domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
The thing is that cooking and washing were compatible with childcare, while teaching and medicine generally are not. Children benefit from stay-at-home moms; I did, anyway. And if your values differ from those of the broader culture, daycare is likely to drag your kids at least part way to that culture.
I know that this isn't practical for all families. But we should try to make it practical for as many families as we can. And for those couples who are on the fence about what to do, we should let them know that it's good for them and their kids.
Edit: Since this discussion started with college, I'd like to add that the liberal arts are valuable for most intelligent people -- the actual liberal arts, not activism in a skinsuit. Making those available in a way that is culturally and economically compatible with housewifery as a life path is a worthwhile goal in itself.
The problem for Douglas with the DR is that he spent years doing talks and debates against mass immigration and anti-western thought where he based his whole rhetoric around the fact that, ultimately, 'we killed Hitler'.
When the foundation for that is questioned and the roles of good and bad are muddled or ignored, Doug has to respond.
It's a hallmark of what I would call, in the spirit of our new term; the faux Right. Every pontification towards what is good for Europeans has to be grounded in some form of bargain of what is 'fair'. And what determines fairness is generally just progressive morality from 10-20 years ago.
They do this really really slowly and at a projected cost of billions of dollars.
And I'm going to guess that the vast majority of that money goes into the pockets of people who were educated as lawyers. The people working to block or enable it, the politicians pushing or decrying the project, the lobbying groups, the justices who review each project...
The real blackpill is that any society with laws will ultimately be put to the service of those who have the right to argue them. Retvrn to kritarchy; abandon ALL laws except those decided on by the arbitrary whims of respected community members.
Saying he "reposted" a swastika seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch. Matt replied to a guy's tweet. (The guy could have been a troll, whatever).
Arguments over if Matt noticed the swastika; and if not, should he apologize; are all assuming that the swastika imagery has some sacred evilness that means Matt needs to drop whatever he's doing and point it out and condemn it. He doesn't. You know those silly Facebook engagement bait posts that say, "children of the Devil will scroll past this" and its a picture of Jesus or whatever?
This whole swastika discourse is just the libtard version of that. Matt scrolled past a picture of Jesus and people are hounding him over it. I guess you're right that he is flaunting the norms. I wish he'd make a Shiloh-tier video about this instead of just putting out the one tweet.
What arguments convinced you both that this relationship would be asymptotic or at least have severely diminishing returns, and that we are at least halfway along the way to this asymptote?
Mostly personal observation of the utility (or lack thereof) of the higher levels of human intelligence versus the average, combined with general philosophic principles favoring diminishing returns and asymptotic limits as the null hypothesis, along with a natural skepticism towards claims of vast future potential (why I'm also deeply irritated by Eric Weinstein's whole recurring "we need new physics" riff; or similar arguments held forth by, say, UFOlogists).
Edit: consider also, as toy examples, the utility of knowing pi to an increasing number of digits; or the utility of increasing levels of recursion in modeling other agents and the speed of convergence to game-theoretic equilibria.
It’s like saying “maybe Pontius Pilot shouldn’t have signed that one guy’s death warrant, because letting an angry mob override the fair application of law and due process is wrong”.
That would be a pretty anodyne statement in Christian society. Pilate is not considered a positive figure precisely because he was derelict in his duty and put Jesus to death.
Some years they build as much as 0.7 miles of line.
DESPITE... usually being a Noticer, I couldn't see the swastika either upon opening the image, but the squinting trick worked for (on?) me. Kind of a small mindfuck. Maybe I am a normie (marvel_vision.jpg).
I'm unfamiliar with Walsh beyond the vague baseline awareness he's some sort of right-coded influencer, but this makes me like him—instead of bending the knee—going with the McGregor "I'd like to take this chance to apologize... to absolutely nobody" and also (possibly) calling out mainstream conservatives for being progressives driving the speed limit, although the quotes around conservatives could be in reference to progressives posing in a "hello, fellow conservatives" kind of way.
What is the problem? When in American history have people embarked on projects of such duration? The answer is never. For the closest analog, we must look at the great Gothic cathedrals. Burying those lines is our Notre Dame, our Chartres. A society grows great when men plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
We are building things, AI, GPUs financial projects. These fields attract talent and money.
A hundred years ago electricity was as hyped as AI is today. It was a complete transformation. It was magic and few people understood it. The projects were massive, high tech and at a scale that was far beyond most industries. Young, smart, motivated people wanted to work in the power grid. Trains were once futuristic, magical high budget projects that were far beyond the scale of what people were used to. They attracted top talent.
Today, capital and talent doesn't flow to maintaining old power lines or freight rail. The cool people have moved on decades ago. Left are less talented people and people with less drive.
I think that does make a lot of sense. But my main concern is to limit the ability to issue a national injunction to “break-glass” levels of emergency. The idea being that the principle in question is so important to the public good, Justice, or good government that allowing it to continue before SCOTUS takes it on would result in grave harm. I don’t want it completely ended, but at the same time I don’t want it to be used casually as a “we don’t like this” measure.
I've realized that the 'cheat code' is buying a motorcycle and getting ostentatious tattoos and at least one (1) subversive piercing.
In recent years, I've wondered if this will soon come full circle and being tattoo-less and piercing-less (especially the former) will become the rebellious and subversive thing to do, given their overall saturation and their increasing association with numale-adjacent caricatures. In the MMA realm, for example, I've seen Costa*, Dricus, the Russian Muslim fighters, etc. get confused praise (in the unironically "wtf I love [x]?"-type sentiment) for being tattooless in a sport where tattoos are commonplace, like a "fuck you" to mainstream Western trends and a greater signal of confidence to not hide behind ink. Although if you're a famous MMA fighter, your stats (tattoos or not) are already high.
* Costa actually has at least one tattoo, but it's hard to see so people think of him as tattooless. He's tattooless-passing, I suppose.
And three years into the marriage, for no reason that I can even decipher, she just up and leaves him, he tries counseling, gives it every single try for reconciliation, and no dice. THANKFULLY it ended up being an 'uncontested' divorce with no kids (despite him being VERY CLEAR up front that he wanted kids, remember that family business he's got).
The mainstream rejoinder would be that your buddy must had been No True Trustworthy Husband or his wife would never have left him—that he must had become lazy or neglectful after marriage-trapping her, was financially or emotionally abusive behind the scenes, or thought of her as a broodmare for the family business. He's not entitled to her as his wife and she's free to change her mind about children and the marriage after the wedding; YTA for having such a potentially abusive man-child with his nerdy hobbies and faMiLy bUsInEsS as your "buddy."
I was surprised by this as well. All he had to say was, "I'm not familiar with Cooper's work." Heaven forbid Douglas Murray not have an opinion on something. My weak-man take is Murray made an ass out of himself, but I only watched snippets and reactions. Rogan is too long and meandering for my tastes.
I hope they aren't building 0.51 miles of new lines every year.
Yup.
I happen to think being trustworthy will in fact help you find a good woman.
But it won't hope you attract women in general.
Which is a necessary step in most cases.
I've realized that the 'cheat code' is buying a motorcycle and getting ostentatious tattoos and at least one (1) subversive piercing. Nips, large gauges in the ears, Prince Albert, I think even nose piercings 'work' for guys these days. Its an old, OLD trick but it still works if you're willing to at least LARP the part.
This signals enough riskiness to get the initial interest going.
Meanwhile, if you're good looking AND you work as hard as you can to be perceived as 'safe' and 'reliable' you're effectively squandering that natural advantage, and you're more likely going to be defected against when she realizes there are no consequences for doing so, you won't even raise your voice to yell at her.
I watched it happen to a buddy of mine. He was the literal pinnacle of 'ideal' hubby. Successful (heir to a large regional chain of interior decor stores, pulling down six figs), charming and witty, even though he's not an Adonis, popular among his friends, takes the wife on trips, indulges her whims, but also makes sure he has time for his own (nerdy) hobbies. Not a pushover, but would never dream of striking or upsetting her. Marries a very mid but definitely cute wife. They have an expensive fairy-tale wedding, honeymoon, etc. etc.
And three years into the marriage, for no reason that I can even decipher, she just up and leaves him, he tries counseling, gives it every single try for reconciliation, and no dice. THANKFULLY it ended up being an 'uncontested' divorce with no kids (despite him being VERY CLEAR up front that he wanted kids, remember that family business he's got).
In an 'ideal' world this should never happen, he played everything 'by the rules.' And still lost.
A good woman, of course, won't do this, but if you're a safe, 'boring' type of guy then you won't have your choice of woman to even try and zero in on the 'good' ones.
If you choose a couple stats to max out, trustworthy probably shouldn't be one of them.
a leftist argument
These people are native to Europe. Not the Americas or Africa. Sounds like you need to Google what the word native means.
In what world is that a leftist argument? Is it even an argument at all?
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1923128567996780750
I've been in the middle of some bullshit outrage cycles in my day, but the one that some of you cooked up this week is probably the fakest of all. There are even "conservatives" hounding me and demanding that I apologize for a hidden swastika that someone else posted in a tweet that I replied to.
Just to be perfectly clear to all of the slimy little smear merchants playing this game: I apologize for nothing. I owe you nothing. I will not explain myself to you. You all know exactly what you're doing. If anyone is owed an apology in this situation, it's me. But I don't expect one because that would require a level of honor and honesty that none of these trolls possess. Piss off. All of you. There's my statement, for the many who have asked.
It's pretty clever, on my computer I wouldn't have seen it if someone hadn't said something. I could tell it was AI though. When the image is small it's clear as day. He didn't tweet it, he didn't even retweet it, he replied disagreeing with the person who posted the picture and statement.
They are working at a rate of 0.5 to 0.7 miles per year. Given how many miles of line they have it would take around a century for the high priority phase 1 lines and around another three centuries for lower priority lines. A city engineer did the math and drew a timeline given how fast they work.
They do this really really slowly and at a projected cost of billions of dollars.
Edit: Just a few days ago, Matt Walsh reposted a crypto-Swastika on X (if you don't see it at first, try squinting). I believe he knew what he was doing.
I doubt it. It's not at all easy to notice unless someone tells you it's there, and the guy Wash is replying to (the one who posted the picture, I assume) is making a leftist argument, which Matt is rebutting. There's no tongue in cheek winking or anything like that.
Being 'trustworthy' just makes you an easier mark.
Ha yeah. A good instance of "Should you reverse any advice you hear?"
The struggling young man who finds it plausible that he needs to be more trustworthy to attract women instead needs to dial his perceived trustworthiness down and "toxic masculinity" way up—and to see as examples, "am I fighting for a spot no one wants??!!" or "somewhat cute, non-threatening appearance" from the "guy who likes you but you're not quite attracted to him starterpack."
The modal trustworthy husband and father of two gets deadbedroom'd and is invisible to other women when he's not wearing his wedding ring; a husband and father of two who murders his wife and daughters gets love letters in prison:
"In my heart, you are a great guy," wrote a woman named Candace.
"I'm hoping to brighten your days," wrote another woman. Someone even sent a picture of herself in a bikini.
Must be bro's elite trustworthiness.
The article explains: 200 miles of line to be buried ÷ 0.5 mile of line buried (costing 5.5 megadollars) per year = 400 years.
Some have suggested doubling the tax to halve the life of the project, but city officials say the disruption to traffic and available crews would make that impossible.
I would add the caveat that women hold most of the power over the majority of men WHILE a particular class of man is still able to ultimately get what he wants and ignore the consequences at will. So women can still CLAIM that men are privileged and running things b/c at the very top levels, this is still true.
And this is the lesson I 'fear' young men are learning. If you're an average man, your life is going to be subjugated to female whims from birth until almost death. If you piss off, harm, or otherwise insult a woman you will be pilloried and probably locked out of the reproductive success game entirely.
UNLESS you're in the top 20% of males by status. Wait now its 10%. Now its 1%. Now its .1%. Those guys can flout social rules, laws, and ignore female complaints to just take the thing they want at will. Its good to be the king.
Guys who grow up being viscerally aware of the game and their place in it are either going to compete AGGRESSIVELY to take one of those top slots, and thereby keep raising the level of competition to even higher levels, or will drop out entirely rather than support the 'rigged contest.
400 is such an outrageous timeline why would they bother? Was it a joke? Was there one or two certain tasks that sucked up most of the timeline?
If you have a problem with white nationalists and cryptonazis, you can say so: that's a popular opinion in normieland. You don't need to invent fake terms that only you and a particular clique define.
Normies are pretty burned out on accusations of nazi and racist and so forth. Also, the target pretty clearly isn't the normie masses, it's an inter-activist fight within what was until now a big-tent coalition on the right.
400 years may be an aggressive timeline if the rate of new above-ground line construction exceeds the rate of line undergrounding.
More options
Context Copy link