Comment guy for now I dunno man X sucked me in
Appalachia
Joined June 2025
- Tweets16.1K
- Following608
- Followers336
- Likes51.7K
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
Every single "right wing" woman with her own face as her pfp is a complete retard. And I mean genuinely every single time. Next time you see some emotional bullshit from a RW millenial woman, take a look at her pfp. Tell me what you see. It's genuinely shocking how common it is.
Right winger here. This was a trial. A murder trial. Not fodder for your right wing left wing drama. Wtf does how they look have to do with anything. You look like a homeless twit half the time. You successfully used this case to drive aajor wedge into the American conservative movement. I am not sure sure you weren't paid to do it like Candace. Congrats. I guarantee you lost a good portion of the right wing female vote.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
Christian institutions have always been responsible for sex.
I largely agree with Giff that something needs to be done, but Christendom, as a body of people, need to understand this first so they can do it.
Sex is not some abandoned portfolio that the church must pick up merely because somebody else dropped it in the gutter.
Sex has been the responsibility of the church all along.
Because power and responsibility go together.
The church, whether it wielded political authority or not, has never presented itself as a mere psychological counselor or life coach, dispensing healthy advice to a voluntary audience.
The church has always, instead, claimed to speak the with the authority of the one true god, king of the universe, transmitting his commands to his kingdom.
When you claim to speak in the name of god, you surrender all right to make excuses. That's the deal.
You cannot say "Christians failed, not Christianity," because Christianity is what Christians do, and if they failed, then so did it.
You cannot say "People did not follow us," because if they didn't, that's your fault for not inspiring their trust.
You cannot say "we were subverted," because it's your fault you allowed that to happen.
If you claim to the humanity sole conduit to infallible moral authority, then you are not merely responsible for a good-faith effort, you are responsible for results.
The church has always built fences around the human libido, so it has always been the church's responsibility to make sure there are green pastures inside those fences.
This has nothing to do with "teaching young men how to talk to girls".
Because if the church, or anyone else, is having to channel a bunch of "pickup artists" to teach "game", then this is an indication that the church is following women's sexual tastes rather than defining, for women, which men are high-status and desirable.
Which means the church has already failed.
The church isn't supposed to teach you "game". It's supposed to create a society where women's notion of an attractive man is the same as society's notion of a useful citizen.
And it is also the church's responsibility is make sure that men have the resources, support, mentors, and opportunities to actually be that useful man.
I hear a lot of Christians saying that Christianity created Western civilization, and expecting us all to applaud. What I don't see is a lot of taking responsibility for reversing the decline.
Everybody wanna be a pillar of civilization until it's time to do pillar of civilization shit.
I saw the church making a lot of noise about abortion, but I didn't see it helping young women not to be afraid of motherhood by making sure they were provided for.
I saw the church lecturing a lot of young men about pornography and promiscuity, but I didn't see it taking on Wall Street to make sure the price of labor was high enough so young men could afford to get married instead.
In short, throughout my entire life, I have seen the church focus all of its disapprobation on young people who had no power to harm it, and none upon those who were harming those young people.
That is how and why Christianity is failing, and not one priest in a hundred has the courage and humility to admit it. They'd rather whine about how people stopped following, about how modernity lured them away, instead of facing up to the cold, hard reality that the church failed of its own accord, and modern secular leftism did nothing but step into the power vacuum that religion left behind.
The secular leftism that turned into gay race communism was always just as stupid as it is today. The younger generations would never have turned to it if the Christian faith, personified in its institutions, had not first abandoned them.
And I'm not keen on a return to Christianity, myself. Not because I have any particular hatred for it, but because I'm not seeing how there's anything left to save.
I've not seen one church, Prod, Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever, that has any answers to problems the West actually has. They just seem to think that if they roll the clock back far enough, they can stick the same fork in the same light socket and get different results.
It wasn't feminism or communism or abortions or birth control pills or atheism that made marriage unavailable to young men. It was the economic and technological incentives that Wall Street acted on with utter impunity and not a peep of criticism.
And of all the priests I've seen spilling oceans of ink onto the internet, not one of them has even displayed an understanding that this is the real problem, much less an understanding of why it happened, and you can forget about them having any ideas for solving it.
So before I listen to any claptrap about a "retvrn" to "traditional Christian values", I want to hear something else first.
1. Young men cannot get married if they cannot earn a stable, reliable income that can support a family, without having to be exceptionally talented, well-connected, or lucky.
2. Young men cannot get married if their entire society is telling young women that men are their equals at best, and probably their inferiors.
If you don't have a concrete, realistic, and actionable plan for how to fix these two trends, then as far as I'm concerned, the rest of your religion is just historical baggage.
Devon's post about the Church failing young men and women in the face of modernity is largely right.
I'm a Christian and Devon isn't, so naturally I'll tell the story through a more sympathetic lens.
During the fall of Rome, as the Empire's civic institutions weakened in the West, the Church found itself doing things it had never been designed to do. Bishops weren't ordained because somebody needed to administer food supplies, adjudicate property disputes, ransom captives, negotiate with barbarian rulers, and keep cities functioning.
But somebody had to do those things. And increasingly, the Church was one of the only institutions left with the organization, resources, authority, and educated personnel to do them.
So the Church stepped up.
I think something similar may have to happen today around masculinity, femininity, courtship, and marriage.
For most of Christian history, the Church didn't need a sophisticated program for teaching an awkward seventeen-year-old how to become attractive to women, how young men and women should actually pair off, or how a husband develops masculine frame.
An enormous network of functioning institutions did much of that work: intact families, extended kin, neighborhood life, dances, schools, courtship customs, male associations, female friendship networks, and a culture with reasonably clear expectations about becoming a man or woman.
The Church supplied the guardrails for a highway already built. Now the highway itself is disappearing, and we're standing among the ruins saying, "Well, technically, teaching a twenty-two-year-old man how to talk to a woman isn't the Church's job."
Maybe not. Neither was negotiating with the Lombards.
Take my wife's hometown in East Tennessee. Forty years ago, a couple could be only marginally connected to church and still be carried along by a culture heavily shaped by Christian assumptions about marriage, family, work, responsibility, and respectability.
Today the economic bottom has fallen out of many communities. Meth is everywhere. Extended families and social support networks are fraying. The surrounding culture isn't quietly reinforcing the Church's vision of human flourishing anymore. In many places it's actively dissolving the habits and institutions that made that vision practicable.
Back then, you could afford to be outside the Church because you were still living off a lot of its cultural capital. I'm not sure you can anymore.
And that gives the Church a much bigger job than telling singles not to fornicate and married people not to divorce. The Church is increasingly being challenged to preserve the memory of—and in some cases rediscover—how to be human in a machine age.
Devon is also right that the problem is bigger than teaching men male/female dynamics. Courtship rests on an entire social ecology: economics, status, community, useful work, family formation, and the ability of young men to become men whom women actually want and communities actually need.
The Church cannot fix all of that tomorrow. But step one is just making men aware of the nature of the game. The church hasn't done that. It needs to now.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
It's not merely that men have gotten lazy, or somehow opted out of marriage and working jobs.
And so the old boomer tropes simply miss the point.
"Man up! Stop playing video games and being worthless. Look at how the women are thriving in the modern economy! Time to work harder and keep up, boys!"
The real problem is that the majority of American institutions have been longhoused. From economy and politics, to the legal system and religion, feminism has made it very difficult for men to succeed.
Allow me one example. Years ago, I had a co-worker who lived with his girlfriend and three kids they shared together. I asked him why he wouldn't get married.
"I want to," he said, "but as long as we're not married, the state of Kentucky treats my wife like a single mother. They give her and the kids full health coverage, and $1,000 per month in food stamps. The minute we get married, that all goes away. If I try to put them on my insurance, I lose the food stamps and my insurance premiums go up to about $1,200 per month."
Like it or not, the system is actually incentivizing men not to pursue moral decisions. It's disincentivizing household structures.
Here's the other thing: The majority of growing job sectors in America are all things women used to do in the home—healthcare, food services, early childhood education. Manufacturing has been devastated. The new pink-collar economy heavily favors women and not men. This is especially true for middle-class working men.
A woman can get a job in healthcare and make far more than most men in factory work, which is evaporating. The natural outcome is that men will stay home and let their women go to work. So, yes, we want to encourage men to be the main provider, but the operating system of society has to change in order to get that outcome.
In any society, there are a few men (probably less than 2%) who, like salmon, will swim upstream. They will spend all their energy to swim against the cultural currents. Most, however, are not hardwired to do that. They are going to align themselves with whatever the present vibe and structures promote. That's just reality.
But if you want to change the mass of the country, the currents of institutional power, the economy, has to align with a moral incentive structure. Moral men must control the mechanisms that dictate how society functions. Simple as.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
The choice is between "political equality for women" and "a functional, sustainable society".
Advocating for women's equality is advocating for the genocide of your own people.
Are you pro-genocide, if it means that women can continue behaving badly for a few more decades?
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
"I'm sorry, but we cannot treat your infection. The bacteria don't know what they are doing. It would be wrong to punish them."
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
It's crazy to think about how practically everything we've been taught has been a complete lie.
- men and women are equal
- racism is immoral
- vaccines are good for you
- grand conspiracies don't happen
- Christians shouldn't judge others or try to impose our morality through laws
- women should go to college and get a good career before they get married and have children
- diversity is our strength
- we are a nation of immigrants
- white people are uniquely guilty of slavery
- medical doctors will solve your health problems
- marriage is an equal partnership
Is there anything I left out?
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
"This is MY house, you stupid bitch! A family CAN'T own a house! That's socialist bullshit!"
🤖 Made with AI
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
🚨#BREAKING: A mother is FURIOUS after a Pennsylvania town CRIMINALLY CHARGED her two little girls, ages 10 and 12, and dragged them into court...
...because a playground swing broke while they were spinning on it.
Yes, you read that right.
The two girls twisted the chains to get dizzy, the chain snapped, and the borough's response was CRIMINAL MSCHIEF CHARGES for a 10-year-old.
This is Springdale, Pennsylvania, just outside Pittsburgh.
On May 21st, a group of kids were playing at Veterans Memorial Park where two sat on the swing and the others twisted the chains up tight and let go, so the swing would spin them dizzy.
Every one of us did this as a kid... hundreds of times.
The chain broke. Nobody was hurt.
Two weeks later, a POLICE OFFICER showed up at Katie Huss's front door with SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS of the children on a swing.
The borough had split the repair bill among five kids.
$59 dollars each.
Three families paid up and their kids' charges disappeared.
Katie demanded more information:
"Show me the evidence my daughters did this on purpose and show me the swing was even inspected prior to this occuring."
She didn't pay and so her 10 and 12-year-old daughters were CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
Criminal mischief.
BY the way... under Pennsylvania's criminal code, that is a charge that requires INTENT.
The two little girls were terrified and had to sit in a courtroom while a police officer testified against them for "not using the swing properly."
Thankfully, the judge threw it out and found them not guilty.
It was CLEARLY an accident, not a crime.
...you would think it would end there, but it doesn't!!!
The borough is now threatening to sue this mother in CIVIL court over $180.
And Katie still hasn't been allowed to see the video they used against her children, it was shown to the lawyers, but not to the mom.
Nearly every single day, violent repeat offenders WALK OUT OF JAIL ALL THE TIME to prey on innocent people...
...but INSTEAD of dealing with that, we have built a system that lets predators go and prosecutes children for playing AT A PARK USING SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE TO WATCH THEM
America, we have LOST THE FREAKING PLOT!!!!
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
If Patrick had done it, there would be thousands of female hybristophiliacs gooning for him like there have been with every other male family annihilator.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
JD Vance just told a group of WHITE people to reject ethnic nationalism only to later declare his support for a bunch of jewish supremacists hours later.
Vance is a vile and disgusting race-mixing traitor who supports jewish supremacy.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
This is the central error of why most women struggle as leaders. They genuinely think that "bossiness" is analogous to leadership.
They don't consider something:
1. You tell someone what to do... but then they don't do it. Now what?
2. The referenced category of women have to appeal to a higher authority. It could be "your father" or the state or their boss, but they have to be backed up by some greater authority.
3. They're mistaking "leader" with "power to compel." This is why "power" is so central to feminist theory.
4. Leadership isn't about having power enough to compel people. It's about inspiring them to act.
The reason the term is "leader" is because you're out in front. The leader is the put who's accountable, i.e., the person who puts their head in the noose to suffer the consequences of the failures of the group, and who gives rewards to them for their achievements. That's who inspires a people.
5. The fundamental reason that women struggle to be effective leaders (though they can be tyrants or "bosses") is because they're neurological wired to be risk-averse and leadership is affirmed through the adoption of personal risk.
The man who puts his reputation, money, or life on the line inspires men to do the same. Women are very disinclined to do this, which is correct for them. Unfortunately, the byproduct is that it makes them poor leaders.
6. Tyranny is feminine because tyrants are extremely risk-averse.
Democracy is feminine because it's consensus-driven and the voters are usually distant from consequences.
Neither of those forms of government reliably produce leaders in the way that a monarchy does because the monarch embodies the state. He is the target. He rides into battle with his men. He is accountable in the purest sense.
7. Leadership isn't exclusive to men BUT it is masculine in nature. Teaching women to be leaders is comparable to teaching them to be disagreeable. It runs afoul of their nature, on average.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
When this is all said and done we're going to have to write this into the constitution
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
This specific issue is among the best arguments against democracy, or at a minimum mass democracy, if not being the strongest case against it outright.
There are situations where you must do something unpopular, or that you don't want to do, for the greater good, for your health, or for survival outright. But mass democracy grants the most wretched, selfish, myopic, naive, and foolish among us the same political power as the most visionary, future oriented, deliberate, sophisticated and competent among us.
Worse, the former generally outweigh the latter as the latter only really emerge at the tail end of the bell curve, while "average' is generally speaking closer to the former than the latter in disposition.
The winning strategy in mass democratic politics is therefore to please the crowd by doing the easy thing that might feel good right now, but will lead to catastrophe down the line.
Imagine if your health was subjected to a vote. The country collectively decides whether it is going to cook a balanced meal, work out, and invest 10% of their paychecks, or order KFC, turn on Netflix, and finance both with Klarna. Whatever the country votes for, you have to do. They vote to pay off the chicken bucket in four easy installments.
The national meta-organism that is the American State has been frivolously squandering the generational wealth of our people for decades because mass democracy incentivizes the orgy of the now over the construction of the future because the average person is actually very bad at understanding consequences, particularly when those consequences might not even manifest for the current generation. And for this reason granting these people political power will shift electoral incentives towards the most incompetent and shortsighted self-destructive "feel good" behaviors imaginable.
This is a problem that dynastic systems do not have. Those systems have their own issues, but this issue is particularly problematic in democracies and may ultimately prove to be the fatal flaw that genuinely renders the current conception of the state untenable on a sufficiently long time scale.
Breakfast Fren 🇺🇲 retweeted
The most fascinating group is the American ultra right wing, semi-schizophrenic conspiracy theorists.
They're almost always right about literally everything 5-10, even 20+ years earlier. They're kinda uncouth and a few more other things - so they'll never be taken seriously, but it's crazy how little attention their paid usually.
They've been right about the virus stuff, jabs, Epstein.. Many many things. Almost all of these are proven now, most of the "sane" people are sharing those beliefs - just 5-10+ years too late.
Now, if you were to look at what that group is talking intensely about, today, it's clear that: In some years, everyone will be talking about aliens, angels, UFOs, how Moon eats souls, etc.
Crazy things are coming.
