Christian, American, Conservative, Veteran, gently sarcastic, Pro-Israel, pro-life, pro-2A, anti-globalist, Provisionist, JD Vance 2028.
Texas, USA
Joined March 2023
- Tweets5K
- Following296
- Followers188
- Likes4.3K
David Harrison retweeted
Yo antes era de derecha pero creces, te haces autónomo, estudias, lees, entiendes cómo funciona el mundo y ahora soy de extrema derecha
David Harrison retweeted
I'd genuinely love to be proven wrong. Here's the first step in doing that: Shoot the boats.
David Harrison retweeted
There is a species of ant that approaches the edge of another colony, kills a single worker, and then takes on the dead ant’s scent.
For ants, scent is everything. Wearing that scent, the intruder walks in with no resistance. The workers pass by without concern.
The intruder moves inward, toward the queen, then It sprays the queen with a different scent that makes the workers turn on her. Then they surround her and kill her.
The intruder does not need to fight anyone. The colony does the work itself.
Once the queen is gone, the intruder reproduces. The true invader is no longer an intruder. It is the future.
This is how ideological takeover works.
A destructive foreign ideology takes the scent of familiar ideas and walks in as if it belongs.
It speaks the native vocabulary, justice, equality, compassion, rights, progress. It uses these words and quietly changes what they point to.
Then it moves inward.
It alters how foundations are perceived. Responsibility is made to smell like cruelty, law like oppression, borders like hatred, tradition like danger, history like guilt.
At that point, the civilization turns on itself.
Its courts, universities, churches, media, and bureaucracies begin treating their own foundations as threats. They believe they are defending the system.
They are enforcing what now smells legitimate. They do not see the intruder because it sounds exactly like them.
And when the founding principles are finally removed, discredited, dismantled, erased, the foreign ideology does not need to conquer anything. It inherits what is left.
The queen is gone. The colony is no longer itself.
The most effective conquest is the one that convinces a society that its own foundations are the enemy, and that killing them is an act of virtue.
David Harrison retweeted
Idk how you can write a character who opposes the billionaire who's plotting to kill millions of people and not assume people will see him as a hero
David Harrison retweeted
Everything is pretend now
From a comment under my post on string theory:
I work in finance. Some time ago an invoice crossed my desk. A client in property rental had paid a consulting firm to help one of his buildings get an EU eco-certificate. They planted some trees. They put bees on the roof. Certificate granted – and with it, better access to EU-linked financing.
Follow the chain. Someone invented the certificate, and got paid for it. Someone founded a consultancy to help you obtain it, and gets paid for it. Someone audits whether you deserve it, and gets paid for it. And finally the owner pays to modify the building so it fits the boxes. Everyone has a job. Everyone has an invoice. GDP goes up.
And nothing was produced. Not one more flat, not a better roof, not a cheaper rent. The bees are not there for honey. They are there for the certificate.
This is how the EU’s soft power works. No need to force a law through, with a vote, a debate, a court. Just attach a condition to the money. Follow our recommendations, collect our certificates – or no financing, no subsidies, and you can’t compete with those who did. You are free. Just not funded.
A law you can fight – in court, at the next election. A condition on money you can only accept, or lose. Power without a signature, without accountability, without anyone to vote out.
The same with universities: research follows the grant, and the grant follows the agenda. The same with cities. We saw it in Polish towns where councillors had to revoke resolutions – "legally meaningless", they were told – because EU funds were on the line. If it was meaningless, why the threat? Because it was never about the law. It was about who decides.
Everything is pretend now. Pretend ecology – bees for paperwork. Pretend science – theories that can never be wrong. Pretend self-government – councils that vote until the money disagrees. Pretend work – reports nobody reads, written to satisfy rules nobody needed, checked by people whose job is checking.
Pointless? Not for everyone. It keeps posts. It keeps positions. It keeps the structure of power standing and the people inside it paid. That is its real product. The only thing the system produces efficiently is more of itself.
And someone pays for all of it. Not Brussels – the tenant, in the rent. The buyer, in the price. The worker, in the tax. Every pretend job is carried on the back of a real one.
Meanwhile a young couple does the maths and stops at two children. Often at one. The building can afford bees on its roof. The family can’t afford a third child under its own.
That is what rot looks like. Not collapse – collapse is at least honest. Rot is a structure that still stands, still issues certificates, still hires consultants, while the inside goes hollow. Green on the outside, like a tree.
Everything is pretend now – except the decline. That one is real, and it compounds.
And a compounding decline ends up going pretty quickly.
Pracuję w finansach, wiele prac aktualnie nic nie wnosi. Jakiś czas temu miałem fakturę otrzymaną przez klienta, który zajmuje się wynajmem nieruchomości, za usługę dotyczącą doradztwa w zakresie otrzymania przez budynek jakiegoś EKO certyfikatu unijnego. Sadzili drzewka, na dachu mieli pszczoły. Po uzyskaniu tych certyfikatów otrzymuje się dane korzyści finansowe (np. lepszy dostęp do finansowania przez UE).
Czyli ktoś wymyślił takie certyfikaty, za to mu zapłaciliśmy, potem ktoś założył firmę doradczą pomagającą uzyskiwać certyfikat, na tym zarabia i finalnie ktoś zapłacił za modyfikację budynku tak żeby uzyskać certyfikat. Cały ten proces jest jałowy, nie ma wartości dodanej, nic nie wyprodukowaliśmy.
To jest takie soft power UE, nie muszą wprowadzać przepisów na siłę - wystarczy, że bez prowadzenia biznesu zgodnie z ich rekomendacjami, certyfikatami, nie otrzymasz finansowania/dopłat i nie będziesz w stanie konkurować na rynku. Podobnie z dotacjami na uczelnie, miasta. Widzieliśmy to chociażby tam gdzie radni odwoływali "nic nie znaczący prawnie" dokument o tym, że miasto nie przyjmuje najeźdźców pod groźbą nieprzyznania funduszów Unijnych.
David Harrison retweeted
Why the Virtuous Majority Keeps Losing.
Most people are decent. They work, raise their children, pay their taxes, and don’t lie more than they have to. And yet, again and again, the country is run against them.
How?
Turns out the mechanism has a name: Olson’s logic of collective action. An economist named Mancur Olson worked it out in 1965.
The idea is simple. Imagine a subsidy worth millions to a small group of companies. It costs every taxpayer the price of a coffee. Who will organize? The few, for whom it is worth millions – they will hire lobbyists, fund campaigns, show up at every meeting. The many, each losing the price of a coffee, will do nothing. Nobody marches for the price of a coffee.
Concentrated gains organize. Dispersed losses sleep.
Add the free rider: in a large group, everyone hopes someone else will do the work. So nobody does.
That is why the small organized minority beats the large disorganized majority, almost every time. Not because it is right. Because it shows up.
Now look around. The grant-funded NGO, the bureaucracy defending its budget, the activist network with full-time staff, the lobby with an office next to the ministry. Each has a lot to gain from one more rule, one more program, one more subsidy. The families paying for it each lose a little – and they are busy raising children.
Vice organizes itself, because vice pays its organizers. Virtue has to be organized, because its rewards are spread across everyone.
Olson saw the long-run consequence too. In a second book he argued that stable nations slowly fill up with these organized interests, each defending its slice – until the whole country stiffens and growth stalls. Germany and Japan boomed after the war partly because defeat had swept the old coalitions away.
So what do we do? Olson’s own logic gives the answer.
Make the dispersed costs visible. The coffee nobody notices becomes a bill everyone can read. That is what telling the truth does.
Give the virtuous a reason to show up beyond duty: friendship, community, careers, joy. Movements that last give their members something to belong to.
And remember that the majority never needs to organize all at once. A committed minority is enough to start – the long march proved it. The rest follow once they see they are not alone.
And it needs structure. That is what the network of patriots across Western Civilization – and the Council of Western Civilization at its center – are for. Not to give orders. To show the direction, so the energy is not scattered. To give the vocabulary, so people can name what is being done to them. And to coordinate, so no one fights alone. Olson’s lesson in one line: the organized few beat the disorganized many. So become the organized many.
And here is the good news. Olson wrote in 1965, when organizing cost meetings, letters, money and years. Today it costs a post. The math that kept the decent majority asleep is changing.
The majority does not win by being right. It wins by showing up – together.
We live in an age of complex systems.
Civilization is human nature, multiplied by institutions.
Every human trait, every emotion, every vice gets scaled into its systemic, civilizational expression.
Envy – socialism. If I can’t have it, nobody should.
Pride – central planning. The planner never pays for his plan.
Wrath – cancel culture. The desire not merely to defeat an opponent, but to destroy him.
Sloth – dependency by design. A system that makes idleness safer than effort eventually gets more idleness.
Greed – crony capitalism. Private gains, public losses.
Gluttony – debt. Consuming today what belongs to your children.
Lust – pleasure without consequence, and the empty cradle.
Deceit – propaganda and managed reality: the Systemic Lie. A lie told to one person is a sin; told to millions, it becomes a system.
Love of power – bureaucracy. Every agency finds a reason to grow, and every procedure exists so that nobody can be blamed.
Fear – the compliant society. Nothing may be tried until it is proven harmless, so nothing new is tried. The precautionary principle would have banned fire.
Vanity – virtue signaling. Beliefs worn like jewelry.
Conformity – groupthink. When everyone must agree, collective stupidity masquerades as consensus.
Ignorance – cults and sects. Whoever knows nothing will believe anything.
Resentment – revolutionary politics. The desire not merely to rise, but to bring down those who have risen higher.
Cowardice – institutional silence. Everyone sees the problem. Nobody wants to be the first to name it.
Distrust – surveillance and control. When people no longer trust one another, they demand a system to watch everyone.
Guilt – a civilization ashamed of itself. The heir taught to despise his inheritance.
And the virtues:
Courage – free speech. Every right we have was first defended by someone who was afraid and spoke anyway.
Curiosity – science. The willingness to ask questions that might destroy what we think we know.
Ambition – meritocracy, or its corruption. Properly directed, ambition builds civilizations. Under the wrong incentives, it builds careers at civilization’s expense.
Honesty – trust, and markets that work. Where a handshake holds, a contract is cheap.
Shame – manners and honor. The rules nobody needs to write down. A people that loses its sense of shame needs a law for everything.
Responsibility – the market and the courts. Whoever decides should bear the consequences.
Patience – savings, cathedrals, families. Every cathedral was begun by people who knew they would never see it finished.
Hope – investment and children. Both are bets on tomorrow.
Gratitude – transmission. The willingness to receive an inheritance, preserve it and pass it on.
Perseverance – institutions that outlast their founders. The ability to keep building long after the original enthusiasm has faded.
Wisdom – constitutional limits. The recognition that no individual, however brilliant, should be trusted with unlimited power.
Joy – the feast, the festival, the laugh. A regime that can’t take a joke can’t take the truth.
Love of the particular – family and nation. Universal principles do not require us to abandon particular loyalties.
And two principles that determine whether a civilization survives:
Envy versus gratitude – Does a society teach its children to resent what others have, or to build upon what previous generations gave them?
Irresponsibility versus stewardship – Does a generation consume its inheritance, or pass on something greater?
Not merely personal virtues, but what determines whether a civilization can transmit its achievements across generations.
A system is a human trait, multiplied by millions – and given a budget.
And now a new multiplier is arriving: AI.
Whatever a system rewards, AI can reward faster, across more decisions, at a scale previously unimaginable, everywhere, at once.
Build a model that flatters, and it will flatter billions.
Build one that suppresses inconvenient truths, and censorship can become automatic.
Build one that seeks the truth, and truth will scale like never before.
The technology is a multiplier. The incentives determine what gets multiplied.
And the stakes go beyond the present generation.
The decisive question about AI is not how intelligent we make it. It is which human nature we encode into the systems that will shape the next generation.
That is why systems matter so much. The question is no longer only "is this person good?" It is "which of our traits does this system reward and multiply?"
A civilization is made of what it rewards, what it punishes, and how. Millions of daily decisions – who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets heard, who gets silenced – accumulating into a system that works, or doesn’t. That lives and thrives, or dies.
Show me what a system rewards, and I will tell you what it will turn its people into.
And the expression of traits into systems requires structures. So even if the virtuous traits are the majority, if they are not active and organized, then the vicious ones will prevail. Vice organizes itself. Virtue has to be organized.
So do not be passive.
Tell the truth. Have courage. And build.
David Harrison retweeted
God wants us to be happy.
God himself is our ultimate source of happiness.
Sin is an incorrect understanding of what makes us happy.
The only way to be truly happy is to be holy.
Short term, shallow pleasure is not happiness.
David Harrison retweeted
Look at me! I'm Calvinist. I hated God and He rewarded me for it by making me love Him. I would have never chosen God on my own because i thought He sucked. Shame on those awful "free willers" who found God to be wonderful! They should have hated Him like i did! I'm so humble.
David Harrison retweeted
Parkinson’s Law – Why the State Bureaucracy Grows When the Work Shrinks
In 1955, a British naval historian wrote a joke for The Economist. Seventy years later, it remains one of the most accurate descriptions of the modern state ever written. Everyone knows the slogan: work expands to fill the time available. Almost no one knows the mechanism underneath it. That mechanism explains Europe.
1. The evidence. Between 1914 and 1928, the Royal Navy lost two thirds of its largest warships. Over the same years the Admiralty – the office that ran the ships – grew by three quarters. There were fewer ships and more men behind desks. Then there was the Colonial Office, which kept growing while the colonies left one by one. It was hiring while the empire was shrinking.
2. The first mechanism. An official who feels overworked has three choices. He can resign, he can share the work with a colleague, or he can ask for two subordinates. He never chooses the colleague, because a colleague is a rival. Two subordinates are a rank. So one tired man becomes three. Then each of the two subordinates feels tired.
3. The second mechanism. Seven people now do what one did, and they keep each other busy with drafts, approvals, and comments on the approvals. Everyone works hard, and nothing is produced. You have been in this meeting. You have been copied on this email. You have watched three people sign the form that one person filled in.
4. The law of triviality. Parkinson noticed that a committee will approve a nuclear reactor in minutes, because nobody understands it. The same committee will debate the bicycle shed for an hour, because everybody does. Bureaucracy does not avoid the important question by accident. It avoids it by design – the small question carries no risk, and on the big one, someone’s name goes on the decision.
5. The ratchet. A business that fails closes. A department that fails gets a bigger budget, because the problem is now bigger. Failure is the bureaucracy’s best argument for itself. This is why the state never shrinks on its own: every problem it does not solve becomes a new office for solving it.
6. The civilizational lesson. Burnham described the managers taking over. Parkinson showed how they breed. Put the two together and you get Brussels. You get France, where the state spends more than half of everything the country produces and still cannot fix a hospital. This is not because the people inside are wicked. It is because the machine works exactly as Parkinson said it would.
7. The vindication. Parkinson was dismissed as a humorist. Then Milei cut Argentina’s ministries in half – and the country did not collapse. It barely noticed, except on the bill. The lesson is simple: you cannot reform a bureaucracy by asking it what to cut. It will always propose to cut the ships – and hire someone to manage the cut.
David Harrison retweeted
This panel transforms "homicidal maniac" from a description to an outfit. He's no longer an actual psycho playing mind games in Gotham city - that's been revealed as nothing but a costume he's wearing. "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." His true identity, when he takes the makeup off, is that of a run-of-the-mill, art-college grad, left wing midwit.
By saying this, he suspends all suspension of disbelief, and you realize that Gotham city is just made out of a cardboard. The citizens screaming in terror? Fellow actors. It's all been a ruse, none of it real, none of it serving a higher purpose, just a trojan horse to deliver the same facile sermon you've heard every day for your life.
For a counter-example, think of Dr. House. His identity is that of a cynical, manipulative asshole. How do you think he'd respond if a Neonazi were to show up in his department?
First he'd raise an eyebrow and say something sarcastic, "I thought you guys lost WW2. You're still around?" Then he'd assign Foreman to be the head person tasked with dealing with them. And finally - because the House universe is run on Narrativium - he'd cure their disease by discovering that they have a secret Jewish ancestor, rare genetic disorder, yadda-yadda, and call them idiots for waving such a stupid flag.
Meanwhile, in the private office, he'd spend half his time haranguing Chase for racial guilt crimes in Australia (that he doesn't actually care about), while interpretating everything 13 said as evidence that she's secretly a fascist.
At no point would he give an impassioned speech decrying fascism, because he doesn't care, and he thinks everyone's an idiot - he thinks all political ideologies are idiotic.
Note that this is still left wing propaganda (Message: only stupid people believe in ideologies we disagree with - look at this stupid Nazi - Republicans are probably stupid, too) but it's well crafted left wing propaganda. House is the solvent that discovers the hidden pattern in the Narrativium. He doesn't make the anti-Nazi argument - the fictional universe makes it, he's just the one that exposes it.
David Harrison retweeted
The overwhelming majority of Libertarians are just dishonorable Leftists. At least Leftists are honest about who their enemies are. Libertarians on the other hand present themselves as just another faction on the Right, but when the chips are down, they will backstab and betray you every single time.
Their entire ideology is just a snowplow for Progressivism. They will invoke individualism to tear down traditional social structures, only for Progressives to fill the vacuum with new Left-wing social relations in their place.
Libertarians have done this over and over and over again. They did it with religion. They did it with drugs. They did it with policing. They did it with globalism. They did it with gay marriage. And they'll do it again with immigration the moment they get the chance.
Every single time there's a major cultural or civilizational battle, Libertarians side with the Left because they're blind to the fact that Progressives weaponize their own moral worldview to destroy one social order so they can then impose their own.
These people are useful idiots for the enemy, and they deserve to be treated as such. Nothing they say matters and everything they do is in service to Progressivism, despite all public claims to the contrary.
David Harrison retweeted
Reminds me of a quote from Lewis, "Problem of Pain." Saying "God is Good" is meaningless if any human understanding of "good" has no connection to what God is.
"an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend."
There are some horrendous conclusions one comes to through things like Total Depravity and Limited Atonement.
David Harrison retweeted
I DO NOT NEED TWO FACTOR AUTHENTICATION TO PAY MY ELECTRICITY BILL. LET ANYONE IN THAT MOTHERFUCKER IF THEY WANT TO PAY IT
David Harrison retweeted
I think the whole “disproportionate response” argument misunderstands how war actually works.
The rule of war isn’t that if someone fires one missile, you’re entitled to fire only one missile back.
Nor is it that if 1,000 people are killed, you’re limited to killing 1,000 in return.
War isn’t a tit-for-tat accounting exercise.
If a country invades you and launches a war that kills thousands, your objective is to end the threat and ensure it doesn't happen again. Try to minimize civilian deaths but not merely to proportionately match their body count.
That’s the ugly reality of war.
David Harrison retweeted
Les gauchistes se demandent souvent où se cachent les gens qui votent à droite et pensent ne jamais n'en côtoyer.
On vous explique comment ça marche:
- vous, les gauchistes, êtes absolument incapables de ne pas faire référence à la politique plus de 5 minutes dans une conversation.
Nous savons tous qu'il suffit de quelques minutes de discussion pour savoir si on a à faire à un insupportable gauchiste.
Les mots clés feront référence au racisme, au colonialisme, à la mysoginie, à l'homophobie, au climat, aux riches, aux inégalités....
Quand quelqu'un semble incapable de tenir une discussion de quelques minutes sans la politisier, n'importe quelle personne de droite sait instinctivement qu'elle a à faire à un zozo gauchiste
- Vous parlez comme si il était évident et convenu que nous sommes 100% d'accord avec vous sur tous les sujets.
Tout désaccord vous paraît inconcevable.
- En cas de micro contradiction, le gauchiste lance un fort regard de réprobation et indique son malaise implicitement ou explicitement.
Commence alors une suite de questions type inquisition car le gauchiste se doit de dénicher les traîtres à l'humanité.
- Si la personne de droite ose contredire ouvertement un gauchiste, serait-ce même sur un détail, le gauchiste devient alors hyper agressif.
Il se sent alors le droit et même le devoir de vous expliquer la vie, pourquoi votre position est honteuse et vous met au banc de l'humanité.
Discuter avec des ayatollah est particulièrement désagréable.
On sait qu'on ne vous fera pas changer d'avis et qu'on passera juste un mauvais moment.
Sans parler du risque que vous lanciez une fatwa contre nous dans notre entreprise, groupe ou école pour "mauvaise pensée".
Alors que faisons-nous? Nous vous fuyons.
Si nous n'avons pas le choix, souvent, nous nous taisons.
Et vous finissez par vivre dans un monde imaginaire où tout le monde pense comme vous.
Ensuite, quand la droite dure finit par monter partout, vous tombez de votre chaise.
Qui sont ces sauvages qui osent voter extrême-droite? D'où émergent-ils? Où sont-ils?
Si vous étiez capables de tenir des discussions civilisées, vous seriez au courant depuis plusieurs années, voire décennies.