Get live statistics and analysis of Dvorstone's profile on X / Twitter

I have said it before and I'll say it again. An Englishman born around 1900 is likely to been among the finest human beings to have ever lived, culturally and genetically. Truly elite humans. And we sent them to die in a meatgrinder war for nothing.

One of the deep reasons that the left imports hostile immigrants is so that they'll do the dirty work that the leftists haven't the courage to do themselves. They'd LOVE to burn monasteries but it's easier to just import enough Muslims because eventually one of them will do it. Immigrants are the left's shock troops and their purpose is to terrorize the people that the left hates.

This actually highlights a central problem: purposeless marriages. This marriage has no goal. They just liked each other and got married but the goal of the marriage defaulted to him subsidizing her lifestyle and that goal turns out to not be very attractive to him. Traditionally, marriages involved the creation of a family and while they don't need to do that necessarily, they absolutely NEED a goal. There has to be something that both parties are working towards. I see a lot of marriages break down because of this problem. They're just two people living independent lives, but together. They're not working towards the same thing. This tends to breed resentment and frustration when their separate goals conflict or, as in the case of this marriage, the rewards of their efforts just serve to subsidize another person. Marriage should involve both people working towards the same goal.

Yes, 100% yes. The most attractive thing a man can have is a wedding ring because it confirms that another woman already vouched for you. And it also lets women convince themselves that there's no risk. "He's married," they'll say. "I'm just being friendly." This doesn't mean that women are constantly trying to steal other men's husbands but women like to confirm that they're desirable and that they can compete. One way they do that is by commanding a man's attention, and if they can flirt a little with a married man then that confirms that they're desirable.

Notice one key thing... she doesn't make it about her. It's all about HIS name and HIS legacy. She aims to continue being HIS wife even if he's dead. I imagine that most men, if they're killed, would want their wives to respond like this.

This guy's description as "radical normie terrorism" is precisely correct. Very well said. What's happening is that people without a solid metaphysics, morality, and epistemology, and a stunted psychological development are suddenly thrown into the leftist swamps of online chats and universities and getting "one-shotted," as the kids say. We're creating old children without a stable philosophy and then exposing to an insane but rhetorically sophisticated cult. Some of those "old children" are going do crazy things like mutilate their genitalia or shoot innocent people.

What's happened is that universal suffrage shifted the focus of our political institutions: 1. When mostly working men vote, they make the government focus on the needs of working men. Working men then take care of everything else. Works... pretty well. Tends to neglect non-working people. 2. Add non-working men into the mix and this deforms a little as they shift the focus to a broader category, blurring the distinction between productive and unproductive men. Works... okay. Tends to neglect women and children. 3. Add women and you get the most significant change because women don't prioritize women or men or even their own tribe. Women prioritize children but then "the needy," i.e., anyone they cognitively classify as essentially children. This works... okay, so long as women have children. Women without children shift the focus of government towards "the needy." In this case, that's "infinite immigrants," which makes it harder for domestic men to compete and in turn accomplish enough to attract a mate, and so on. This is why my preferred category of people who should be allowed to vote are working men and mothers. No one else.

Two things are interesting about this: 1. This is a very old form of ethnically asserting dominance, i.e., we're taking your women. Ancient tribes would go to war but it was more akin to raids, and the primary target would be women. Stealing the other tribe's women was the earliest form of "winning." 2. The relative status of "white women" has fallen off a cliff over the past twenty years or so, in nominally "white" countries. You used to see this in black urban ghettos in 1980s and 1990s in which a black man would proudly show off a very "mid" white women as if she were a prize, even over significantly more desirable black women. There's really no greater point here other than to highlight how bizarre this "brag" is, at least to white men. Sure, it'll invite the ire of a few but mostly, white men would find this kind of post bizarre. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is another matter entirely.

Research has illuminate the tendency of women to project themselves into everything. For example, when boys play with GI Joes, they imagine that the they're the GI Joe and so they have the toys fight and engage in adventure. When girls play with said toy (or Barbies or anything else), they imagine that the toy is THEM. Thus, the GI Joe doesn't go fight but instead does whatever the girl would normally do. This has the tendency to make women uniquely blind to certain ideas. This is a good example of that. Her interpretation is not actually an interpretation at all. It's a fiction; a pure projection. It has nothing to do with The Illiad or the people who wrote it or that it's about. Instead, it's just what it would have been about if she'd written it.

The algorithm loves putting this lady on my feed and here's the thing... she's a wild ride, or is she? In this post she has succinctly presented a really important idea for navigating the online world correctly: it's partial, which is obvious, but what's less obvious is that people naturally fill in the gaps. It's not just partial, it's artificial completed according to context clues (and this is key, and I'll return to it). So... some guy (or woman) will read a few posts and then complete the picture in their head. That's super dangerous social behavior. What happens is that you can grow to love or hate the simulacrum that you've created. That's what "Trump derangement syndrome" is, for example. It's also part of the "trans" fetishization. Your brain (this comes from your memory systems) is VERY good at filling in the gaps. This is why your eyes have a blind spot that you don't notice. This is a critical cognitive function but, again, it has its dangers. One example of this is in online dating where people text and call for too long before meeting and then when they meet, they just don't like each other. What's usually happening is that they each build an artificial version of the other that would normally have been corrected except the medium (text and phone calls) restricted access to the key information. Here she says "you do not love me," she is correct. She correctly understands that what she presents online is not only insufficient to know her but is actively distorting her because it's unfiltered or stream of consciousness or whatever. Back to "context clues." What is the context of "X?" It's whatever it is that you're consuming on here, which is usually what you're looking for. Thus, the incomplete girl is completed... in a favorable manner to what you desire. She's artificially made "perfect" for you. It should be immediately apparent why that's deeply troubling. From her perspective, she's saturated with guys who have fallen in love with an illusion AND who are consequently blind to who she really is. That must be insanely frustrating if you're have to deal with. For the guy though, you're also constantly being feed a stream of women who appear "perfect" but which the real world lacks. You NEVER meet real women like you see online... or so it appears. It deforms your reality and expectations. And this doesn't just happen with romance. It happens with all of those edited photos of landscapes that are crazy beautiful and then when you see them in real life, they're nice but far more realistic looking. It sets you up for constant disappointment. I caution people... don't spend months romanticizing a person online. If something interests you, invite them to coffee or move on. The danger of "falling in love" with an illusion, especially over and over again, is a kind of hell that no one deserves. In my observation, men are getting absolutely destroyed by this... see South Korea, for example. That's a lecture for another day.

People are forgetting that the U.S. offers a constant flow of more than 1.13 million "green cards" every year. They can bring a spouse and children and once they're a citizen, they can bring even more family. This is the backbreaker. Family reunification should be eliminated entirely. More so, there should be a gender ratio that favors women over men (as men are more likely to be criminals and disruptive).

Men need to come to terms with a hard reality: 1. When you're 30, a 22 year will date you but not marry you or if they do, she won't be "ready" for kids and divorce is likely. 2. When you're 40, a 28 year will date you but now marry you or if they do, she won't be "ready" for kids divorce is likely. This is the equivalent of the 35 year old former great beauty who thinks she can still bag the guy she slept with at 22. The reason women will date but not marry an older man is simple: you have more money than her peers. You can take her on fancy vacations and higher class events. You can introduce her to more success people (and probably her future spouse). When you're significantly older than a woman, she's farming you for lifestyle and connections and you're just an old fool.

I can actually explain this... but it's a little complicated: 1. Is it normal for a 15 year old boy to be sexually attracted to a 15 year old girl? Yes, obviously. No problem... but then... 2. At what point is it no longer acceptable for him to find that girl attractive? When he's 16? 17? 18? 19? We know when it's not legal but when does he become a pedophile? Is it a legal question or moral or psychological development question? Does he have control over that? Yes, sort of. 3. Your sexual behavior changes over time and grows more specialized. Ideally, it narrows around a single person. Thus, a man wouldn't even be attracted to "women" so much as one specific women. But that's rare. Instead, men rotate women over time. What happens to some men is that they have a series of relationships that roughly correspond to their age. As this happens, their brain filters out the younger women. Thus, when the boy is dating a 17 year old (even when the same girl as when he was 15), 15 year old girls look and behave too immature to him. The cognitive feedback loop updates his girlfriend (or ex) into a more "womanly" person, because that's how your memory works. Thus, the 15 year old girl you were once attracted too morphs in your brain into someone more appropriate to your current sexual dynamic. This is good. As you age, you're not supposed to continually find young girls attractive. 4. This doesn't always happen though. Sometimes men don't update (this often happens when they have a youthful girlfriend and then are single for a while afterwards) their memory but instead recycles it... they constantly relive it. They reinforce it, obsess over it, and make the memory more static. This makes your memory more accurate but that's not what your memory is for because it also traps you in that dynamic. A perfect or accurate memory is a prison. This person will retain that memory and it will become the defining sexual dynamic. If the man is lucky, his next girlfriend will break that mold and he won't look at pictures of young girls or even socialize with them, allowing him to "move on," so to speak. But if he's unlucky, he can get trapped. It could be as easy as the girls in his neighborhood are all a few years younger or so on... It's not necessarily (or even usually) malicious, much less pedophilic but it is a psychological deformation. The point is that his memory doesn't update. Thus, he retains that attraction. A 17 year old still attracted to a 15 year old is probably fine but a 19 year old? Now it's a problem but not merely because of the 4 years age difference (that wouldn't matter if they're both in their 30s). It's a problem because it signals the aforementioned problem. It signals that the person might be psychosexually stuck. It's not the current age gap that's a problem but what it indicates, which, again, is that we have someone who isn't maturing correctly and society should definitely be concerned about that. 5. To answer her question, why do some men fight to defend that failed maturation? Easy, because it applies to them.

Canada use to be our weird, harmless friend up north. Now they're a crazy leftwing tyranny that funnels drugs, criminals, and foreign spies into the U.S. They're no longer suitable for easy visas. Canada is a national security threat.

Most people are familiar with the "shopping cart" analogy but she's described a really important complement: the "candy bowl" problem. Together, they describe the two sides of a high-trust society. The former deals with your willingness to take on responsibilities that provide only benefits to others and no personal benefit. The latter "candy bowl" problem articulates that mistaking vulnerabilities for opportunities is the hallmark of a low-trust society.

The worst thing about H-1b visas might not even be the displacement of American workers and erosion of our culture. Perhaps it's that for the rest of history, we're going to have to listen to foreigners say "America was built on H-1b visas" just like it was "built on slavery."

I have said it before and I'll say it again. An Englishman born around 1900 is likely to been among the finest human beings to have ever lived, culturally and genetically. Truly elite humans. And we sent them to die in a meatgrinder war for nothing.

This actually highlights a central problem: purposeless marriages. This marriage has no goal. They just liked each other and got married but the goal of the marriage defaulted to him subsidizing her lifestyle and that goal turns out to not be very attractive to him. Traditionally, marriages involved the creation of a family and while they don't need to do that necessarily, they absolutely NEED a goal. There has to be something that both parties are working towards. I see a lot of marriages break down because of this problem. They're just two people living independent lives, but together. They're not working towards the same thing. This tends to breed resentment and frustration when their separate goals conflict or, as in the case of this marriage, the rewards of their efforts just serve to subsidize another person. Marriage should involve both people working towards the same goal.

Yes, 100% yes. The most attractive thing a man can have is a wedding ring because it confirms that another woman already vouched for you. And it also lets women convince themselves that there's no risk. "He's married," they'll say. "I'm just being friendly." This doesn't mean that women are constantly trying to steal other men's husbands but women like to confirm that they're desirable and that they can compete. One way they do that is by commanding a man's attention, and if they can flirt a little with a married man then that confirms that they're desirable.

One of the deep reasons that the left imports hostile immigrants is so that they'll do the dirty work that the leftists haven't the courage to do themselves. They'd LOVE to burn monasteries but it's easier to just import enough Muslims because eventually one of them will do it. Immigrants are the left's shock troops and their purpose is to terrorize the people that the left hates.

This guy's description as "radical normie terrorism" is precisely correct. Very well said. What's happening is that people without a solid metaphysics, morality, and epistemology, and a stunted psychological development are suddenly thrown into the leftist swamps of online chats and universities and getting "one-shotted," as the kids say. We're creating old children without a stable philosophy and then exposing to an insane but rhetorically sophisticated cult. Some of those "old children" are going do crazy things like mutilate their genitalia or shoot innocent people.

Two things are interesting about this: 1. This is a very old form of ethnically asserting dominance, i.e., we're taking your women. Ancient tribes would go to war but it was more akin to raids, and the primary target would be women. Stealing the other tribe's women was the earliest form of "winning." 2. The relative status of "white women" has fallen off a cliff over the past twenty years or so, in nominally "white" countries. You used to see this in black urban ghettos in 1980s and 1990s in which a black man would proudly show off a very "mid" white women as if she were a prize, even over significantly more desirable black women. There's really no greater point here other than to highlight how bizarre this "brag" is, at least to white men. Sure, it'll invite the ire of a few but mostly, white men would find this kind of post bizarre. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is another matter entirely.

Notice one key thing... she doesn't make it about her. It's all about HIS name and HIS legacy. She aims to continue being HIS wife even if he's dead. I imagine that most men, if they're killed, would want their wives to respond like this.

Research has illuminate the tendency of women to project themselves into everything. For example, when boys play with GI Joes, they imagine that the they're the GI Joe and so they have the toys fight and engage in adventure. When girls play with said toy (or Barbies or anything else), they imagine that the toy is THEM. Thus, the GI Joe doesn't go fight but instead does whatever the girl would normally do. This has the tendency to make women uniquely blind to certain ideas. This is a good example of that. Her interpretation is not actually an interpretation at all. It's a fiction; a pure projection. It has nothing to do with The Illiad or the people who wrote it or that it's about. Instead, it's just what it would have been about if she'd written it.

What's happened is that universal suffrage shifted the focus of our political institutions: 1. When mostly working men vote, they make the government focus on the needs of working men. Working men then take care of everything else. Works... pretty well. Tends to neglect non-working people. 2. Add non-working men into the mix and this deforms a little as they shift the focus to a broader category, blurring the distinction between productive and unproductive men. Works... okay. Tends to neglect women and children. 3. Add women and you get the most significant change because women don't prioritize women or men or even their own tribe. Women prioritize children but then "the needy," i.e., anyone they cognitively classify as essentially children. This works... okay, so long as women have children. Women without children shift the focus of government towards "the needy." In this case, that's "infinite immigrants," which makes it harder for domestic men to compete and in turn accomplish enough to attract a mate, and so on. This is why my preferred category of people who should be allowed to vote are working men and mothers. No one else.

So this is actually fairly interesting... The dress itself is lovely. However, they've chosen to put the dress on a well-above average height model, thus making the dress appear significantly "sexier" than it actually is. Additionally, the model presents in a manner that is typical of models today but actually inappropriate for the product and situation: most of her movements and expressions are overtly sexual, which strikes the wrong tone. Notice that she doesn't smile at all. What they needed was a model who was joyful, perhaps laughing. She needed to appear fun... instead, she's deliberately erotic. There is obviously a time and place for eroticism (and Christians and right-wingers and conservatives likely all disagree on that) however this wasn't really the right time for it. Even the setting is wrong but for a more subtle reason... a lot of these fancy locales are seen everywhere on Instagram with women who often look like "sugar babies," i.e., fake boobs and filler in their lips and face. Thus, many of these really beautiful locations increasingly are tainted with vulgarity. Ultimately, this dress would have been better presented with a different model, different affect, and in a different location. If it had been a joyful women on picnic in a non-descript but pretty field playing with her kids, then it probably would have landed significantly better.

The algorithm loves putting this lady on my feed and here's the thing... she's a wild ride, or is she? In this post she has succinctly presented a really important idea for navigating the online world correctly: it's partial, which is obvious, but what's less obvious is that people naturally fill in the gaps. It's not just partial, it's artificial completed according to context clues (and this is key, and I'll return to it). So... some guy (or woman) will read a few posts and then complete the picture in their head. That's super dangerous social behavior. What happens is that you can grow to love or hate the simulacrum that you've created. That's what "Trump derangement syndrome" is, for example. It's also part of the "trans" fetishization. Your brain (this comes from your memory systems) is VERY good at filling in the gaps. This is why your eyes have a blind spot that you don't notice. This is a critical cognitive function but, again, it has its dangers. One example of this is in online dating where people text and call for too long before meeting and then when they meet, they just don't like each other. What's usually happening is that they each build an artificial version of the other that would normally have been corrected except the medium (text and phone calls) restricted access to the key information. Here she says "you do not love me," she is correct. She correctly understands that what she presents online is not only insufficient to know her but is actively distorting her because it's unfiltered or stream of consciousness or whatever. Back to "context clues." What is the context of "X?" It's whatever it is that you're consuming on here, which is usually what you're looking for. Thus, the incomplete girl is completed... in a favorable manner to what you desire. She's artificially made "perfect" for you. It should be immediately apparent why that's deeply troubling. From her perspective, she's saturated with guys who have fallen in love with an illusion AND who are consequently blind to who she really is. That must be insanely frustrating if you're have to deal with. For the guy though, you're also constantly being feed a stream of women who appear "perfect" but which the real world lacks. You NEVER meet real women like you see online... or so it appears. It deforms your reality and expectations. And this doesn't just happen with romance. It happens with all of those edited photos of landscapes that are crazy beautiful and then when you see them in real life, they're nice but far more realistic looking. It sets you up for constant disappointment. I caution people... don't spend months romanticizing a person online. If something interests you, invite them to coffee or move on. The danger of "falling in love" with an illusion, especially over and over again, is a kind of hell that no one deserves. In my observation, men are getting absolutely destroyed by this... see South Korea, for example. That's a lecture for another day.

Very troubling. There are no doubt teams of foreign sabotage teams in the U.S. now, given our border neglect.

He's exactly correct. Training men to enjoy artificial relationships will make them despise real ones for failing to be like the real ones. Every pimple or wrinkle or smell; every bad mood or failure to perfectly read his mind or respond to his wants will fill him with venom.

Men need to come to terms with a hard reality: 1. When you're 30, a 22 year will date you but not marry you or if they do, she won't be "ready" for kids and divorce is likely. 2. When you're 40, a 28 year will date you but now marry you or if they do, she won't be "ready" for kids divorce is likely. This is the equivalent of the 35 year old former great beauty who thinks she can still bag the guy she slept with at 22. The reason women will date but not marry an older man is simple: you have more money than her peers. You can take her on fancy vacations and higher class events. You can introduce her to more success people (and probably her future spouse). When you're significantly older than a woman, she's farming you for lifestyle and connections and you're just an old fool.

The smarter someone is, the more capable they are of rationalizing. As a result, when they go wrong, they're very difficult to correct. Consequently, a smart person can drift much further from reality than a dumber person. Case in point.

600 degrees hotter than traditional gas? So for the low, low price of this stove, I can reliably destroy all of my cookware. Nice.