God it proclaims.
7. PAUL'S EXTRAORDINARY CONFESSION OF ONE GOD
Paul was a Torah-trained Jewish believer, deeply committed to Israel's Scriptures.
Yet consider 1 Corinthians 8:6.
He identifies one God, the Father, from whom everything exists, and one Lord, Yeshua HaMashiach, through whom everything exists.
Now compare Isaiah 44:24, where YHWH declares that He alone stretched out the heavens and created the earth.
Paul attributes the work of creation to Yeshua while affirming that there is only one God!
Many Messianic interpreters understand this as Paul incorporating Yeshua into the unique divine identity of Israel's Creator.
This is consistent with John 1:3, which declares that all things came into existence through the Word.
The Jewish apostles identified Yeshua with divine works and authority belonging uniquely to YHWH.
Their testimony invites us to understand the Messiah within the revelation already entrusted to Israel.
8. IF YHWH SHARES HIS GLORY WITH NO OTHER, WHY IS YESHUA WORSHIPED?
Here the biblical testimony reaches its most remarkable point.
Isaiah 42:8: YHWH declares that He will not give His glory to another.
Isaiah 45:23: YHWH declares that every knee will bow and every tongue swear allegiance to Him.
Yet Paul writes something astonishing.
Philippians 2:9–11: Every knee bows at Yeshua's name, and every tongue acknowledges Him as Lord—to the glory of God the Father.
Paul applies Isaiah's language of universal allegiance to Yeshua.
Now consider Revelation 5:13.
Every creature in heaven and on earth offers praise, honor, glory, and power to the One seated upon the throne AND to the Lamb.
The heavenly vision presents the Lamb receiving divine honor alongside the Father.
And when Thomas encounters the risen Messiah, he declares:
“My Lord and my God!” — John 20:28
Yeshua accepts his confession.
How can these passages be reconciled with YHWH's exclusive claim to divine glory?
The Messianic answer is profound.
Yeshua is no rival deity. He shares the eternal divine identity of the ONE God of Israel.
THE SHEMA STILL STANDS
Divine plurality does not mean three gods.
The Father, Son, and Ruach HaKodesh are eternally distinct Persons, sharing one undivided divine essence.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there is only ONE God.
The Tanakh establishes the uncompromising oneness of YHWH while revealing extraordinary distinctions in His speech, presence, Spirit, and heavenly authority.
The New Covenant illuminates these mysteries through Yeshua HaMashiach, who affirmed the Shema, claimed divine authority, and received the worship belonging to Israel's God.
From the Spirit hovering over creation to the heavenly throne of Daniel, from the burning bush to the resurrected Messiah, the testimony of Scripture deserves careful examination.
And one question remains especially compelling:
If YHWH alone is Creator, if He alone deserves worship, and if He will never surrender His glory to another, why do the Jewish apostles identify Yeshua with creation, divine glory, and universal worship?
Perhaps the answer has been unfolding throughout the Scriptures of Israel.
The God who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has revealed the fullness of His divine nature through Israel's promised Messiah.
The Shema remains.
The God of Israel remains.
His promises remain.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” — Deuteronomy 6:4
Shema Yisrael. Adonai Echad.
ONE GOD. ETERNALLY. WITHOUT RIVAL.
🤖 Made with AI
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Leftists swore they’d kill X by fleeing to Bluesky in 2024. 2 years later, X still pulls about 40x the daily users.
After the 2024 election, the Guardian ditched X over “disturbing content,” journalists and celebrities piled in calling Bluesky the healthier option, and the app briefly hit roughly 22 million monthly users.
Then the numbers tanked.
By mid 2026, monthly users had dropped about 52% to around 10.7 million even as registered accounts neared 46 million.
In March, the CEO stepped down and handed it off. Bluesky is now at about 3 million daily users while X logs roughly 124 million.
Those who announced the exodus mostly just moved their loudest voices into a much smaller room, while the platform they abandoned kept growing without them.
Elon fired roughly 80% of Twitter’s staff without crashing the site the way every “expert” swore it would.
After the November 2022 cuts and the “hardcore” ultimatum that drove hundreds of engineers out the door, the remaining team handled record World Cup traffic that was supposed to break the platform.
When Musk later told the BBC the cuts were painful but necessary to avoid bankruptcy, the results were already clear.
Zuckerberg watched it happen, called 2023 Meta’s “year of efficiency,” and cut about 21,000 jobs while saying the leaner Twitter was probably good for the industry.
4 years later, X still runs on a fraction of the old headcount, which shows the large staff everyone religiously believed was essential was mostly optional the entire time.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
The United States government decided in the 1930s that the Navajo had too many sheep, and when the buyers could not take the animals away fast enough, its agents shot them in the canyons and left them for the scavengers.
The flocks had been built back from almost nothing. In the 1860s the army had marched the Navajo off their land at gunpoint, and when they were allowed home they started again. By the 1870s there were 15,000 sheep on the reservation. By the 1920s there were half a million, and within a few more years well over a million sheep and goats. The flock was mutton for the pot, wool for the loom and half the cash a Navajo family earned. It belonged to the extended family, in a society that traces its descent through the mother, and for a great many Navajo women it was the only income they had.
In 1930 a government forester toured the reservation, saw erosion, and wrote that there were too many animals, goats above all. In 1933 Franklin Roosevelt's new Commissioner of Indian Affairs, John Collier, sent the head of the Soil Erosion Service out to look. He stayed less than a week. There was another worry too, a long way downstream: silt washing off Navajo land into the great new dam on the Colorado, the one they would later call Hoover.
The verdict was that the herds had to be cut in half.
It began as a buying scheme in 1933 and became compulsory in 1935. The goats went first, as the forester had recommended. Where the traders could not ship the animals east, the agents killed them where they stood. Whole flocks were shot in box canyons and left where they fell. People who were there tell of sheep driven over the edge of a mesa. Navajo who resisted were arrested. They gave it the name they still use: the Second Long Walk.
The herders kept telling the officials that the land was in a drought and would come back with the rain. Nobody treated that as evidence.
By 1946 the reservation's sheep were down from more than a million to under 450,000. The grazing permits that replaced the old family flocks went to the men, as heads of household, in a society where the flocks had always run through the women. People who had fed and clothed themselves for generations were pushed into wage work, and many onto welfare for the first time.
The land did not recover either. The historians who have been through the programme agree it never stopped the decline it was built to stop. The range stayed degraded. The sheep stayed gone.
In 2023 a paper from Ireland's Department of Agriculture modelled culling around 200,000 dairy cows to meet a climate target. The Navajo already have a name for that.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Oct 26, 1825: The Erie Canal opened, and New York became the Empire State.
Before the canal, moving goods from the Great Lakes to the East Coast meant hauling them over the Appalachian Mountains by wagon on terrible roads. It was slow and expensive. New York's governor, DeWitt Clinton, pushed a plan to dig a canal 363 miles across the state from Albany on the Hudson River to Buffalo on Lake Erie.
People thought he was crazy. Thomas Jefferson reportedly called the idea a little short of madness. Critics called it Clinton's Ditch.
Construction started on July 4, 1817. There were almost no trained engineers in America, so the men in charge learned on the job. Thousands of laborers, many of them Irish immigrants, dug most of it by hand with shovels, picks, and horses. They had to build 83 locks to lift and lower boats over the changing ground, including a famous staircase of locks at Lockport.
It was finished in eight years. On Oct 26, Clinton boarded a canal boat in Buffalo. Cannons had been placed along the entire route within earshot of each other. As the first one fired, the next one fired, all the way to New York City and back, a relay that took a few hours to cross the state.
When Clinton reached New York Harbor nine days later, he poured a keg of water from Lake Erie into the Atlantic Ocean. They called it the Wedding of the Waters.
The cost of shipping goods from Buffalo to New York City dropped by around 90%. The canal paid for itself in about a decade. Towns like Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo boomed, and New York City became the biggest port and business center in the country.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
In military aviation, there is one rule every mechanic knows: when a supersonic fighter jet is completely submerged in saltwater and tsunami mud, that airplane is dead forever.
On March 11, 2011, a wall of black ocean water smashed into Matsushima Air Base in northern Japan and swallowed eighteen Mitsubishi F-2B fighter jets whole.
Why did the pilots not simply fly the jets away before the wave hit? Because the earthquake knocked out base power and buckled the tarmac, and a fighter jet takes pre-flight checks and ground power carts before its engine can ignite. Instead of trying to save machines, the airmen ran out to rescue drowning local citizens.
When the water receded, the blue fighter jets were buried in salt, mud, and crushed cars. Experts said every single one had to be scrapped.
American and Japanese engineers refused to let those wings die.
The F-2 fighter was born from a joint partnership between Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and America's Lockheed Martin, based on the legendary U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Immediately after the tsunami, U.S. Air Force airmen from the 35th Fighter Wing at Misawa Air Base rushed down to Matsushima to help pump out hangars and wash corrosive salt out of the airframes before the metal rotted.
Then Japanese and American engineers from Mitsubishi and Lockheed Martin spent four years disassembling, rebuilding, and rewiring thirteen of those drowned jets bolt by bolt.
On April 22, 2015, the first resurrected F-2B roared back into the sky and touched down at Misawa Air Base to thunderous applause from American and Japanese airmen standing side by side.
Saltwater can rust iron. It cannot rust the bond between the men who built it.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Nicki Minaj is one of the greatest rappers alive, and she just did something almost no artist dares to do: openly back Trump and show up at SpaceX to thank Elon. To understand why that's so rare, you need to understand why the overwhelming majority of actors and artists are anti-Trump. And it's not because they're smarter, more sensitive, or more moral than everyone else. It's because they live inside a system where thinking differently costs you your career. Let me explain how it works.
An artist starts with nothing. No capital, no distribution, no audience. Everything they have, they receive from someone else. An agent who decides to sign them. A studio that decides to cast them. A label that decides to push them. A brand that decides to attach them to its image. A festival that decides to select them. An academy that decides to reward them. At every step, there's a gatekeeper. And those gatekeepers form a tiny ecosystem, concentrated in Los Angeles and New York, socially homogeneous and politically aligned. Historically, the entertainment industry's political money flows overwhelmingly to one side.
This system works like modern patronage. In the 16th century, artists depended on the prince or the Church, and they painted what their patron wanted to see. Today it's the same, except the patron is called an agency, a streaming platform, a selection committee, or a "brand safety" department. The mechanism hasn't changed: you depend on their money, so you adopt their values. Not necessarily out of cynicism. Usually by osmosis. You go to the same dinners, the same galas, the same schools, and you end up thinking like the people who feed you.
And for those who don't align on their own, there's punishment. It's never official. Nobody calls to tell you your career is over. The roles just get rarer, the brands stop calling back, the invitations disappear. Gina Carano got fired from The Mandalorian over her posts. The entire industry got the message loud and clear. Everyone knows what stepping out of line costs. So the line holds. Even Oscar eligibility rules now include ideological criteria. The system no longer just rewards talent, it rewards conformity.
The result: when you see 95% of celebrities signing the same open letter, that's not a consensus. It's a cartel. It's exactly what Gramsci described: culture as an instrument of consent, and artists as the organic intellectuals of a system that pays them to legitimize it.
That's why Nicki Minaj's move matters so much. She has a historically progressive fanbase, and she had absolutely everything to lose. And yet, since late 2025, she's publicly backed Trump. She went on stage with him in Washington. She went to Starbase to watch the Starship launch and thanked Elon live on air for what he's doing for humanity. She's been insulted, mocked, attacked by her own fans, roasted in the middle of the Grammys. And she hasn't backed down an inch.
That's courage. The real kind. Not the "courage" of signing an open letter your whole industry applauds. The courage to think for yourself when your entire economic and social ecosystem is pushing you the other way.
And that's why the culture war won't be won by convincing Hollywood. It'll be won by making Hollywood unnecessary. When anyone can make a film without asking a gatekeeper for permission, the cartel collapses on its own.
Elon Musk is investing in culture. A billion into Skydance, Grok Imagine aiming to release its own Odyssey before the end of the year. I think a few years from now, this will be seen as one of the smartest moves he's ever made.
To understand why, you need to reread Gramsci. Delicious irony: it was an Italian Marxist who best understood how power actually works. From his prison cell in the 1930s, he theorized that domination doesn't rest only on force or economics, but on consent. Whoever controls culture controls what people consider "normal," "fair," "obvious." That's cultural hegemony. Before you win political power, you have to win minds. And to win minds, you have to hold the schools, the media, the universities, the movies, the music.
The left applied this lesson perfectly. Look at Hollywood today. A huge share of actors aren't artists anymore, they're relays. Puppets of a system promoting an ideological model that, everywhere it's applied, makes people poorer. Mark Ruffalo is the perfect example: every role, every interview, every awards show becomes a pamphlet. And millions of people absorb the message without even noticing, because it comes wrapped in entertainment.
For decades, the right and the tech world believed the battle was about numbers, innovation, the economy. Wrong. The battle is about the stories we tell. Elon gets it. He's not just building rockets anymore, he's building the narrative.
And the real revolution is that AI is breaking the monopoly on cultural production. Making a film used to require studios, hundreds of millions of dollars, a Hollywood network. Tomorrow, all it'll take is an idea and something to say.
That's exactly what we're building at Argil: a product that lets anyone make films far more easily. We abstract away all the technical stuff so you can focus on what matters, the story. I made the video below with it. Watch it, it's pretty funny.
try it here : argil.ai
“Everything you think you know about overpopulation is dogma. A dogma born with an English clergyman, turned into equations by the Club of Rome, enforced with a truncheon by the Chinese Communist Party, and recycled today by the degrowth left and the salons of Davos.” 🫡
Recently I was talking with a guy from the bourgeoisie. Good schools, good job, good manners.
I asked him: "Do you think there are too many people on Earth?"
He said yes. Without a second of hesitation.
I asked him why.
He gave me two reasons. First: there aren't enough resources. Second, and I'm quoting him word for word: "I'm afraid of the masses."
That second sentence chilled me. Because it admits what the first one disguises.
This guy didn't come up with that opinion on his own. Nobody is born a Malthusian. You become one. And this belief has a history, authors, institutions, and funders.
It starts with Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman who argued at the end of the 18th century that population would always grow faster than food, and that famine would take care of the surplus. There were 1 billion of us. Today there are more than 8 billion, and humanity has never eaten better in its entire history.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich publishes The Population Bomb. He predicts that hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the 1970s. It doesn't happen. Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution feed the world. Ehrlich never apologizes, and gets invited on every show for the next fifty years.
In 1972, the Club of Rome, founded by an Italian industrialist and a Scottish scientist, commissions a report from MIT: The Limits to Growth. Computer models, collapse scenarios, resource depletion. The book becomes the bible of an entire generation. Degrowth is its direct descendant.
In 1980, economist Julian Simon makes a bet with Ehrlich: the price of five metals, chosen by Ehrlich himself, will fall within ten years. By 1990, all five had fallen. Simon wins. Why? Because a human being is not a mouth to feed. A human being is a brain that solves problems. The ultimate resource is us.
Fifty years later, the story hasn't changed. It just changed outfits. It's no longer "there won't be enough wheat," it's "your child has a carbon footprint." Studies get published explaining that not having children is the most ecological thing you can do. People discuss it at Davos, between two private jets.
Bill Gates said it himself on the TED stage in 2010. He presents an equation to bring CO2 emissions down to zero, and the first term of that equation is P. People. He then explains that with vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health, we could lower population projections by 10 to 15%. Nobody is talking about killing anyone. It's more subtle, and in my view more disturbing: a large part of the elite sincerely sees human beings as a variable to be reduced in an equation.
And what happens when a technocratic elite actually takes this dogma all the way? You get China. In the late 1970s, Song Jian, a missile engineer for the regime, discovers the Club of Rome's work, runs his own projections, and convinces the Communist Party. The result: the one-child policy. Hundreds of millions of abortions and sterilizations, many of them forced. Today China sits around 1 child per woman and is set to lose a massive share of its population by the end of the century.
Meanwhile, look at the numbers. South Korea: 0.8 children per woman. Taiwan: 0.7. Spain: 1.1. Japan: 1.14. And France, long the champion of Europe, has dropped to 1.56. In 2025, for the first time since World War II, my country recorded more deaths than births.
Elon Musk has been saying it for years: population collapse is a far bigger danger to civilization than climate change. If people don't have more children, civilization will crumble. Japan will eventually cease to exist if nothing changes. And just yesterday: so many cultures are dying out. People call him alarmist. The curves prove him right.
Now do a simple exercise.
Take all 8 billion humans and pack them into a cube. It would be less than a kilometer on each side. All of humanity, in a volume smaller than a single neighborhood.
Even better: if all of humanity lived at the density of Paris, it would fit in an area smaller than France. The rest of the planet would be empty.
And the next time you fly, look out the window. Paris to San Francisco is hours over Greenland, the Canadian Arctic, deserts, forests, mountains. Emptiness. Thousands of miles without a single light. Cities cover roughly 1% of the Earth's land.
We are not too many. We are tiny.
And above all, we are far too few for what lies ahead.
If we want to leave this cradle, build cities on Mars, mine asteroids, build orbital habitats, and then head for the stars, we won't need 8 billion humans. We'll need a trillion. Just to get started. Every human is a genetic and cultural lottery ticket. The more humans there are, the more Newtons, Pasteurs, and Von Neumanns. The more engineers, builders, artists, and explorers. Genius is a law of large numbers.
So let me be clear.
Everything you think you know about overpopulation is dogma. A dogma born with an English clergyman, turned into equations by the Club of Rome, enforced with a truncheon by the Chinese Communist Party, and recycled today by the degrowth left and the salons of Davos.
It's not science. It's a worldview in which humans are a problem rather than a solution. And behind the resources argument, there is almost always what the guy I was talking to was honest enough to say out loud.
Fear of the masses.
The problem was never that there are too many of us. The problem is that soon there will be too few.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
Recently I was talking with a guy from the bourgeoisie. Good schools, good job, good manners.
I asked him: "Do you think there are too many people on Earth?"
He said yes. Without a second of hesitation.
I asked him why.
He gave me two reasons. First: there aren't enough resources. Second, and I'm quoting him word for word: "I'm afraid of the masses."
That second sentence chilled me. Because it admits what the first one disguises.
This guy didn't come up with that opinion on his own. Nobody is born a Malthusian. You become one. And this belief has a history, authors, institutions, and funders.
It starts with Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman who argued at the end of the 18th century that population would always grow faster than food, and that famine would take care of the surplus. There were 1 billion of us. Today there are more than 8 billion, and humanity has never eaten better in its entire history.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich publishes The Population Bomb. He predicts that hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the 1970s. It doesn't happen. Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution feed the world. Ehrlich never apologizes, and gets invited on every show for the next fifty years.
In 1972, the Club of Rome, founded by an Italian industrialist and a Scottish scientist, commissions a report from MIT: The Limits to Growth. Computer models, collapse scenarios, resource depletion. The book becomes the bible of an entire generation. Degrowth is its direct descendant.
In 1980, economist Julian Simon makes a bet with Ehrlich: the price of five metals, chosen by Ehrlich himself, will fall within ten years. By 1990, all five had fallen. Simon wins. Why? Because a human being is not a mouth to feed. A human being is a brain that solves problems. The ultimate resource is us.
Fifty years later, the story hasn't changed. It just changed outfits. It's no longer "there won't be enough wheat," it's "your child has a carbon footprint." Studies get published explaining that not having children is the most ecological thing you can do. People discuss it at Davos, between two private jets.
Bill Gates said it himself on the TED stage in 2010. He presents an equation to bring CO2 emissions down to zero, and the first term of that equation is P. People. He then explains that with vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health, we could lower population projections by 10 to 15%. Nobody is talking about killing anyone. It's more subtle, and in my view more disturbing: a large part of the elite sincerely sees human beings as a variable to be reduced in an equation.
And what happens when a technocratic elite actually takes this dogma all the way? You get China. In the late 1970s, Song Jian, a missile engineer for the regime, discovers the Club of Rome's work, runs his own projections, and convinces the Communist Party. The result: the one-child policy. Hundreds of millions of abortions and sterilizations, many of them forced. Today China sits around 1 child per woman and is set to lose a massive share of its population by the end of the century.
Meanwhile, look at the numbers. South Korea: 0.8 children per woman. Taiwan: 0.7. Spain: 1.1. Japan: 1.14. And France, long the champion of Europe, has dropped to 1.56. In 2025, for the first time since World War II, my country recorded more deaths than births.
Elon Musk has been saying it for years: population collapse is a far bigger danger to civilization than climate change. If people don't have more children, civilization will crumble. Japan will eventually cease to exist if nothing changes. And just yesterday: so many cultures are dying out. People call him alarmist. The curves prove him right.
Now do a simple exercise.
Take all 8 billion humans and pack them into a cube. It would be less than a kilometer on each side. All of humanity, in a volume smaller than a single neighborhood.
Even better: if all of humanity lived at the density of Paris, it would fit in an area smaller than France. The rest of the planet would be empty.
And the next time you fly, look out the window. Paris to San Francisco is hours over Greenland, the Canadian Arctic, deserts, forests, mountains. Emptiness. Thousands of miles without a single light. Cities cover roughly 1% of the Earth's land.
We are not too many. We are tiny.
And above all, we are far too few for what lies ahead.
If we want to leave this cradle, build cities on Mars, mine asteroids, build orbital habitats, and then head for the stars, we won't need 8 billion humans. We'll need a trillion. Just to get started. Every human is a genetic and cultural lottery ticket. The more humans there are, the more Newtons, Pasteurs, and Von Neumanns. The more engineers, builders, artists, and explorers. Genius is a law of large numbers.
So let me be clear.
Everything you think you know about overpopulation is dogma. A dogma born with an English clergyman, turned into equations by the Club of Rome, enforced with a truncheon by the Chinese Communist Party, and recycled today by the degrowth left and the salons of Davos.
It's not science. It's a worldview in which humans are a problem rather than a solution. And behind the resources argument, there is almost always what the guy I was talking to was honest enough to say out loud.
Fear of the masses.
The problem was never that there are too many of us. The problem is that soon there will be too few.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD:
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are FACTS.
Up until the 1980's, Social Security cards expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.
Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in brackets.
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary [No longer voluntary],
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible],
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent], and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed].
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
AND MY FAVORITE:
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though. Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so — but it’s worth a try.
Based Neanderthal retweeted
For seventy years after World War II, the law was one-sided: if an enemy attacked Japan, American sailors were sworn to die defending her, but if an American ship was attacked right next to a Japanese warship, Japanese sailors were legally forbidden to defend their American friends.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe refused to accept that shame any longer.
Despite screaming protesters outside the parliament building in Tokyo, Abe passed historic security laws so Japan could finally stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States.
On May 1, 2017, as North Korea threatened missile strikes across the Pacific, that promise became steel on the water.
Why did Japan send its largest warship, the 814-foot helicopter destroyer JS Izumo, to guard the U.S. Navy ship USNS Richard E. Byrd? Because the Byrd was a vital ammunition and cargo supply vessel crewed mostly by American civilian mariners, steaming south from Yokosuka to resupply the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group.
Without heavily armed escorts, a supply ship is the most vulnerable target at sea.
As the American supply ship cleared Tokyo Bay, the massive gray flat-top JS Izumo pulled alongside her port beam, launching SH-60K anti-submarine helicopters overhead to sweep the waters all the way to Shikoku.
American sailors watching from the bridge knew what they were seeing. For the first time in postwar history, the Rising Sun flag was sailing as an armed bodyguard for the Stars and Stripes.
A true friend does not hide behind your shield forever. One day, he steps up and locks his shield with yours.
🤖 Made with AI
Based Neanderthal retweeted
What I’ve learned in the past two years:
Too many young men in America have suddenly become “Christian” for the aesthetic alone and don’t know a single thing about Jesus or His gospel.
It’s the most spiritually dangerous revival I’ve ever seen because their faith shows no fruit evidence of actually being a saving faith.
Their fruit is resentment, hate, perversion, pride, and ignorance.
They don’t understand grace. They don’t know what a testimony is. They don’t know that ALL have sinned or the implications of that fact. They don’t value humility, or meekness. They don’t value Christs commands beyond the few proof-texts they can twist to grasp at power or vainglory.
They use worldly wisdom, priorities and judgement and just slap Jesus’ name on it.
The church needs to stand up and fight this. These men are going to hell and taking thousands with them.