Your life is your art. Lithium deficient Christian Taoist Stoic Marine.
Raleigh, NC
Joined July 2026
- Tweets1.1K
- Following60
- Followers29
- Likes57
Olen Watson retweeted
The Weaponisation of Language
One of the most effective tactics of the modern left has been the corruption of language itself. Words that once had clear meaning have been twisted beyond recognition - redefined to suit their agenda and silence dissent.
They call censorship “safety.”
They call propaganda “education.”
They call perversion “pride.”
They call cowardice “tolerance.”
They call patriotism “hate.”
Through manipulation of words, they’ve managed to reshape moral reality. By controlling the language, they control what people are allowed to think. Change the definition, and you change the debate.
When “man” and “woman” become “identities,” when truth becomes “offensive,” and when disagreement is rebranded as “violence,” reason itself is under attack.
It’s not ignorance - it’s strategy. Because when the meaning of words collapses, truth becomes whatever they say it is. And that’s exactly how control begins.
Language built our civilisation. The twisting of it will destroy it - unless we start speaking plainly again.
“When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.” - Confucius
Olen Watson retweeted
For decades, classical economists like Adam Smith struggled to explain why water was cheap, while diamonds, largely useless luxuries, commanded a fortune. Austrian economist Carl Menger solved the diamond-water paradox by pioneering the concept of subjective marginal utility, pointing out that economists had mistakenly concluded that "value in use" and "value in exchange" were entirely separate concepts driven by production costs.
Menger argued that economic value is not an inherent property of an object, nor is it determined by the labor required to make it. Instead, value is entirely subjective and depends on the specific context of human choices made at the margin.
Individuals do not choose between all the water in the world and all the diamonds. They choose between an additional unit- one more glass of water versus one more diamond. Because water is highly abundant, the next available unit is used to satisfy a low-priority need, such as watering a lawn or washing a car. Therefore, its marginal utility - the value assigned to that next specific unit - is very low. Conversely, because diamonds are exceptionally rare, the next available diamond satisfies a highly coveted, unfulfilled desire for luxury or status, giving it a massive marginal utility.
Menger proved that value is a continuous scale of individual satisfaction. Price does not reflect the total abstract usefulness of a good, but rather the importance of the single, specific want that the very last available unit can satisfy. Marginal utility became the primary building block for the Austrian school of economic developed by later Austrian thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.
Olen Watson retweeted
Ambre a raison, les gauchistes et les droitards sont câblés différemment.
C'est la fameuse étude de la heatmap gauche/droite (Waytz, Iyer, Young, Haidt & Graham, 2019)
Deux tempéraments opposés se distinguent. Le conservateur concentre sa compassion sur ses cercles proches. Le progressiste la concentre sur des cercles lointains et abstraits.
Et cette différence explique pourquoi l'un parle du monde pendant que l'autre parle des siens.
Pour le comprendre, il faut donc lire l'étude de Waytz, Iyer, Young, Haidt & Graham, publiée dans Nature Communications (vol. 10, article 4389, 2019).
C'est en fait un ensemble de 7 études. Les deux plus importantes ont interrogé environ 14 000 personnes, avec une seule question : où va la préoccupation, vers le pays ou vers l'humanité ?
Le résultat ?
Plus on se dit conservateur, plus on s'identifie à son pays (0,28) et moins à tous les humains (−0,34). Même sens sur les valeurs : la sécurité de sa nation (0,46) contre l'universalisme (−0,41).
Les auteurs nomment ça "parochialisme" et "universalisme".
Le plus intéressant dans cette étude, c'est comment les personnes répartissent les unités d'attachement. 131 personnes répartissent 100 unités morales sur 16 cercles, de la famille immédiate jusqu'à toutes les choses qui existent.
Là, l'affectation a un coût d'opportunité. On arbitre.
Comme en économie : lorsque vous choisissez une alternative, vous renoncez aux autres. La préoccupation et l'attachement sont exclusifs, ils ne se partagent pas. Ils excluent donc nécessairement.
C'est pour cela que le progressiste attribue ses unités vers le lointain. Il ne peut pas les donner en même temps à "L'Humanité" entière qu'il ne connaît pas et à ses voisins qu'il connaît pourtant.
Quand on augmente les unités à attribuer, on pourrait s'attendre à ce que les individus répartissent mieux les unités entre les cercles d'affection.
Bah en fait, non.
Le total ne change pas. La quantité de préoccupation est la même.
Si on sort du champ de cette étude on peut dire que le progressiste qui affiche une empathie plus vaste a en réalité une empathie plus diluée et floue, qui ne peut jamais s'exercer concrètement, car il est impossible d'aider ou de rendre service à des entités-totem lointaines.
L'Humanité avec un H, c'est bien un de ces totems.
C'est l'inverse du conservateur, qui ne distribue pas sa compassion dans des causes abstraites et inatteignables. Il l'investit concrètement sur des individus qu'il connaît, avec qui il interagit au quotidien.
En bref, "l'amour de l'Humanité" est précisément ce qui dispense d'aimer les hommes. C'est, poussé à sa logique ultime, un antihumanisme.
Olen Watson retweeted
"Much of what is called 'social problems' consists of the fact that intellectuals have theories that do not fit the real world. From this, they conclude that it is the real world which is wrong and needs changing."
— Thomas Sowell
Olen Watson retweeted
I want to convince the few remaining people who still do not see gender transitioning as a frighteningly disastrous outcome for their own body, for their mental wellbeing and for the greater community.
I will do so by drawing parallels with the notion of body integrity dysphoria (BID).
Interestingly, this affliction was previously known as body integrity identity disorder (BIID), but the word identity was removed at around the same time as gender identity started to permeate the political landscape, in the early 2010’s.
I am not out to demonise the trans community.
Anyone can Grok my previous comments and see that I openly communicate and debate with them, and my views on the topic are clear.
I believe that perceiving oneself to be of the opposing biological sex, in the absence of any discernible physiological rationale, is simply a form of mental illness.
A psychological condition that we ought to help sufferers resolve.
I also do not wish in the course of this post to be seen to make light of the suffering of amputees.
I hope they understand this post is for good reason.
Body integrity disorder is an extremely rare condition, when an otherwise healthy individual believes that one or more of their limbs or other part of their anatomy does not belong to them and they have a desire to have this removed, by way of amputation.
The question is quite simple:
How does the medical fraternity (especially the surgical fraternity) regard this condition?
Do they ‘celebrate it’, and push it into the mainstream political sphere, suggesting that our school children be invited to consider whether they wish for an arm or a leg to be removed?
Of course they do not.
In 2005, the then executive director of surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons said that the College's position was that a surgeon could not remove a normal limb without a medical reason.
He considered amputation simply because a patient wanted it unethical.
There has been no formal change to RACS position since then.
So, my question is this simple:
If the medical community, the education sector, the political sphere and society at large are all in agreeance that we should not remove healthy limbs from people, why on earth have we taken such a different interpretation simply because it is a penis, a vagina, breasts or uterus.
Why does the Australian Federal government actively support the promulgation of gonadal surgical removal, but not the removal of limbs?
Let’s call transgenderism what it is – a deeply troubled state of mind, where we must make concerted efforts to help sufferers through this challenging phase of their life.
🤖 Made with AI
Olen Watson retweeted
The woke Left has performed a miracle. They rejected organized religion, declared traditional morality outdated, and then invented a new religion complete with sacred beliefs, forbidden words, original sin, public confessions, and heresy trials.
Their commandments?
Thou shalt not question the narrative.
Thou shalt confess thy privilege.
Thou shalt trust the experts, but only the approved ones.
Thou shalt celebrate diversity of everything except opinion.
Thou shalt think critically, provided thou reachest the correct conclusion.
Congratulations! You’ve escaped religious dogma and replaced it with political dogma.
Same unquestioning obedience. Different priesthood.
I’ll stick with reason, evidence, individual liberty, and a healthy dose of Stoic scepticism.
Olen Watson retweeted
时隔整整六年，J.K.罗琳在个人网站又发了两千多字长文《对我2020年6月文章的更新》，直接把话撂在这儿：哪怕这些年被全网抵制、家庭住址被曝光，甚至多次收到死亡威胁，她的观点也绝对不会变。
这次罗琳把核心矛盾挑得非常透：
亮明底线：如果男人可以是女人，那就不存在女人。她直言跨性别激进主义本质就是精英主义，承担恶果的从来不是发声的学术界和媒体高层，而是没有特权的普通工薪阶层女性。
从动口到动手：她不光在网上理论，而是开始真金白银地下场。罗琳表示会继续出资帮请不起律师的普通女性打官司，并全力资助遭受侵害女性的专属庇护机构。
拒绝“和事佬”：前阵子艾玛·沃特森在播客里试图和解，说什么“爱与支持不代表不珍惜乔”、“事情不是非黑即白”。罗琳反手就是一篇七百字长文回怼，痛批对方含着金汤匙长大，永远不用去避难所、不用住男女混住病房，连上厕所都有保镖守着，根本不懂人间疾苦，现在的示好不过是因为公开谴责她已经不时髦了。
现在BBC正给她拍“崛起与陨落”的纪录片，新版电视剧也有导演因为她弃导。但罗琳显然已经彻底告别了童话里的魔法妈妈形象，选择自己站在风暴中心死磕到底。
大家觉得罗琳这波回击说得在理吗？
Hero
时隔整整六年，J.K.罗琳在个人网站又发了两千多字长文《对我2020年6月文章的更新》，直接把话撂在这儿：哪怕这些年被全网抵制、家庭住址被曝光，甚至多次收到死亡威胁，她的观点也绝对不会变。
这次罗琳把核心矛盾挑得非常透：
亮明底线：如果男人可以是女人，那就不存在女人。她直言跨性别激进主义本质就是精英主义，承担恶果的从来不是发声的学术界和媒体高层，而是没有特权的普通工薪阶层女性。
从动口到动手：她不光在网上理论，而是开始真金白银地下场。罗琳表示会继续出资帮请不起律师的普通女性打官司，并全力资助遭受侵害女性的专属庇护机构。
拒绝“和事佬”：前阵子艾玛·沃特森在播客里试图和解，说什么“爱与支持不代表不珍惜乔”、“事情不是非黑即白”。罗琳反手就是一篇七百字长文回怼，痛批对方含着金汤匙长大，永远不用去避难所、不用住男女混住病房，连上厕所都有保镖守着，根本不懂人间疾苦，现在的示好不过是因为公开谴责她已经不时髦了。
现在BBC正给她拍“崛起与陨落”的纪录片，新版电视剧也有导演因为她弃导。但罗琳显然已经彻底告别了童话里的魔法妈妈形象，选择自己站在风暴中心死磕到底。
大家觉得罗琳这波回击说得在理吗？
Hot take,
Socialism and fascism are just decay points of imperial authoritarianism. They move the brutal control mechanisms from aristocracy to bureaucrats.
Democratic forms are built outward from belief in the capacity of people to make their own way, much like capitalism.
So you just wanna do what YOU want to do. Ultimately it seems you are the worst kind of commune dweller, one who has no interest in contributing to the collective.
#nazi #communist #socialist
Do not deport. Put him in a very secure private prison. Let us know when he gets out, and where.
#USMC
