Facts, I find myself doing this sometimes with girls who have real potential

Insane goal by Messi! His greatness will be missed the day he retires.

El GOLAZO del 10 desde el mejor ángulo 🤯🤳

OMG🤯

How the 2026 CFB season for the State of FL is going‼️…….😂😂😂😂

Kevin Samuels broken it down mathematically and broke these bitches’ brains. They cried foul and got the NWO to assassinate him with a heart attack gun after getting some tail one night. RIP🪦

Carl Menger published Principles of Economics in 1871 and demolished the labor theory of value that classical economists had been peddling for over a century. Vienna in 1871 was an intellectual battleground. German historicists dominated academic economics and insisted that no universal economic laws existed, only historical patterns specific to each nation and era. Menger disagreed, and he built his counterattack from the ground up. At the core of Principles is subjective value theory. Value lives in the mind of the individual making a choice, not in an object or in the labor that produced it. A glass of water in Vienna has different value to you than the same glass has to a man dying of thirst in a desert. Menger made this rigorous, tracing how individuals rank their needs and allocate goods to satisfy them according to their own priorities. From this foundation came marginal utility, the idea that the value of any unit of a good depends on the least urgent need it satisfies given your current supply. This single insight collapsed the classical wage and price theories that governments had been using to justify intervention for decades. Menger also produced a theory of economic goods distinguishing higher-order and lower-order goods, showing how capital structure connects production through time. This directly challenged the crude stimulate-spending logic that Keynesian central planners would later weaponize to justify money printing that robs you of purchasing power. The real villain Menger attacked was the idea that experts, governments, or academic committees could determine value from the outside. Value is subjective, individual, and dispersed across millions of minds. Any institution that overrides your valuation with its own imposed price destroys the information that makes economic coordination possible. Bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington still refuse to absorb this lesson, and you pay the price every time they try.

Carl Menger published On the Origins of Money in 1892, and it remains arguably the most devastating refutation of the statist theory of money ever written. Menger worked in Vienna during the late 19th century, when the German Historical School dominated European economics. That school rejected universal economic laws and insisted governments shape institutions deliberately. Menger spent his career dismantling that claim. His 1871 "Principles of Economics" launched the marginalist revolution, and his 1892 essay finished the job on monetary theory specifically. The core argument is simple and brutal: nobody invented money. No king decreed it, no parliament voted it into existence. Individual traders, acting on self-interest, gradually converged on the most saleable commodity available to them. Gold and silver won because they are durable, divisible, portable, and scarce. This process happened spontaneously, across cultures, without central coordination. Menger called the most saleable good the most "liquid" commodity, and traced how liquidity differences between goods naturally selected winners over centuries of voluntary exchange. Menger exposes the state's foundational lie: that money derives its validity from government authority. Every central bank, every fiat currency regime, every IMF directive operates on that lie. The Federal Reserve, which prints dollars with no commodity anchor and has destroyed roughly 97% of the dollar's 1913 purchasing power, exists entirely because the state captured and corrupted a spontaneous market institution. Menger's legacy is the intellectual ammunition to say clearly that central banks are parasites on a system they did not build and cannot improve. The market created money, then Governments hijacked it.

Apparently I’m now classified as a domestic luxury item. “WHO THE F*** WIRED THIS?!” is shouted at least once a month in the Konrad household. And I also restore luxury yachts. So, honestly, the classification checks out. 😜

The Hadza people of Tanzania are one of the world's last remaining Indigenous hunter-gatherer communities, renowned for their incredible archery skills. Hadza hunters are introduced to a modern compound bow—a high-tech piece of equipment featuring complex pulleys, mechanical sights, and a specialized release trigger. The hunters try a mechanical bow for the first time, and their reaction is truly fascinating! Each shot leaves them more amazed as they witness how modern technology can transform a skill they have mastered through generations of experience.

17 months building in public and now trencher is a full blown entertainment studio @TrencherStudio and we're viral on tiktok! wouldn't have happened without the crazy first day embracing the coin on pumpfun life changing stuff

The amount of single women I talk to who want men between ages 35-45 And are 6ft + (or occasionally, minimum 5’10”) And make “good money” (this is location dependent but in the NY area the low end minimum is $250k, with the average being $500k) And must be fit And must be well educated and/or successful founders And must want kids And must be hot And must be liberal And must be willing to date women over 35 OFTEN who have never had kids/been married before Is why there’s a loneliness epidemic The men who meet this type of criteria (less than 400 in the entire city, ball park guess) KNOW they have endless options And they don’t have to commit to anyone because they are in high demand When men are the commodity, they rarely commit But if they do, it is for women who are: Younger than them MORE physically attractive than them Ambitious but not at the expense of wanting family Interesting to talk to Fun Highly agreeable Feminine Warm & compassionate Women are no longer competing en masse for the top 1% They are aggressively searching for the top 0.14% And those men are the pickiest of all

The worst and most prolonged psychological torture you can inflict on a woman is to convince her she's as good as any man. This torture is lifelong, unendurable, and once you set up the initial conditions, the pain becomes self-inflicted. You see, women are genetically programmed for two things. First, to raise children. Second, to select a man who is superior to her to bear those children for. Not equal. Certainly not lesser. Superior. There is no point in arguing about this. It is obviously true to anyone who looks around himself without blinders made of wishful thinking. There is no point in becoming angry at me or anyone else about this. It is true whether I wish it to be or not, and whether you wish it to be or not. There is no point in trying to talk women out of this. It is not a part of their culture or education. It is not an individual character flaw in them. It is part of their genetic recipe. Therefore, if you convince a woman she is equal to most men, she will only be willing to bear children to a small percentage of exceptional men. If you convince her that she is the equal of any man, she will be unwilling to start a family with anyone. And she will remain genetically programmed to do so. When I was a child, and again when I was a young man, in high school and college, I noticed that the older adults who staffed the education system seemed to think "girls' self-esteem" was our most precious resource, perhaps because it's good for stable nuclear fusion containment, or as a growth medium for cancer-curing fruit trees. Well, I sure hope they're making good progress on that nuclear fusion thing, because it sure is hard on the women they grow up into. Perhaps they thought having a high self-esteem is the same as feeling good. Perhaps they thought half of humanity's potential Newtons, Einsteins, and Da Vincis were hidden among the ranks of the fair sex, waiting to be unlocked by "Project Self Esteem", and no, I did not make that name up. Perhaps they were retarded. They did, after all, work for the government. Self-esteem is not being happy. Self-esteem is not even feeling good. Self-esteem is how awesome you think you are. And if you think you're awesome, when you're mediocre, then you're miserable, because everyone around you treats you a whole lot worse than you think you deserve. High self-esteem is great for young men. It makes them take risks. And to thrive men need to take risks, and achieve things, for many reasons, one of which is that women only mate up. High self-esteem is not so good for young women. It doesn't get them anything they wouldn't have already had. It just makes them less happy with it. Sure, there's such a thing as self-esteem too low, but if a woman can look you in the eye, instead of in the shoes, when she talks to you, she's pretty much good to go. Anything more than that is superfluous at best, and at worst... well, eyeball the video for a moment and you'll see what I mean. But the misery isn't just personal. This is the fertility crisis in a nutshell. We, Western civilization, have spent the past five or six decades telling little boys that they are worthless sacks of protoplasm, and telling little girls that the sun shines out of their collective girl parts. And look what's happened. The fertility crisis is stupidly simple. When you elevate the status of women by giving them a greater share of respect, and of society's wealth, which is created by men, they refuse to have children. You can reverse this by allowing men to keep the wealth they create, instead of giving it to women. Then they will give it to women themselves, but the women will look up to them, and there will be children again. During the Trump administration so far, 94% of new job went to women. This is not natural or organic. This doesn't happen on its own. This is not happening because women are "crushing it". Women are the same women they have always been, risk averse, clustered around average intelligence, prone to wait for others to lead. This is not an accident. This is spin on the ball. Women vote. And pandering is an easy way to get those votes. But give a moderately pretty one a single email job at a Silicon Valley startup, and pretty soon she thinks that the father of her children should be a "post-economic" jet-setter with the body of a professional athlete who ticks all the boxes her therapist thinks are important. And she thinks she can pick him off a shelf at age 35. This is a vote, conscious or not, willing or not, for the extinction of humanity. Throughout the genetic history of humanity, approximately 80% of women had children, as opposed to 37% of men. Those numbers don't lie. Most men either weren't exceptional enough to breed, or died trying to become exceptional enough to breed. Women just had to not be in the bottom quintile. Not to be horrible, or horribly unlucky. This bears out what we already know. And this is why Western civilization told women they were the weaker sex, the dumber sex, the more fragile sex. Why Eve was said to made to serve Adam. Because this preserved civilization and the species. Women were actually happier that way, because women don't want to win. They want a winner. But even if it didn't, what choice would we have? The only nations and tribes in the world which are still breeding are the ones where women are still of low status. And if you try to replace Westerners with them, try to make them into Westerners, not only will you fail, but even if you succeed, they'll stop breeding, too. And we know now why there are no matriarchies. Its not because men have superior strength, and enslaved women with violence. It's because matriarchies don't breed. Humans are an animal, like any other animal. Every animal has mating rituals, and if those rituals can't be conducted, there will be no next generation. This is why some animals can be bred in zoos, and others cannot. We know what's wrong. We just lack the political will to fix it. Because it's "not fair". Well, of course it's not fair. But look around you. Look at the universe. Look at history. Whatever made you expect that things would be fair?

holy shit i asked claude to make a video on western civiization

Michael Lewis on how the stock market is rigged.