CaptainColeslaw retweeted
BONES attributed to Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, kept since 1098 in Saint-Nicolas-de-Port, in Meurthe-et-Moselle, were STOLEN from their reliquary inside the basilica, then DESTROYED.
The suspect, arrested at his home, admitted to SMASHING the display case protecting the reliquary, then stealing its contents, BURNING the bones and CRUSHING them out of a “desire to destroy.”
(Source: L'Est Républicain)
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
Replying to @johncwright2001
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
Replying to @Real_Politik101
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
RISE OF THE STERILE MERYL
"Western civilization will be destroyed by women who project onto those animals the motherhood that belonged to the children they aborted." - Nelson Redpill
The last tick is soon to tock, and all at once three generations of women are going to converge on a single realization.
That they have nothing. That everything that made them women was taken from them. And they are going to have revenge on the one who took it from them.
You.
They believed what they were told. They became the dutiful career girl. They practiced the free love. They told themselves they didn't need children. They never settled down. They were the free spirit. And who convinced them to do that?
You did. The Civilization did.
And they're going to be around for a long, long time, with a lot of time on their hands.
And they will make you pay for what you did to them, for handing them the choice.
These women, many of whom would have and should have gone from mothers to grandmothers, become activists instead. They entrench themselves in their vapid careers. The HR Karen. Auntie Antifa. Facebook Feminist that just broke 1k on her vertical video count on why at 44 she'd choose the bear.
They never built their houses, but they still feel the desperate need for one.
And who burned down that house that never was? Who has to suffer for all the freedom sitting in an empty house, filled with mewling cats and pummeled by the sounds of children playing in foreign yards?
Who does she hate more than any other?
The Civilization that gave her everything. The Civilization that gave her the power to do this to herself.
And those long hours need filling.
So she fills them with you. She'll get to work. Between sips of tea and painted nails emojis. She's going to make you pay for the children she can't have. I mean someone has to be held responsible for the choices she's made and it's certainly not going to be her.
And when she's done with you, you know who she's going to destroy next? The one who actually did this to her. I don't mean her, of course. I mean the girl she used to be. Which means finding an endless procession of daughters she didn't have to be destroyed by convincing them to make the same choices she did.
Mind virus, indeed.
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
I'm a storyteller.
I will tell you a story.
Not a thinly veiled allegory or analogy. Not a fable. Not a parody or a satire, or some smug little parable featuring characters "Ronald Grump" and "Alan Tusk".
No, this is a true story, and it means what it means, with no hidden symbolism whatsoever. It contains only facts, and general principles to derive from them.
It is a story about Rome.
We all know what Rome was. It was a republic, then an Empire, then nothing.
But every time we ask why, historians wish to tell us it is complicated, and that we desperately need historians, such as themselves, to sort it all out.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire was not complicated.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire can be explained in two words.
Cheap labor.
The Romans, as you know, had two classes, the patricians and the plebeians.
The patricians ruled Rome. But the plebeians were Rome. And the patricians forgot this.
Around this point in the story, you may be thinking you understand me already. You may think you have anticipated where I am going with this. You may think that this is going to be some general polemic about the importance of remembering the little people.
It is not. I have a very specific meaning, and I always choose my words very, very carefully.
Two words.
Cheap. Labor.
The Romans patricians, like the old and the rich of any society, owned land, and sold goods. To do this, they bought labor.
The Roman plebeians, most especially the young, sold labor. So that they could buy goods and land.
So, it should go without saying, but often doesn't, that it was in the interest of plebeians that goods and land be cheap, and labor be expensive, and in the interest of patricians that land and goods should be expensive, and labor should be cheap.
Now, markets have natural cycles. The price of every thing fluctuates up and down, looking for an equilibrium which is only ever temporary.
Sometimes goods and land are cheap, and labor is expensive. Then the plebeians become fat and prosperous, and they marry pretty girls and have lots of healthy children.
Sometimes goods and land are expensive, and labor is cheap, and patricians amass vast fortunes and build fine estates and eat honeyed dormice.
To every thing, there is a season.
But the patricians controlled Rome. Not fully or directly, not in theory, but they had money. And money buys power. Just as power buys money.
And the temptation, in the long run, became irresistible. To buy political power, and put the finger of that political power on the scales of the market.
To make sure the cheap labor stays cheap forever.
In Rome, cheap labor meant slaves. Elsewhere, it has meant other things.
In Rome, slaves kept labor cheap not only because slaves don't get paid, and can't quit, but also because every plebeian who sells labor must compete with the slave on price.
Little by little, this took away from the plebeians, not only because real wages were depressed, but more importantly because there were no seasons of labor scarcity. No cycles in the market where wages went high.
No fat seasons for the plebes, just an ever-increasing drought.
And, while the patricians controlled Rome, the plebeians were Rome. It was their blood, shed in the legions, that conquered the world. Their sweat that built the shining city of seven hills.
And their patriotism that defined what Rome was.
The patricians ruled Rome. But the plebeians were Rome, and when they ceased to bear allegiance to Rome, Rome ceased to exist, because the only thing that Rome ever was, the only thing that any city or nation ever is, is its people.
A man who has no work, a man who must compete with slaves, a man who is beaten down to want the hungriest beggar will take, is a man who cannot have a home and a family.
Not only because he cannot afford such things. But because no woman will have him. No woman will bear his children.
The ultimate expression, after all, of female lust and admiration, is "I want to have his babies".
Fewer people seem to realize that the reverse is true.
I was told once, by a man who should have known better, that Rome fell because the Romans forgot what it meant to be Roman.
Nonsense.
Rome fell because Romans knew exactly what it meant to be Roman. Which meant they knew that to be Roman meant to be replaced by slaves.
The patricians bore no allegiance to Rome, because it was cheaper to replace the Roman workers with slaves, and the Roman legions with mercenaries.
The plebeians bore no allegiance to Rome, because Rome bore no allegiance to them.
And so Rome simply ceased to be.
The outward forms hung around awhile, until the mercenaries, bearing no true allegiance to Rome, realized they didn't have to wait to be paid. They could just... take.
The patricians destroyed Rome because they thought like politicians instead of kings.
A politician buys a crown by offering the most to those whose support is most in doubt.
A king knows that crowns and thrones are only symbols, and power comes from armies of loyal men, whose loyalty must be bought with loyalty in turn. Not table scraps.
The Roman plebeians didn't want, and couldn't survive on, free bread and circuses. They needed work and land and incomes to have families and happy lives.
But no Caesar emerged in time.
Tick tock, Mr. Vance.
Tick tock.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
Most people know him for a productivity rule. Almost nobody knows he predicted the exact collapse of the modern managerial elite.
Long before modern commentators tried to explain why bureaucratic institutions despise the working public, an Italian nobleman named Vilfredo Pareto already mapped the entire crisis. Today, business consultants reduce his legacy to the "Pareto Principle" (the 80/20 rule). In doing so, they conceal his far more dangerous work: a ruthless, mathematically precise philosophy that exposed the grand illusion of mass democracy.
Pareto was an aristocrat, mathematician, and civil engineer who ran Italy's railways before abandoning public life in disgust. Retreating to a villa on Lake Geneva alongside twenty Angora cats, he spent his final decades studying how power actually functions. While Karl Marx peddled the fantasy of a classless utopia and liberal academics preached that voters run the state, Pareto arrived at a colder truth. Society is never ruled by the masses. It is always ruled by an organized elite, and history is merely the battlefield where one elite replaces another.
His most lethal insight was the division of power between two archetypes: the Foxes and the Lions.
Foxes are the managerial class. They are subtle, cautious, manipulative, and obsessed with consensus. They rule through bureaucratic procedures, financial schemes, media spin, and institutional maneuver. They loathe physical courage, despise traditional religion, and avoid direct confrontation at all costs. Instead, they bleed a civilization dry through taxes, regulations, and endless legal pettifoggery, convinced that clever rhetoric can overcome basic reality.
Lions, by contrast, are grounded in loyalty, family, faith, and sovereign borders. They do not care for administrative games. They value strength, decisive action, and the preservation of their heritage. When a nation is young and rising, it is led by Lions who defend its sovereignty with unapologetic force.
Pareto warned that over time, the Foxes always infiltrate the administrative apparatus. They purge the Lions from universities, courts, and civil service, creating an insulated bubble of self-congratulatory managers. Yet because Foxes are fundamentally cowardly, they cannot defend their own borders or sustain the economic foundation they harvest. They mistake compliance for loyalty, and they mistake their echo chamber for reality.
Their rule always ends the same way. As Pareto observed:
"History is a graveyard of aristocracies."
When a managerial regime becomes entirely composed of decadent Foxes, it rots from within. The moment crisis arrives, their paperwork and procedural tricks collapse, opening the gates for a new generation of Lions to sweep them away. What we are witnessing across the West today is not an ideological accident; it is the inevitable historical reckoning Pareto guaranteed more than a century ago.
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
In the legends of King Arthur there's a king with a wound that won't heal, and the whole land dies with him. A young knight walks into his castle hunting for the Holy Grail, sees the wound, and says nothing, because he was taught that asking is rude. In the morning the castle is gone. The only cure was one question. What ails you?
Anakin Skywalker told the Jedi his mother was in pain, but they just gave him a new assignment.
The soul has always known that a wound nobody names doesn't stay with the one who carries it. It leaks into the land. The father's blessing is the oldest hunger in it, older than any religion we have a name for. A son who never gets it doesn't stop needing it. He carries the need underground, and down there it changes shape.
Anakin is that son. He's handed from man to man and none of them claims him. The Council is a room of fathers who refuse to be fathers. They tell him to let go of what he loves. To the soul that isn't wisdom. It's abandonment calling itself detachment.
So the shadow father comes.
In myth he always arrives exactly where the true father failed to stand up. Palpatine asks the question, but he asks the wrong one. What do you want, never what hurts. The unblessed son will take a false blessing over no blessing at all, and he'll pay for it with his face.
They seal the mask on in the same hour his children are born. The archetypal wound has become a man.
Napoleon walked the same road in real life. Fatherless at 15, took the crown out of the Pope's hands and set it on his own head. Self-coronation is what the orphan does when no one will crown him. He conquered Europe but the barren country inside him stayed barren.
Napoleon never got his ending.
But now Anakin does, and it comes from us. The audience. Lucas made him weak and whining, media critics shaped the narrative, and people hated him for years. Now a new generation defends him like a brother. We didn't change our minds about a movie. The archetype escaped from its maker.
Once a myth opens the wound of the unblessed son, the collective soul won't let it stay open. It keeps returning to him, explaining him, redeeming him, because the pattern beneath the story demands an ending the original storyteller only half understood.
The story DID know the ending. Luke comes to his father with no order and no offer. He throws down his weapon. He asks the Grail question with his whole body. What ails you, father?
Then the wound finally closes, the mask finally comes off, and Anakin sees his son with his own eyes before he dies.
The oldest version of this is in the Bible. The father running down the road to meet the prodigal.
In Star Wars the son runs. The blessing has to cross the distance one way or the other. And the soul will keep telling the story until it does.
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
🚨 Trans Woman GOES IN on BioWare! Yes, LGBTQ gamers also wanted BioWare shuttered. This isn't just a "chud" thing.
She said EVERYTHING gamers have been thinking about Dragon Age: The Veilguard.
But her most powerful criticism was how BioWare's approach to representation can actually make life WORSE for the LGBTQ community.
She describes the writing as “ham-fisted,” immature, and damaging to the very people it's supposed to represent.
She argues that constantly forcing these conversations into entertainment makes the public sick of it, creates resentment toward LGBTQ people, and ultimately hurts trans people themselves.
She even brings up Trump winning the election, connecting it to what she sees as a much larger cultural backlash against this kind of activism.
And that's what makes her perspective so interesting. She's warning that poorly executed representation can do more harm than good.
She also calls out:
• The hypocrisy of preaching inclusivity while excluding women with naturally large breasts from character creation.
• Forcing modern terms like “non-binary” and “trans” into a fantasy universe that already established its own terminology.
• How a genuinely well-written trans character could do MORE for LGBTQ acceptance than childish, preachy dialogue ever could.
Representation was never the problem. Bad writing was.
Dismissing everyone who criticized Veilguard as a “chud” completely ignores LGBTQ gamers who were criticizing the exact same things.
What do you think?
#SaveMassEffect #SaveMassEffectNotBioWare #SaveDragonAge
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
A culture that stops giving the next generation King Arthur stories will unwittingly drive their children toward Anakin stories.
Demonizing the desire for order does not diminish the innate human desire for order.
Gen Z will root for Anakin over the chaos of spineless ineptitude and moral hypocrisy.
We must give them Arthur.
The layoffs will continue until video games improve
Don’t Nod, the studio behind the original Life is Strange, is collapsing.
The French developer is facing a near-total layoff, up to 85 jobs, which would leave its French teams with only a small number of employees.
The studio has struggled with a string of underperforming releases, the most recently the sci-fi adventure Aphelion.
Don’t Nod has warned that it may not have enough funding to continue operating beyond January 31, 2027, and has entered a French “safeguard” procedure to restructure its finances.
CaptainColeslaw retweeted
Every time the science has been settled, somebody paid for the settlement, and the bill has a name on it.
1747: James Lind cures scurvy with lemons. The Navy keeps it settled as a disease of damp air for forty-eight years and loses more sailors to it than to the French.
1799: Bleeding is settled. George Washington is drained of nearly half his blood for a sore throat and is dead by evening.
1847: Childbed fever is settled as bad air. Ignaz Semmelweis washes his hands and the deaths on his ward fall from one mother in ten to one in a hundred. He is sacked, committed, and beaten to death in an asylum.
1915: Pellagra is settled as an infection. Joseph Goldberger proves it is the corn diet of the poor by injecting himself with sufferers' blood. The South keeps the corn, and 100,000 Americans die of it.
1941: The lobotomy is settled, and about to win a Nobel. Rosemary Kennedy, twenty-three, is left unable to walk or speak, one of 40,000 Americans put under the pick.
1956: The pregnancy X-ray is settled as harmless. Alice Stewart shows one scan doubles a child's chance of cancer. She loses her funding and the scans run for another quarter century.
1961: Thalidomide is settled as safe for morning sickness. Ten thousand babies.
1971: DES is settled as a pregnancy protector. The daughters of the women who took it develop a cancer nobody has seen before.
1972: Sugar is settled as harmless. John Yudkin writes that it is not, and the fat men and the sugar men end his career between them.
1984: Fat is settled as the killer, and a generation of mothers swaps the butter for a tub of oil.
2004: Vioxx is settled as a safe painkiller. Up to 140,000 heart attacks before it is pulled.
The science was settled every single time. The only thing it ever settled was who took the blame afterwards.








































