Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Babette Babich on why reading philosophy in translation is a fundamental problem: "If you don't read Aristotle in Greek, you cannot understand his argument. If you don't read Plato in Greek, you cannot understand his argument." Her reasoning is precise: translation is not a neutral act. "If you translate... it into English, someone somewhere along the line will vary the word and then the argument falls apart." She uses Nietzsche as her sharpest example. The Cambridge edition aside, most English translations of Nietzsche don't give you Nietzsche. They give you the translator's interpretation of Nietzsche. She names Walter Kaufmann specifically: "He earns his name, he's a salesman. He sold Nietzsche to everyone as someone who was not really Nazi. He's very good. But that's the problem." The same logic applies to analytic philosophy's engagement with continental thinkers: "Analytic philosophers can teach you how to read Nietzsche. But I would say they really can't. You cannot read Nietzsche in translation. You can, but you'll be reading a lovely man, R.J. Hollingdale. You will not be reading Nietzsche." Her deeper point is about what makes a genuine continental philosopher and why that tradition is quietly disappearing: "The distinction is over because everyone has died. Who are actual continental philosophers? You're looking at one. But there are not a lot of them. And I'm not long for this world." What made Gadamer great wasn't that he wrote "Truth and Method". It's that he was a philologist first. He read Greek. What made Nietzsche penetrating was that he was a scholar of Greek. That's precisely why Bernard Williams took him so seriously. The language wasn't incidental. It was the method. When the last generation who had those teachers is gone, something irreplaceable goes with them.show more

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,202 subscribers

24,301 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Nietzsche wrote halfway between metaphor and fact. And if you don't understand that, you'll misread everything he ever said. Most philosophers write in one of two modes: they deal in pure concepts, or they traffic in images and stories. Nietzsche did neither. He operated in the charged territory between them. And according to J. P. Stern, that is the key to understanding him. Stern uses one of Nietzsche's most famous themes as his example: the 19th century's loss of religious faith. What Nietzsche called, with characteristic drama, the death of God. Here is how Nietzsche described what would follow: "Rather than cope with the unbearable loneliness of their condition, men will continue to seek their shattered God and for his sake they will love the very serpents that dwell among his ruins." Stern's point is that this passage is doing two things at once. Words like loneliness and condition are abstract, the vocabulary of philosophy and argument. But serpents in the ruins of a shattered God is pure image, vivid and almost mythological. Neither mode cancels out the other. They coexist in the same sentence, doing different work. It is a deliberate style. One that Stern argues is unique to Nietzsche and easy to misread if you come to him expecting conventional philosophy. If you take the metaphors literally, you get mysticism. If you strip them away and read only the concepts, you lose the emotional truth the images are carrying. The method only works if you hold both registers in mind simultaneously.

Nietzsche wrote halfway between metaphor and fact. And if you don't understand that, you'll misread everything he ever said. Most philosophers write in one of two modes: they deal in pure concepts, or they traffic in images and stories. Nietzsche did neither. He operated in the charged territory between them. And according to J. P. Stern, that is the key to understanding him. Stern uses one of Nietzsche's most famous themes as his example: the 19th century's loss of religious faith. What Nietzsche called, with characteristic drama, the death of God. Here is how Nietzsche described what would follow: "Rather than cope with the unbearable loneliness of their condition, men will continue to seek their shattered God and for his sake they will love the very serpents that dwell among his ruins." Stern's point is that this passage is doing two things at once. Words like loneliness and condition are abstract, the vocabulary of philosophy and argument. But serpents in the ruins of a shattered God is pure image, vivid and almost mythological. Neither mode cancels out the other. They coexist in the same sentence, doing different work. It is a deliberate style. One that Stern argues is unique to Nietzsche and easy to misread if you come to him expecting conventional philosophy. If you take the metaphors literally, you get mysticism. If you strip them away and read only the concepts, you lose the emotional truth the images are carrying. The method only works if you hold both registers in mind simultaneously.

Big Brain Philosophy

15,210 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

You’ve been reading Nietzsche completely wrong. He wasn’t an atheist. He was a mystic. 1. His great work, Zarathustra, is a religious text inspired by a mystical experience in Switzerland. 2. Nietzsche had a precognitive dream that shaped his metaphysics: as a young boy he dreamed of his dead father rising from the grave and taking his infant brother … who soon fell ill and died. 3. People read his claims that he was “Buddha” and “Dionysius” as madness. Yet those are his most profound statements. 4. He hated not Christ but Christianity. In short, Nietzsche is spiritual but not religious. This is the claim of my guest Rice University’s Jeff Kripal who will give us a mystical reading of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. Jeff himself is a scholar of mysticism who had a transformative mystical experience while researching Hinduism in Calcutta as a young man. Jeff witnessed the erotic presence of a Hindu goddess as a grad student decades ago, and has since been wrestling with his experience through his writing. His ambition is for his writing to engender similar mystical states in your life and he sees the same mystical inspiration in Nietzsche. These interviews with Jeff have been the most transformative I’ve ever done since starting this project. As a religious seeker I haven’t found a contemporary scholar who is able to tie together classical religion, the great books, and new age spirituality in one philosophical framework quite as Jeff has. What you are going to hear in this interview then isn’t just a new way to read Nietzsche, but a new way to read the entire canon as mystical. Plato, Dante, Homer, Fuerbach, James, Hegel we’ve been reading all of these thinkers completely wrong as we have with Nietzsche. Jeff is leading nothing less than a Copernican revolt against the materialist orthodoxy of the humanities. Timestamps: 2:42 The Übermensch Will Replace Humanity 7:38 Great Thinkers are Divinely Inspired 11:30 Nietzsche is a Mystical Thinker 16:09 Why Most People Misread Nietzsche 35:22 The Evidence for Prophecy 54:21 Holy Men Are Egomaniacs 1:18:33 Nietzsche Loved Christ but Hated Christians 1:30:04 Why Books Engender Mystical states 2:07:37 Why The Humanities Have Failed 2:23:05 All Philosophy Is Disguised Mysticism

You’ve been reading Nietzsche completely wrong. He wasn’t an atheist. He was a mystic. 1. His great work, Zarathustra, is a religious text inspired by a mystical experience in Switzerland. 2. Nietzsche had a precognitive dream that shaped his metaphysics: as a young boy he dreamed of his dead father rising from the grave and taking his infant brother … who soon fell ill and died. 3. People read his claims that he was “Buddha” and “Dionysius” as madness. Yet those are his most profound statements. 4. He hated not Christ but Christianity. In short, Nietzsche is spiritual but not religious. This is the claim of my guest Rice University’s Jeff Kripal who will give us a mystical reading of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. Jeff himself is a scholar of mysticism who had a transformative mystical experience while researching Hinduism in Calcutta as a young man. Jeff witnessed the erotic presence of a Hindu goddess as a grad student decades ago, and has since been wrestling with his experience through his writing. His ambition is for his writing to engender similar mystical states in your life and he sees the same mystical inspiration in Nietzsche. These interviews with Jeff have been the most transformative I’ve ever done since starting this project. As a religious seeker I haven’t found a contemporary scholar who is able to tie together classical religion, the great books, and new age spirituality in one philosophical framework quite as Jeff has. What you are going to hear in this interview then isn’t just a new way to read Nietzsche, but a new way to read the entire canon as mystical. Plato, Dante, Homer, Fuerbach, James, Hegel we’ve been reading all of these thinkers completely wrong as we have with Nietzsche. Jeff is leading nothing less than a Copernican revolt against the materialist orthodoxy of the humanities. Timestamps: 2:42 The Übermensch Will Replace Humanity 7:38 Great Thinkers are Divinely Inspired 11:30 Nietzsche is a Mystical Thinker 16:09 Why Most People Misread Nietzsche 35:22 The Evidence for Prophecy 54:21 Holy Men Are Egomaniacs 1:18:33 Nietzsche Loved Christ but Hated Christians 1:30:04 Why Books Engender Mystical states 2:07:37 Why The Humanities Have Failed 2:23:05 All Philosophy Is Disguised Mysticism

Johnathan Bi

163,447 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Recall a basic lesson from Nietzsche, that every philosophy is basically a confession. He suggested that we don’t begin with reason. We begin with fear, pain, desire, or resentment. Then we build arguments to justify what we already want to believe. That’s one of the main insights in The Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche also suggests that what we usually call an ad hominem—criticizing the person instead of the argument—is not always wrong. If ideas come from their personal psychology, then understanding the person can help explain the belief. Of course Nietzsche overstated this. And you can turn the logic back on him. You could say, fine, you are making an argument about how people make arguments, so what does that say about you? Fair enough. But the basic idea is useful nonetheless. A lot of grand ideas, especially the ones about human behavior, come from something personal. So if you want to understand a belief system, look at who holds it. Not just what they believe, but why. Now, this doesn’t apply to everything. When you’re talking about physics or astronomy or whatever, there probably isn’t some deep emotional backstory behind an argument about the distance between stars. But when it comes to human behavior, there’s usually something underneath. People don’t build these big intellectual systems for no reason. There’s often a personal story hiding in there.

Recall a basic lesson from Nietzsche, that every philosophy is basically a confession. He suggested that we don’t begin with reason. We begin with fear, pain, desire, or resentment. Then we build arguments to justify what we already want to believe. That’s one of the main insights in The Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche also suggests that what we usually call an ad hominem—criticizing the person instead of the argument—is not always wrong. If ideas come from their personal psychology, then understanding the person can help explain the belief. Of course Nietzsche overstated this. And you can turn the logic back on him. You could say, fine, you are making an argument about how people make arguments, so what does that say about you? Fair enough. But the basic idea is useful nonetheless. A lot of grand ideas, especially the ones about human behavior, come from something personal. So if you want to understand a belief system, look at who holds it. Not just what they believe, but why. Now, this doesn’t apply to everything. When you’re talking about physics or astronomy or whatever, there probably isn’t some deep emotional backstory behind an argument about the distance between stars. But when it comes to human behavior, there’s usually something underneath. People don’t build these big intellectual systems for no reason. There’s often a personal story hiding in there.

Rob Henderson

29,016 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."

David Perell

96,667 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Everyone falls in love with the queen first. Speed, reach, spectacle, violence made elegant. She is what dazzles the crowd. She is what wins battles. She is what makes observers confuse motion with meaning. But the red line of reality is simple and merciless: the game does not end when the queen dies. the game ends only when the king is gone. That rule is not technical. It is metaphysical. As Friedrich Nietzsche warned, “There are many who are clever, but few who are wise.” Cleverness moves fast. Wisdom survives. Power expands. Order endures. The queen is power. The king is continuity. Nietzsche, through Thus Spoke Zarathustra, makes this brutally clear when he writes, “He who cannot obey himself will be commanded.” The king is the one who obeys himself first. The queen obeys the mission. When the mission replaces the center, collapse becomes inevitable. History repeats this lesson with mathematical cruelty. Empires did not fall because they lacked strength. They fell because they lost balance. “What destroys a man is not his enemies,” Nietzsche reminds us, “but his lack of purpose.” Purpose lives in the king. The queen merely executes it. This is why brilliance without sovereignty becomes destructive. This is why unchecked power consumes its own foundation. This is why balance matters more than domination. Even antiquity understood this better than modern systems obsessed with optics. Cyrus the Great ruled with expansion, yes, but never at the cost of the axis. He conquered lands without dissolving legitimacy. He won wars without killing continuity. His empire did not fear the loss of any single force because the center remained intact. The queen may win you the battlefield. The king keeps the civilization alive. Another Nietzsche line cuts straight through illusion: “Chaos in oneself is needed to give birth to a dancing star.” But he never said chaos should rule. Chaos is fuel. Order is command. The star still orbits something. A system that worships queens burns bright and dies young. A system that protects the king outlives centuries. This is not a rejection of power. It is its refinement. The highest form of strength is not aggression but survivability. The highest form of leadership is not movement but permanence. The dark truth is this: you can sacrifice brilliance and recover. You can lose speed and adapt. You can even lose battles and rebuild. But once the king falls, the game does not pause, it ends. And the positive note, cold and absolute, is this: those who understand this never need to fear chaos. They protect the center. They move power deliberately. They let queens shine without letting them rule. That is how games are not only won, but allowed to continue.

Everyone falls in love with the queen first. Speed, reach, spectacle, violence made elegant. She is what dazzles the crowd. She is what wins battles. She is what makes observers confuse motion with meaning. But the red line of reality is simple and merciless: the game does not end when the queen dies. the game ends only when the king is gone. That rule is not technical. It is metaphysical. As Friedrich Nietzsche warned, “There are many who are clever, but few who are wise.” Cleverness moves fast. Wisdom survives. Power expands. Order endures. The queen is power. The king is continuity. Nietzsche, through Thus Spoke Zarathustra, makes this brutally clear when he writes, “He who cannot obey himself will be commanded.” The king is the one who obeys himself first. The queen obeys the mission. When the mission replaces the center, collapse becomes inevitable. History repeats this lesson with mathematical cruelty. Empires did not fall because they lacked strength. They fell because they lost balance. “What destroys a man is not his enemies,” Nietzsche reminds us, “but his lack of purpose.” Purpose lives in the king. The queen merely executes it. This is why brilliance without sovereignty becomes destructive. This is why unchecked power consumes its own foundation. This is why balance matters more than domination. Even antiquity understood this better than modern systems obsessed with optics. Cyrus the Great ruled with expansion, yes, but never at the cost of the axis. He conquered lands without dissolving legitimacy. He won wars without killing continuity. His empire did not fear the loss of any single force because the center remained intact. The queen may win you the battlefield. The king keeps the civilization alive. Another Nietzsche line cuts straight through illusion: “Chaos in oneself is needed to give birth to a dancing star.” But he never said chaos should rule. Chaos is fuel. Order is command. The star still orbits something. A system that worships queens burns bright and dies young. A system that protects the king outlives centuries. This is not a rejection of power. It is its refinement. The highest form of strength is not aggression but survivability. The highest form of leadership is not movement but permanence. The dark truth is this: you can sacrifice brilliance and recover. You can lose speed and adapt. You can even lose battles and rebuild. But once the king falls, the game does not pause, it ends. And the positive note, cold and absolute, is this: those who understand this never need to fear chaos. They protect the center. They move power deliberately. They let queens shine without letting them rule. That is how games are not only won, but allowed to continue.

kian

41,342 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Jaynit

1,293,611 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Emily Wilson is a kind of a feminist that is truly a bad person that wants to hurt you. Not directly, but in depth, through her profession as a classicist. She is attacking my culture and the Greeks because she hates virtues. She is blatantly lying because most of you don't know to read Greek. But I am Greek and I can read both modern and ancient Greek. So let me tell you why she is purposely lying. The references with insulting epithets toward the servant/slave women who betrayed Odysseus’s house and slept with the suitors are numerous. The most common ones, however, are "bitches" and "shameless" that were serious insults. Most foreigners translated the word "bitch" as "slut" which is correct to say that this is wrong because it's not what the text writes but in a sense of "non-literal translation" it's not out of context because those women who slept with the suitors and betrayed Penelope were "shameless bitches". Especially the word "shameless" is a strong insult in Greek. It implies sexual shamelessness lack of decency, and moral boldness and this is why foreign translators are using the word "sluts" in English. But Homer doesn't use the Greek word directly to call them "whores". The following translations I will use are made directly from the ancient Greek text into modern Greek. We Greeks do not read foreign translations. What we call an adaptation (απόδοση) from ancient to modern Greek is not considered a "translation" for us, since it is the same language. In other words an adaptation of a Greek text bridges the gap between ancient or dialectic Greek and the modern target audience. 1. Odysseus to a servant woman (Book 18, line 340): "Bitch, if I go and immediately repeat your wretched words to Telemachus, he will tear you to pieces, you’ll be smashed into bits." [ἦ τάχα Τηλεμάχῳ ἐρέω, κύον (=Bitch), οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις, κεῖσ᾽ ἐλθών, ἵνα σ᾽ αὖθι διὰ μελεϊστὶ τάμῃσιν] 2. Penelope to Melantho (the servant who slept with Eurymachus and betrayed them), when Melantho spoke rudely to Odysseus (who was still disguised) (Book 19, line 91): "Nevertheless, you bold, shameless bitch, you do not escape my notice at all, doing a great deed which you will wipe off on your own head." [πάντως, θαρσαλέη, κύον ἀδεές (=fearless bitch), οὔ τί με λήθεις ἔρδουσα μέγα ἔργον, ὃ σῇ κεφαλῇ ἀναμάξεις] 3. "Perhaps in foreign lands too, some servant women insult him, every time he enters a famous lord’s house, just like these bitches here who all together insult you, stranger. I imagine that to avoid their reproach, their shamelessness…" (Book 19, around line 370) 4. "Servant women shamelessly dragging themselves here and there." (Book 20, line 318) 5. "Twelve of them appeared completely shameless, who had no regard for me and showed no respect to Penelope." (Book 22, line 422) Emily Wilson cannot tolerate any criticism of the women who betrayed the man Odysseus and slept like shameless bitches with the enemy, betraying Penelope. In her worldview, men are always the bad guys, and only women are the heroines. She herself calls the academic translators misogynists. It is inconceivable that there are today "eunuch" academics who defend this malicious and worthless woman. This woman is in Classical Studies in order to destroy them, so that you, who will read her books, will form a false image of the epics that built Western civilization. How Odysseus is not a hero, Achilles is not a hero, men are not great and brave but evil, and how the patriarchy must be fought so that women can win. They are trying to convince you that there is no heroism in Homer. Yet the epics were written precisely for this reason: so that you understand what it means to be a hero, what sacrifices are required, what difficulties you will face, and how you will achieve eternal fame. How you will conquer your passions, how anger destroys you, and how moral virtues lead you toward godlike status. She hates all of this. She wants you spiritually dead. She hates you. Therefore, it is completely justified for you to hate them too.

Emily Wilson is a kind of a feminist that is truly a bad person that wants to hurt you. Not directly, but in depth, through her profession as a classicist. She is attacking my culture and the Greeks because she hates virtues. She is blatantly lying because most of you don't know to read Greek. But I am Greek and I can read both modern and ancient Greek. So let me tell you why she is purposely lying. The references with insulting epithets toward the servant/slave women who betrayed Odysseus’s house and slept with the suitors are numerous. The most common ones, however, are "bitches" and "shameless" that were serious insults. Most foreigners translated the word "bitch" as "slut" which is correct to say that this is wrong because it's not what the text writes but in a sense of "non-literal translation" it's not out of context because those women who slept with the suitors and betrayed Penelope were "shameless bitches". Especially the word "shameless" is a strong insult in Greek. It implies sexual shamelessness lack of decency, and moral boldness and this is why foreign translators are using the word "sluts" in English. But Homer doesn't use the Greek word directly to call them "whores". The following translations I will use are made directly from the ancient Greek text into modern Greek. We Greeks do not read foreign translations. What we call an adaptation (απόδοση) from ancient to modern Greek is not considered a "translation" for us, since it is the same language. In other words an adaptation of a Greek text bridges the gap between ancient or dialectic Greek and the modern target audience. 1. Odysseus to a servant woman (Book 18, line 340): "Bitch, if I go and immediately repeat your wretched words to Telemachus, he will tear you to pieces, you’ll be smashed into bits." [ἦ τάχα Τηλεμάχῳ ἐρέω, κύον (=Bitch), οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις, κεῖσ᾽ ἐλθών, ἵνα σ᾽ αὖθι διὰ μελεϊστὶ τάμῃσιν] 2. Penelope to Melantho (the servant who slept with Eurymachus and betrayed them), when Melantho spoke rudely to Odysseus (who was still disguised) (Book 19, line 91): "Nevertheless, you bold, shameless bitch, you do not escape my notice at all, doing a great deed which you will wipe off on your own head." [πάντως, θαρσαλέη, κύον ἀδεές (=fearless bitch), οὔ τί με λήθεις ἔρδουσα μέγα ἔργον, ὃ σῇ κεφαλῇ ἀναμάξεις] 3. "Perhaps in foreign lands too, some servant women insult him, every time he enters a famous lord’s house, just like these bitches here who all together insult you, stranger. I imagine that to avoid their reproach, their shamelessness…" (Book 19, around line 370) 4. "Servant women shamelessly dragging themselves here and there." (Book 20, line 318) 5. "Twelve of them appeared completely shameless, who had no regard for me and showed no respect to Penelope." (Book 22, line 422) Emily Wilson cannot tolerate any criticism of the women who betrayed the man Odysseus and slept like shameless bitches with the enemy, betraying Penelope. In her worldview, men are always the bad guys, and only women are the heroines. She herself calls the academic translators misogynists. It is inconceivable that there are today "eunuch" academics who defend this malicious and worthless woman. This woman is in Classical Studies in order to destroy them, so that you, who will read her books, will form a false image of the epics that built Western civilization. How Odysseus is not a hero, Achilles is not a hero, men are not great and brave but evil, and how the patriarchy must be fought so that women can win. They are trying to convince you that there is no heroism in Homer. Yet the epics were written precisely for this reason: so that you understand what it means to be a hero, what sacrifices are required, what difficulties you will face, and how you will achieve eternal fame. How you will conquer your passions, how anger destroys you, and how moral virtues lead you toward godlike status. She hates all of this. She wants you spiritually dead. She hates you. Therefore, it is completely justified for you to hate them too.

Homer Pavlos

345,295 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"The simplest reason to not read something published in the past 50 years is that's what everybody else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in the last two years. And it's a simple fact of life that if you read what everybody else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing and worst of all think what they are thinking is, let's say... increased." (From my interview with The Cultural Tutor)

"The simplest reason to not read something published in the past 50 years is that's what everybody else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in the last two years. And it's a simple fact of life that if you read what everybody else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing and worst of all think what they are thinking is, let's say... increased." (From my interview with The Cultural Tutor)

David Perell

184,088 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

REPORTER: He had social media accounts that had anti-Trump and anti-Christian rhetoric... PRESIDENT TRUMP: You should read, why don't you read all the anti-Trump? Why don't you read it? REPORTER: Well, he had a lot of anti-Christian rhetoric. He was part of a group called the Wide Awakes. He had attended a No Kings protest in California. PRESIDENT TRUMP: The reason you have people like that is you have people doing No Kings, I'm not a king... If I was a king, I wouldn't be dealing with you.

REPORTER: He had social media accounts that had anti-Trump and anti-Christian rhetoric... PRESIDENT TRUMP: You should read, why don't you read all the anti-Trump? Why don't you read it? REPORTER: Well, he had a lot of anti-Christian rhetoric. He was part of a group called the Wide Awakes. He had attended a No Kings protest in California. PRESIDENT TRUMP: The reason you have people like that is you have people doing No Kings, I'm not a king... If I was a king, I wouldn't be dealing with you.

Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial

293,892 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is for those who ask...if Not Modi....then who? Our man is sitting with the President of the USA The topic is bilateral relationship The translator is reading out the portions that he should be speaking, in English. Obviously the person who wrote this speaks English. Our PM , in the meantime is reading out whatever is written in a notebook in a language that he apparently reads. Neither does he understand what the lady spoke in English, nor about whatever he is reading out in syllables and sound that resemble words in Hindi and a few technical terms laid in English. And you are worried about who can replace him. Are you serious?

This is for those who ask...if Not Modi....then who? Our man is sitting with the President of the USA The topic is bilateral relationship The translator is reading out the portions that he should be speaking, in English. Obviously the person who wrote this speaks English. Our PM , in the meantime is reading out whatever is written in a notebook in a language that he apparently reads. Neither does he understand what the lady spoke in English, nor about whatever he is reading out in syllables and sound that resemble words in Hindi and a few technical terms laid in English. And you are worried about who can replace him. Are you serious?

Paul Koshy

623,840 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Camus

41,966 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Nolan's Odyssey is in cinemas. Go see it. Then remember this. In 1354 Petrarch was handed a Greek manuscript of the poem and could not read a single word of it. "I am deaf to him," he wrote. Latin Europe had lost its Greek centuries earlier. The text only survived because Byzantine scribes kept copying it. It only became readable again around 1362, when Boccaccio housed a Greek-speaking scholar from Calabria and had him grind out a Latin version. That is what heritage actually is. Not something you are born holding. Something other people kept for you while you were not looking, and that you still have to learn to read. I hold in high esteem those who cherish their heritage and are able to reproduce the words with passion and conviction.. Here is Boris Johnson reciting the Iliad.

Nolan's Odyssey is in cinemas. Go see it. Then remember this. In 1354 Petrarch was handed a Greek manuscript of the poem and could not read a single word of it. "I am deaf to him," he wrote. Latin Europe had lost its Greek centuries earlier. The text only survived because Byzantine scribes kept copying it. It only became readable again around 1362, when Boccaccio housed a Greek-speaking scholar from Calabria and had him grind out a Latin version. That is what heritage actually is. Not something you are born holding. Something other people kept for you while you were not looking, and that you still have to learn to read. I hold in high esteem those who cherish their heritage and are able to reproduce the words with passion and conviction.. Here is Boris Johnson reciting the Iliad.

Fouad Gandoul

227,583 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Hopewell Chin’ono

67,842 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.

Ayo-Elesho

15,301 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🔥TIM DILLON slams Trump's Iran War leadership: "He's not a fighter" "He's a shit-talker. He's a casino kingpin... a reality TV star" "He was really pushed into this" "You can feel that Trump wants out of it" "He's very comfortable in that game. Late night, firing off tweets at Elizabeth Warren. That's his game" "This is not where he shines. And he feels uncomfortable. You can tell, he's not happy about this" "There's no way he wanted to do this because this is not where he lives. This is not what he's good at" "Trump's the guy who... walked around... an army hospital and he was basically like, 'Why do they do this?' 'Cause he doesn't get it. He's like, 'Why would you go and sacrifice for the country?'" "He doesn't get it" "[But] he's the master of creating a reality that's true enough. That's what reality TV does" "He's a master at creating a reality that has elements of truth, but the things that are glaringly untrue, you don't care because it's entertaining" "[But Iran] is not a good show" Tim Dillon

🔥TIM DILLON slams Trump's Iran War leadership: "He's not a fighter" "He's a shit-talker. He's a casino kingpin... a reality TV star" "He was really pushed into this" "You can feel that Trump wants out of it" "He's very comfortable in that game. Late night, firing off tweets at Elizabeth Warren. That's his game" "This is not where he shines. And he feels uncomfortable. You can tell, he's not happy about this" "There's no way he wanted to do this because this is not where he lives. This is not what he's good at" "Trump's the guy who... walked around... an army hospital and he was basically like, 'Why do they do this?' 'Cause he doesn't get it. He's like, 'Why would you go and sacrifice for the country?'" "He doesn't get it" "[But] he's the master of creating a reality that's true enough. That's what reality TV does" "He's a master at creating a reality that has elements of truth, but the things that are glaringly untrue, you don't care because it's entertaining" "[But Iran] is not a good show" Tim Dillon

Sense Receptor

26,124 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Connor, you're an intelligent man, and I don't believe you don't understand Lowe's views on this. Here he refuses entirely to differentiate between Canadian and Nigerian immigration. It would have been so easy to say here that Canadians would be better, because they're "easier to integrate". He didn't say that, because that's not what he believes. If that is what Lowe believes, then your only argument for Restore is that you and your friends - who obviously do not agree with your leader - are actually running the show. I think that is your argument, and I don't find it persuasive. We've had our disagreements with you at PJ, but you could have been a positive force in Reform. You lost that chance when you got involved with Lowe, perhaps wrongly, but since then your goals have been the same as Lowe's - to build something that you can be part of, rather than something that can win. At least be honest and admit that the value you see in Restore is not in Lowe, who is quite clearly a straightforward Libertarian Conservative and Civic Nationalist - and stop trying to pretend he's something other than that.

Connor, you're an intelligent man, and I don't believe you don't understand Lowe's views on this. Here he refuses entirely to differentiate between Canadian and Nigerian immigration. It would have been so easy to say here that Canadians would be better, because they're "easier to integrate". He didn't say that, because that's not what he believes. If that is what Lowe believes, then your only argument for Restore is that you and your friends - who obviously do not agree with your leader - are actually running the show. I think that is your argument, and I don't find it persuasive. We've had our disagreements with you at PJ, but you could have been a positive force in Reform. You lost that chance when you got involved with Lowe, perhaps wrongly, but since then your goals have been the same as Lowe's - to build something that you can be part of, rather than something that can win. At least be honest and admit that the value you see in Restore is not in Lowe, who is quite clearly a straightforward Libertarian Conservative and Civic Nationalist - and stop trying to pretend he's something other than that.

George Spencer

81,656 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Most women assume that when a man goes silent... He doesn't care about her. FALSE. What if he's actually carrying something he doesn't know how to put into words? What if the thing you're calling defiance... is really shame? Ladies, You need to understand this: 👇 When a man goes silent, most women interpret it as abandonment, neglect and disrespect. She demands, “Why don’t you talk to me?” Not realizing that, to him, it can feel like being trapped. Like a caged animal. And when a caged animal is cornered? Violence can become the outcome. When a man has carried the responsibilities of a committed relationship... but is told he has failed in her eyes... he starts to feel like nothing he does is ever good enough for her. For a man, respect is earned. Through competency. Hard work. Courage. Responsibility. If he has committed to those things... but still believes he hasn't earned your respect... he feels masculine shame. And shame naturally causes withdrawal. One of the worst things for a man is to feel vulnerable... in a place where he already feels small. Women often don't understand this... because when women feel shame, they cry. They talk. They rationalize. They lean into being the "weaker vessel." Men don't have that same outlet. So they go silent. They numb themselves with work. Porn. Alcohol. Drugs. Or anything that helps them escape what they don't know how to fix. It's not that he doesn't care about you. On the contrary... he often cares too much. How does a woman make a man feel disrespected? If she asked for honesty... and reacted badly when he gave it... he remembers. If she asked him for something... and he genuinely tried to make it happen... but failed... he remembers. If she rolled her eyes at something he said... he remembers. He files every one of those moments away... into a folder of self-hate. Until one day... it bursts open in aggression. And suddenly she's shocked by a reaction... that had been building for years. So what do you do? You don't rock him like a baby. You can't breastfeed him. You don't stand in the doorway so he can't leave. You don't pick up the pieces for him. You don't try to solve the problem for him. You don't say, "Why won't you talk to me?" You simply give him space. And say: "I'm not your enemy. I don't need you to fix anything. I just need to know you're still here." Then... step aside. And let him go. That reminds him he's safe to show up in this relationship as a man... even when he's not at his best. That's when the cold space he's holding onto begins to thaw. And you remind him... that he's still in control of himself... instead of attacking his silence.

Most women assume that when a man goes silent... He doesn't care about her. FALSE. What if he's actually carrying something he doesn't know how to put into words? What if the thing you're calling defiance... is really shame? Ladies, You need to understand this: 👇 When a man goes silent, most women interpret it as abandonment, neglect and disrespect. She demands, “Why don’t you talk to me?” Not realizing that, to him, it can feel like being trapped. Like a caged animal. And when a caged animal is cornered? Violence can become the outcome. When a man has carried the responsibilities of a committed relationship... but is told he has failed in her eyes... he starts to feel like nothing he does is ever good enough for her. For a man, respect is earned. Through competency. Hard work. Courage. Responsibility. If he has committed to those things... but still believes he hasn't earned your respect... he feels masculine shame. And shame naturally causes withdrawal. One of the worst things for a man is to feel vulnerable... in a place where he already feels small. Women often don't understand this... because when women feel shame, they cry. They talk. They rationalize. They lean into being the "weaker vessel." Men don't have that same outlet. So they go silent. They numb themselves with work. Porn. Alcohol. Drugs. Or anything that helps them escape what they don't know how to fix. It's not that he doesn't care about you. On the contrary... he often cares too much. How does a woman make a man feel disrespected? If she asked for honesty... and reacted badly when he gave it... he remembers. If she asked him for something... and he genuinely tried to make it happen... but failed... he remembers. If she rolled her eyes at something he said... he remembers. He files every one of those moments away... into a folder of self-hate. Until one day... it bursts open in aggression. And suddenly she's shocked by a reaction... that had been building for years. So what do you do? You don't rock him like a baby. You can't breastfeed him. You don't stand in the doorway so he can't leave. You don't pick up the pieces for him. You don't try to solve the problem for him. You don't say, "Why won't you talk to me?" You simply give him space. And say: "I'm not your enemy. I don't need you to fix anything. I just need to know you're still here." Then... step aside. And let him go. That reminds him he's safe to show up in this relationship as a man... even when he's not at his best. That's when the cold space he's holding onto begins to thaw. And you remind him... that he's still in control of himself... instead of attacking his silence.

Gia Macool

210,190 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

#S2VoyageMemoriesD2 About haters messages 👩🏻Ok let's be serious🤨Why are you still reading haters' messages ? 😭 🐰Not really reading but I just check the inbox sometimes and I see the first one. Always the first one is something like that. And I was like "scrolling gesture" and "reading" 👩🏻(You did) a good answer but you just need to block (them) 🐰Yeah, yeah, actually I don't really care but it was kinda funny so I posted it on X 👩🏻Yes it was funny 🙂‍↕️ // I'm always a bit scared when I see he gets and reads such messages because they can easily make you feel bad and affect your mental health. That's why I asked him that. I was really curious to know why he was reading those messages. He's a grown up man and handles things in the way that's the best for him. He's not really affected by haters' words but laughes at them instead. S2 is in the house 🔥🔥🔥

#S2VoyageMemoriesD2 About haters messages 👩🏻Ok let's be serious🤨Why are you still reading haters' messages ? 😭 🐰Not really reading but I just check the inbox sometimes and I see the first one. Always the first one is something like that. And I was like "scrolling gesture" and "reading" 👩🏻(You did) a good answer but you just need to block (them) 🐰Yeah, yeah, actually I don't really care but it was kinda funny so I posted it on X 👩🏻Yes it was funny 🙂‍↕️ // I'm always a bit scared when I see he gets and reads such messages because they can easily make you feel bad and affect your mental health. That's why I asked him that. I was really curious to know why he was reading those messages. He's a grown up man and handles things in the way that's the best for him. He's not really affected by haters' words but laughes at them instead. S2 is in the house 🔥🔥🔥

Marie 🐥🐰

12,168 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

When making The Departed, Jack Nicholson told Matt Damon, “I never would've made it this far in my career if I wasn't a great fucking writer.” Meaning, he would contribute great ideas to a story through his performance and improvisation. Damon recalls a perfect example of this: “And I'll give you one story - it was my favorite thing that happened on The Departed, was this story about a scene that I was not in, but he (Nicholson) was - it was 1 eighth of a page, and it said Costello - which is the name of his character - ‘Costello executes man kneeling in the marshes.’ Now, most people look at that, and they'll go, ‘All right, it's gonna be one shot - that's gonna be an hour of work, and that's all I'm doing that day, or whatever.’ He looked at that, and he goes, ‘Okay, I can do that, but I think I can make it better.’ And so he's telling me this story. He goes, (in Jack Nicholson’s voice) ‘So what I do is,’… he goes, ‘I come from the Roger Corman School, so I'm not gonna add any time, and I'm not gonna add to your budget. But instead of a man kneeling in the marshes, I make it a woman.’ ...And he goes, ‘So I'm gonna execute a woman, but I'm not gonna be alone. I put Ray (Winston) in the scene with me - and I shoot her in the back of the head like it says in the script. But if you leave the camera rolling, after she falls, I turn to Ray and I say, geez, she fell funny. Now that's a really sinister thing to say. Because it means I do this a lot, and there's a way people fall. And she didn't fall that way.’ And I go, ‘oh yeah, I get it man, I get it.’ ‘Now you could end the scene there, but if you leave the camera rolling, Ray steps forward, and he reveals that he's holding an axe. She's gonna chop her up. Now you could end the scene there.’ He goes, ‘But if you leave the camera rolling, I turn to Ray and say, “wait, I think I wanna fuck her again.”’ And he goes, ‘Now that's a very sinister line.’ I get it, I get it, it's really, really, really disturbing. And he says, Now you could end the scene there, but if you keep the camera rolling, Ray stops and looks at me, and there's a pause. And I go….ah! He goes, ‘And that's a sinister thing to do, “'cause we're making a joke out of this whole thing.” And I go, yeah, I get it, I get it. ‘Now you could end the scene there, but if you leave the camera rolling, Ray says, “Francis, you really oughta see someone.” And so that's what they did. He took this one eighth of a page scene, and he did all of that, and they had two cameras on it, so it could cut back and forth. And what Marty ended up cutting was he shoots her, she falls, he says, “Geez, she fell funny.” And Ray looks at him and says, “Francis, you really oughta see someone.” But he just gave him all of these options, as dark and as sick as you wanna go.” Quote comes from Matt Damon's appearance on the What A Joke Show with Papa and Fortune

When making The Departed, Jack Nicholson told Matt Damon, “I never would've made it this far in my career if I wasn't a great fucking writer.” Meaning, he would contribute great ideas to a story through his performance and improvisation. Damon recalls a perfect example of this: “And I'll give you one story - it was my favorite thing that happened on The Departed, was this story about a scene that I was not in, but he (Nicholson) was - it was 1 eighth of a page, and it said Costello - which is the name of his character - ‘Costello executes man kneeling in the marshes.’ Now, most people look at that, and they'll go, ‘All right, it's gonna be one shot - that's gonna be an hour of work, and that's all I'm doing that day, or whatever.’ He looked at that, and he goes, ‘Okay, I can do that, but I think I can make it better.’ And so he's telling me this story. He goes, (in Jack Nicholson’s voice) ‘So what I do is,’… he goes, ‘I come from the Roger Corman School, so I'm not gonna add any time, and I'm not gonna add to your budget. But instead of a man kneeling in the marshes, I make it a woman.’ ...And he goes, ‘So I'm gonna execute a woman, but I'm not gonna be alone. I put Ray (Winston) in the scene with me - and I shoot her in the back of the head like it says in the script. But if you leave the camera rolling, after she falls, I turn to Ray and I say, geez, she fell funny. Now that's a really sinister thing to say. Because it means I do this a lot, and there's a way people fall. And she didn't fall that way.’ And I go, ‘oh yeah, I get it man, I get it.’ ‘Now you could end the scene there, but if you leave the camera rolling, Ray steps forward, and he reveals that he's holding an axe. She's gonna chop her up. Now you could end the scene there.’ He goes, ‘But if you leave the camera rolling, I turn to Ray and say, “wait, I think I wanna fuck her again.”’ And he goes, ‘Now that's a very sinister line.’ I get it, I get it, it's really, really, really disturbing. And he says, Now you could end the scene there, but if you keep the camera rolling, Ray stops and looks at me, and there's a pause. And I go….ah! He goes, ‘And that's a sinister thing to do, “'cause we're making a joke out of this whole thing.” And I go, yeah, I get it, I get it. ‘Now you could end the scene there, but if you leave the camera rolling, Ray says, “Francis, you really oughta see someone.” And so that's what they did. He took this one eighth of a page scene, and he did all of that, and they had two cameras on it, so it could cut back and forth. And what Marty ended up cutting was he shoots her, she falls, he says, “Geez, she fell funny.” And Ray looks at him and says, “Francis, you really oughta see someone.” But he just gave him all of these options, as dark and as sick as you wanna go.” Quote comes from Matt Damon's appearance on the What A Joke Show with Papa and Fortune

Gangster Cinema Central

1,053,344 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten