Making sense of things. I deal extensively with the cognitive problem of complexity.
Joined April 2022
- Tweets 27,805
- Following 305
- Followers 4,871
- Likes 76,651
66 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
11 Oct 2025
@dvorstone 's limiting principle of stewardship:
Do not mortgage, migrate, or sell what your grandchildren cannot reclaim.
3
9
73
25,037
I wrote this a year and half ago, and someone just brought it up to me. I'd mostly forgotten it but am sharing it now because he convinced me to do so.
It's not a fully academic work. A polemic is a fair description but more precisely, it's an interpretive framework; an intellectual exercise. Still, I thought it was worth writing so maybe people think it's worth reading.
22 Dec 2024
3
138
Hot take from 1930.
Still, she's right. However, dilutive mating might be.
Consider breeding a dog for speed, at the cost of making it dumb. Then breeding it with a slow dog that is also dumb, resulting in a dumb and slow dog.
This, of course, is highly simplified, but that is dilutive mating. This is the obliteration of what generations worked hard to produce.
Traits are not sufficiently refined across "races" for this to be relevant but certainly at the tribal or familial level, this is immensely important, and hardly anyone considers it today.
Interracial marriage is not a sin
1
7
448
There is no future without God. Never was.
13h
Jordan Peterson made a profound point on Chris Williamson’s podcast.
When God dies, a lot of unexpected things die with Him, including science.
Science isn’t some purely neutral, secular tool. It rests on deeply religious assumptions: that truth exists, that it’s knowable, that pursuing it is good, and that the universe makes sense.
These aren’t scientific claims, they’re metaphysical, rooted in a religious worldview. The universities themselves grew out of monasteries.
Without that deeper foundation, science eventually stops being about truth and becomes just another tool for power, ideology, or convenience. You lose the reason to be honest when the data gets inconvenient.
Do you think science can survive long-term without any belief in objective truth or a higher moral order?
1
15
421
"I thought independence meant happiness."
The only thing independence means is that no one will come looking for when you slip in the shower and break your hip.
4
2
26
1,445
"despite"
Maybe it's the prosperity that makes it harder.
Jun 14
🇯🇵 I am Japanese.
I have a question for people all over the world.
Why has it become so difficult for humanity to have children,
despite becoming wealthier than ever before?
1
4
273
A must-watch for women.
11h
Joshua James King ( a Black man) brutally assaulted Andrea Puerta ( a white woman )who was riding Miami Public Transportation. Surveillance cameras captured the attack..
She suffered multiple injuries and was hospitalized.
King was released on $1,500 bond...
6
189
The concept of a "duty to care" is arguably the most poisonous concept ever applied to politics.
We absolutely do NOT have a "duty to care" for every poor or disadvantaged person on the planet. If we did, that's ALL we'd do, eventually producing more and more of it until we couldn't feed even ourselves.
This is the category of "altruism" that Ayn Rand criticized: not helping others when you can but sacrificing yourself independent of values. It's evil.
All government is coercive. The application of "duty to care" to politics misapplies the emotional dynamic, infusing the mother/child bond where it doesn't belong. This is what makes modern wars so devastating. There's no room for a rational trade-off in a negotiated ceasefire. For example, Ukraine couldn't just surrender a bit of territory in order to maintain their existence. Instead, they're waging an existential war that will absolutely destroy them, even if they win it. This is how a mother should protect a child, NOT how a sovereign should protect his people.
"we have a duty to care for them"
A huge part of modern politics is women leveraging the state to satisfy their desire to nurture a baby but without the risk or commitment. This is the fundamental problem with democracy and universal suffrage.
Any group can leverage the state against any other. Boomers can leverage government against their own children. Poor people can leverage it against the rich. In this case, it's women.
Sometimes it's childless women but often it's women who simply didn't have enough children or grandchildren. Childless women will use the state to give them a replacement baby. Thus, universal suffrage cannot survive low-birth rates.
Women want to "care" for things. Democratic government lets them do so with your money and at your risk. More so, they simultaneously leverage the state to "provide" for them, which they've done via endless social programs and NGOs (funded via government).
Lots of voters abuse the institution of democracy. Ethnic groups favor each other. Poor people rob from the rich and even the middle. Corporations leverage the state against their competitors. All of this is recognized as wrong, but we seemingly ignore the political abuse of women using the state to satisfy their nurturing impulse while neglecting their own obligations.
Women benefit from the sacrifices of their ancestors and the labor of their countrymen, just as men do. As such, they have duties to contribute, and the primary way to do so is having children. Yet few things are as radioactive as the word "duty" next to the phrase "have kids."
One can argue that our society isn't doing enough for women (fine, argue away) but here's hard reality:
1. Women can say "give me more and I'll have children."
2. But they can't say "I refuse to have children" and still benefit from the culture.
I'm not suggesting we force women to have children. I'm suggesting that NOT having children is, akin, to men not paying taxes. Women not paying taxes is NOT the same thing because it's less valuable than them having children.
What does this mean? It means that women aren't doing their part.
I have suggested ideas, such as limiting voting to people who fight in the military, women who have kids, and men who pay a certain amount of taxes. Perhaps we need to be more aggressive and consider the benefits of being a citizen. So here's an idea:
1. Instead of just limiting voting as I described, we restrict citizenship entirely.
2. Only citizens can own land, vote, go into public parks, use public transportation, get access to social programs, use the library, and so on.
The point is to make clear what we are uncomfortable saying: women have duties just as men do. To question whether or not men are doing their duty is entirely reasonable. Maybe men aren't, but women definitely aren't and that's needs to be acknowledged. The concept of falling birth rates isn't independent of biological sex. We have to stop ignoring that this is a problem of and with women.
Democracy will not survive universal suffrage, and Western civilization will not survive women without duty.
2
13
400
"we have a duty to care for them"
A huge part of modern politics is women leveraging the state to satisfy their desire to nurture a baby but without the risk or commitment. This is the fundamental problem with democracy and universal suffrage.
Any group can leverage the state against any other. Boomers can leverage government against their own children. Poor people can leverage it against the rich. In this case, it's women.
Sometimes it's childless women but often it's women who simply didn't have enough children or grandchildren. Childless women will use the state to give them a replacement baby. Thus, universal suffrage cannot survive low-birth rates.
Women want to "care" for things. Democratic government lets them do so with your money and at your risk. More so, they simultaneously leverage the state to "provide" for them, which they've done via endless social programs and NGOs (funded via government).
Lots of voters abuse the institution of democracy. Ethnic groups favor each other. Poor people rob from the rich and even the middle. Corporations leverage the state against their competitors. All of this is recognized as wrong, but we seemingly ignore the political abuse of women using the state to satisfy their nurturing impulse while neglecting their own obligations.
Women benefit from the sacrifices of their ancestors and the labor of their countrymen, just as men do. As such, they have duties to contribute, and the primary way to do so is having children. Yet few things are as radioactive as the word "duty" next to the phrase "have kids."
One can argue that our society isn't doing enough for women (fine, argue away) but here's hard reality:
1. Women can say "give me more and I'll have children."
2. But they can't say "I refuse to have children" and still benefit from the culture.
I'm not suggesting we force women to have children. I'm suggesting that NOT having children is, akin, to men not paying taxes. Women not paying taxes is NOT the same thing because it's less valuable than them having children.
What does this mean? It means that women aren't doing their part.
I have suggested ideas, such as limiting voting to people who fight in the military, women who have kids, and men who pay a certain amount of taxes. Perhaps we need to be more aggressive and consider the benefits of being a citizen. So here's an idea:
1. Instead of just limiting voting as I described, we restrict citizenship entirely.
2. Only citizens can own land, vote, go into public parks, use public transportation, get access to social programs, use the library, and so on.
The point is to make clear what we are uncomfortable saying: women have duties just as men do. To question whether or not men are doing their duty is entirely reasonable. Maybe men aren't, but women definitely aren't and that's needs to be acknowledged. The concept of falling birth rates isn't independent of biological sex. We have to stop ignoring that this is a problem of and with women.
Democracy will not survive universal suffrage, and Western civilization will not survive women without duty.
This is appalling, they are some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people and we have a duty of care for them. Typical far right short sightedness and bigotry.
x.com/Telegraph/status/20660…
1
23
1,038
12h
I like this post because she is so confidently wrong. As such, I'll help her:
1. There is no "money." That's the first thing. His wealth is theoretical.
2. Money is really a conflation of two things, value and currency.
Currency is supposed to reflect value created. If more value is created then you print more money to reflect that. If value is destroyed then the amount of currency should be diminished. This doesn't happen easily because there's no good way to know for sure how much value is created. We use inflation/deflation.
If there's more currency than value, inflation. Less? Deflation.
3. Value created is a slight misnomer. It's more accurate to say that the value is "realized." It's just potential until someone unlocks that value.
4. We reward people who unlock (realize) value. The extent to which we reward them is determined by the market. The more value you create, for the most people, the more you are rewarded.
5. So... we live in an environment with "x" amount of value that's currently realized BUT with "y" potential value. "y" is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger than "x" but harder to access because it's unrealized.
Everyone shares "x." No one has "y." Someone has to come along and convert "y" to "x" and then everyone gets more "x..." but unevenly. The realizer gets to keep the most (in our system) but everyone benefits.
6. What she's saying is that his money comes from "x" but it actually comes from "y."
If she's anti-capitalist then her argument is that capitalism itself is a system designed to extract "x" from people. That's why she describes it as theft.
Jun 13
No it doesn’t. He literally STOLE OUR MONEY. It’s utterly, infuriatingly outrageous. “Him being rich doesn’t make you poor” YES IT LITERALLY DOES HE STOLE OUR MONEY. And not in an abstract, circuitous way. He’s a white collar pickpocket. Anyone who lies otherwise is getting a cut
1
8
508
13h
Do these people realize that he is also a worker? Do they think that owners just cash checks all day?
Do they not realize that unlike employees, they never turn off?
Are these people retarded or just poor?
22h
This literally shows workers doing all the work lol
1
9
317
14h
This is probably the case, yes, but leave some room for the possibility that the woman is neurotic and responds like an abusive victim even absent abuse.
This is sadly common.
Any woman who fears harm if she says no to sex with her man is in a marriage so abusive & coercively controlling as to undermine her capacity to meaningfully consent at all. If she fears saying no, her yes means nothing. No ***remotely normal*** marriage entails that dynamic.
6
1
43
2,143
Jun 13
Because billionaires employ people and make products we need.
Tax-paying immigrants just employ the people putting their boot on our neck.
Jun 12
Why do you hate immigrants who pay taxes, but admire billionaires who don't.
1
8
259
Jun 13
People forget that the problem with lynchings was that they were extrajudicial, i.e., they didn't follow the proper legal procedure.
There was rarely ever any question as to the guilt of the person lynched.
Jun 12
White people lynched thousands of Black people in this country. Yet, we’re the violent ones. Nope.
1
14
249
Jun 13
Counterpoint: most school teachers are overpaid because their primary output is depressed, anxious, sexually confused, and suicidal kids.
Jun 12
Elon Musk: Trillionaire
Jeff Bezos: Billionaire
Public School Teachers: Can anyone help me get some pencils for my students?
12
231
Jun 13
I really don't think they need thanks for everything.
I assume that the rapes and murders are their own reward.
Jun 13
I just want to thank hard-working immigrants in Britain and the north of Ireland for everything they do. End of message.
3
256
Jun 13
How? Who did he steal from?
Also, money doesn't correspond to hard work. It corresponds to value created.
The idea that Elon Musk worked harder than every person alive and who has ever lived is a very stupid and immature fairytale. Wake up. He’s robbing us.
1
7
258
Jun 13
If my life required me bragging about prison food, I'd surely have killed myself.
13
472
Jun 13
The best Chicago style deep-dish pizza isn't even found there. California deep-dish mogs Chicago:
1. Masa in Echo Park
2. Little Star in the Bay Area
5
215
Jun 13
The "private of the buffs" would sooner die than bring shame upon the British empire.
This man declares his loyalty to Islam to avoid a beating. If he's lying, he's a coward. If he's not, it's even worse.
Jun 13
UK: Migrants attack police officers — one cop begs, “Don’t beat me! I’m on your side, I’m not racist and pro-Islam!”
Do you support ending the woke British
government?
A. Yes
B. No
1
1
12
242