Did you know?

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Contributor
This is an 84-year-old man whose real surname is Weiner.

He was a 1960's counterculture Jewish revolutionary.

He carried a picture of himself and Alan Ginsberg swimming nude together.

At age 52, he changed his last name to “Savage” as he transitioned from writing books on herbal medicine into becoming a “Conservative” (i.e. lsraeI-first) talk radio host.

The current market price for the Fairfax, California house he paid $45,000 for in 1974 is at least $1.4 million.

And here he is, giving the ol' “bootstrap” lecture to Americans who can't afford a house in the country he helped destroy, then attacking detractors for being White.



https://twitter.com/x/status/2085119664703811993
View: https://x.com/TooWhiteToTweet/status/2085119664703811993?s=20
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2085736134630621504
View: https://x.com/TheRabbitHole/status/2085736134630621504?s=20



Between 1913 and 2021, the dollar lost roughly 96.3–96.4% of its purchasing power.


Key figures​


  • CPI annual average in 1913: 9.9 (1982–84 = 100 base).
  • CPI annual average in 2021: ≈270.97.
  • Price level multiplier: 270.97 / 9.9 ≈ 27.37.
  • A 1913 dollar had the purchasing power of about $27.37 in 2021 dollars.
  • Remaining purchasing power: 1 / 27.37 ≈ 3.65%.
  • Loss of value: ≈96.35%.

This matches the post’s stated 96.3% figure (minor differences can arise from using year-start vs. year-average CPI or slight revisions in historical series). The same data show the dollar has lost roughly 96–97% of its purchasing power from 1913 through the mid-2020s overall.


Context​


This measures domestic purchasing power via the CPI (a basket of consumer goods and services). It reflects cumulative inflation over more than a century, driven by monetary expansion, wars, policy shifts, and other factors after the Federal Reserve’s creation in 1913 and especially after the end of the gold standard link in 1971. It does not mean living standards fell—real wages, productivity, and technology-driven gains rose substantially over the same period. CPI also has well-known limitations (substitution bias, quality adjustments, etc.) and is not a perfect measure of every household’s experience or of asset prices.


The accompanying image in the post is consistent with standard visualizations of this long-term CPI-based decline in the dollar’s purchasing power.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2085817213135827445
View: https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2085817213135827445?s=20




This is a clip from a Joe Rogan Experience episode with Harvard geneticist David Sinclair discussing partial epigenetic reprogramming for cellular rejuvenation, specifically highlighting the ER-100 therapy now in human trials.


Sinclair describes aging as driven largely by loss of epigenetic information (the “software” that tells cells which genes to express) rather than irreversible DNA damage. He references their 2020 work showing they could safely reverse aspects of this process in cells—essentially reinstalling youthful gene expression patterns. The post correctly identifies the treatment as ER-100, developed by Life Biosciences (which Sinclair co-founded).


What’s actually happening with ER-100​


  • Mechanism: It uses a modified AAV vector to deliver three of the four Yamanaka factors (OCT4, SOX2, KLF4 — called OSK). Expression is controlled (turned on with systemic doxycycline for a limited period). The goal is partial reprogramming that resets epigenetic marks toward a younger state without fully turning cells into pluripotent stem cells.
  • Current trial: Phase 1 first-in-human study (NCT07290244). First patient was dosed around June 2026. It targets optic neuropathies—open-angle glaucoma and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION)—via a single intravitreal injection (into the eye). Primary focus is safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints look at visual function. Planned enrollment is roughly 12–18 participants.
  • Why the eye first? Retinal ganglion cells are accessible, measurable, and the approach has strong preclinical data (mice + non-human primates) showing improved visual function, axon protection/regeneration signals, and epigenetic reset after optic nerve damage. Local delivery also limits systemic exposure.

This is genuinely the first clinical test of controlled partial epigenetic reprogramming in humans for an age-related condition. If safety holds and there are functional signals, it would be a significant proof-of-concept for the broader “aging as loss of epigenetic information” idea Sinclair has championed.


Important caveats​


It is still very early (Phase 1 safety). Full Yamanaka reprogramming can cause teratomas or other problems if uncontrolled; the partial, timed approach aims to avoid that, and preclinical work (including primates) supported moving forward, but human results will determine the real risk/benefit. Some outside scientists have called the approach high-risk. Vision restoration (or even meaningful slowing of loss) is not guaranteed—Phase 1 is not powered to prove efficacy. Broader applications beyond the eye remain speculative for now.

The post’s framing is largely accurate based on Sinclair’s public comments and the company’s announcements. The “first potential human age-reversal technology is in people right now” claim matches the company’s and Sinclair’s positioning of this trial.
 
The Grievance Studies Affair (also called “Sokal Squared”), was a 2017–2018 project by three scholars—James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian.

They wrote and submitted roughly 20 hoax papers to journals in fields they called “grievance studies” (gender studies, fat studies, feminist theory, etc.) to test peer-review standards.

By the time the project was revealed in October 2018 (via the Wall Street Journal), 4 papers had been published and 3 more accepted.


One of those papers was a rewrite of part of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf:


  • Titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.”
  • It was based primarily on a rewrite of roughly the last two-thirds (~3,600 words) of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf (the chapter outlining why the Nazi Party was needed and what it required of members).
  • Nazi/party terminology and framing were replaced with feminist and intersectional jargon (e.g., references to the Nazi Party swapped for “intersectional feminism,” and related concepts of struggle/solidarity/oppression reframed around patriarchy, neoliberalism, and choice feminism). The authors described substituting feminist or anti-patriarchal terminology so the text would fit the target journals’ style and ideology.
  • It was accepted (after revisions) by the peer-reviewed feminist social work journal Affilia. It was not ultimately published because the hoax was exposed first; the journals later retracted the published hoax papers.
 
HQIAIQfbYAAU7Nm


​
The meme correctly highlights a common pattern: many successful communist leaders came from families that were better-off than the rural or urban poor they claimed to represent (middle/upper-middle class, prosperous peasants, or with elite educational access). This is a well-documented observation in biographies and histories.

Karl Marx​


  • Father Heinrich (Heschel) Marx was a successful lawyer (advocate/Justizrat) from a rabbinical family who converted to Protestantism for professional reasons. The family owned Moselle vineyards and lived comfortably as prosperous middle-class (not aristocratic). They moved to a larger 10-room house. Mother Henriette Pressburg came from a Dutch Jewish family with later industrial ties (related to the Philips family).
  • Accurate on lawyer father, vineyards, and comfortable home. “Upper middle class” fits.

Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov)​


  • Father Ilya Ulyanov rose from a background of former serfs/poor townspeople (his own father was a serf or of similar status) via education to become a school inspector and later director of public schools for the province, earning hereditary noble status (Order of St. Vladimir) and a comfortable civil-service lifestyle with servants. Mother Maria Blank came from a more prosperous background (physician father of Jewish origin who converted; German-Swedish maternal side with some means; family estate at Kokushkino).
  • The family was upwardly mobile middle/professional class with a privileged upbringing by Russian standards of the time, including a good house and education. “Nouveau riche nobleman” and “huge house with servants” capture the rise and relative comfort. Lenin attended elite schools and was expelled from university later for political reasons.

Mao Zedong​


  • Father Mao Yichang (Rensheng) started poor/debt-ridden but became a prosperous grain merchant, moneylender, and landowner with roughly 20+ mu (about 3+ acres / ~1.5–2+ hectares) of rice paddy—substantial and among the richer in the village by local Hunan standards. He employed labor and was described as one of the wealthiest in Shaoshan. Mao received better schooling than most peasant sons (though he later dropped aspects of formal study).
  • Accurate on prosperous merchant/landowner father and ability to fund education. “Richest guy in his village” and “20 acres” are directionally correct (sources vary slightly on exact acreage, often citing ~2.5–3+ acres initially expanding).

Che Guevara​


  • Born to Ernesto Guevara Lynch (architecture student/entrepreneur from a “good family” with Irish-Spanish roots, including prosperous ancestors) and Celia de la Serna (from a traditional wealthy landowning/estanciero family with political connections). The family was upper/middle-upper class Argentine, with social standing, servants at times, holidays, and good schools.
  • Accurate on upper-class parents, architect/business interests, landowning maternal side, multiple residences/travel, and good education. The privileged background holds.

Fidel Castro​


  • Father Ángel Castro y Argiz was a self-made Spanish immigrant (from poor Galician peasant roots) who built a large sugar plantation/estate in Oriente (thousands of hectares owned or leased, hundreds of workers/servants, sawmill, etc.). Fidel was born out of wedlock to the household servant Lina Ruz; the family was wealthy by Cuban rural standards. He attended good private schools (including Jesuit).
  • Accurate on prosperous sugar plantation owner with many workers and access to elite education. “Hundreds of servants and workers” fits the scale of the operation.

Ho Chi Minh​


  • Father Nguyen Sinh Sắc (or Huy) was a Confucian scholar/teacher who passed high examinations (phó bảng level) and briefly served as an imperial magistrate/mandarin before demotion and later practicing traditional medicine. The family had scholarly/mandarin status rather than pure landowning wealth; Ho attended a good school in Huế.
  • Directionally correct on educated bureaucratic/scholarly father and access to better schooling (including French colonial education before leaving).

Pol Pot (Saloth Sar)​


  • Father was a prosperous rice farmer/landowner in Prek Sbauv (sources cite ~9–50 acres / substantial holdings by local standards, hired labor, comfortable house). Family had useful royal palace connections (cousins/siblings as consorts, dancers, or officials). He was sent to Phnom Penh for education (Buddhist monastery, French-run schools) and later studied in France.
  • Accurate on relatively well-off landowning family with elite ties enabling good local schooling and study abroad. “Aristocratic landowning family with ties to the Cambodian monarchy” fits the connections and status.

Overall assessment: The pattern holds—these leaders were not products of the industrial proletariat or landless peasantry. Their relative privilege (education, resources, social mobility) is a recurring historical note, often used to highlight hypocrisy or the role of educated elites in revolutionary movements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top