Pinned Tweet
I conclude that the academic differences between communism and socialism are irrelevant, to be categorically dismissed. They are interchangeable, parasitic systems masquerading as philanthropic symbiosis.
They thrive on minds unable to penetrate its morally rotten essence.
John Lockeson retweeted
DM-out, in answer to an evidently nice and sincere young person who really wants to help with the propagation of rational ideas, and invited me.
I'm pretty sure that I am too radical for the project.
~~~
"I am a bit nervous about who to invite."
You have nothing to fear from me.
I'll tell you this: I am almost, in my own constitution, viscerally averse to "organization" of any sort. I am so radical an individualist that I flinch at every collective of any sort that I see.
This is hard to describe.
My age has to do with it, too. I have watched this wretched disaster for fifty-two years of voting eligibility (and never, ever voted, for solid moral reasons). I now find it virtually impossible to impart to younger people that decades-long failure of electoral politics. It's all they know, however: "organize and vote!"
I'm not here to burn your groove, but mark my words: that is never going to work. It's fighting on the enemy's moral and political ground.
I hope you will not live as long as I have and get to that point realizing that I was right, but remember what I said and that I'm the one who told you.
This thing requires an entirely, radically, different outlook, and my big idea is massed, passive, civil disobedience. Flood the courts, and embrace the prisons.
That's what it's going to take: millions of individuals standing up and saying, "No."
Nobody is ready for that, though. Some people will talk about shooting wars all day long, but nothing like this, first, ever occurs to them.
~~~
I don't know what to tell you in answer to your query. I don't know how to help.
This is coming full circle, and the French author probably isn't aware of some crucial bits.
Companies routinely ran their own management schools before the "disparate impacts" doctrine from the Griggs v Duke Power Co (1970) case made aptitude testing radioactive. It was those aptitude tests that were the gateway to management school and middle class life. Without any credible means of determining who had the aptitude for management level work, company schools shut down and used the bachelor's degree as a proxy. (This also had almost everything to do with the rise of the MBA.) Then came the subsidies of the bachelor's, and the reduction of standards to capture the subsidies, and the whole thing spiraled into the ground.
I directly saw it happen in my lifetime.
My sisters graduated suburban HS in 1975, and college 4 years later. I graduated HS a decade later, and even I could see that the standards had started to slip. I would argue that my late 80's BA was among the last that had any kind of serious rigor to it. A mere 5 years later, the bachelor's grads were sharply less capable and qualified. We see this everywhere, notably in the credential creep. Master's and sometimes even PhD level degrees are routinely required to do work that my sisters and I did straight out of school with our 1978 & 1989 Bachelor's.
So these days, when I read resumes, I do check for the year the degree was issued, the more recent the provenance, the less seriously I take it. (Frankly, achieving Eagle Scout carries more weight with me than any BA issued since 1995.)
The stats tell me that we're pushing to almost 40% of our society attaining bachelor's or higher. This is entirely inconsistent with the bell curve distribution of traits that higher degrees once represented.
Je ne sais pas si vous mesurez ce qui est en train de se passer.
Alex Karp, le patron de Palantir, ne va plus chercher ses talents à Harvard. Il les forme lui-même. Des jeunes de 18 ans, sans diplôme, choisis sur leur seul talent, qui codent sur de vrais projets et lisent de la philosophie politique entre deux sprints. Il appelle ça « le diplôme Palantir ». Et aujourd'hui le New York Post titre que les boîtes tech lancent leurs propres programmes parce qu'elles ne peuvent plus compter sur l'Ivy League.
Ce n'est pas une anecdote RH. C'est un basculement de civilisation.
Pendant des décennies, les entrepreneurs ont confié à l'université la mission la plus sacrée qui soit : former les esprits. Ils comprennent aujourd'hui que cette mission a été trahie. Les institutions censées produire des penseurs libres produisent des conformistes. Le mérite a été remplacé par des critères opaques. L'enseignement est devenu catéchisme. Paul Graham l'avait vu avant tout le monde.
Alors ils font ce que font les bâtisseurs quand un système les trahit. Ils ne le réforment pas. Ils en construisent un autre, à côté.
Elon n'a pas attendu que la NASA se réveille, il a fait SpaceX. Il n'a pas réformé les médias, il a racheté la place publique. Les entrepreneurs ne cherchent plus à convaincre l'État. Ils font l'État, partout où l'État a abdiqué.
Relisez La Grève d'Ayn Rand. Nous y sommes. Les bureaucrates gardent les titres, les budgets, les bâtiments. Mais ils perdent la seule chose qui compte : la confiance. Aux États-Unis, à peine 28 % des gens font encore confiance aux médias. Un plus bas historique. Plus personne ne croit ceux qui prétendent nous dire quoi penser.
On entend partout que l'école est finie. Je pense exactement l'inverse.
Ce n'est pas l'école qui est morte. Ce sont les institutions qui l'ont confisquée. L'école, la vraie, celle de l'Académie d'Athènes, des ateliers de la Renaissance, du maître et de l'apprenti, va renaître. Plus exigeante. Plus juste. Sans dette, sans dogme, sans diplôme comme rente à vie.
Une école qui ne fabriquera plus des diplômés, mais des polymathes. Des esprits libres, capables de coder, de penser, de construire et de douter. Ce sont eux qui créeront la valeur des cinquante prochaines années.
J'ai appris à coder seul à 12 ans. Aucun amphi ne m'a appris ce que j'ai appris en construisant. Je sais ce que devient un talent quand on le laisse respirer.
L'université a eu des siècles pour former les meilleurs esprits. Les entrepreneurs vont le faire en une décennie.
La grande reconstruction a commencé.
Executing people by close range gunfire to the back of the head is instant, and 99.9% effective.
Communists and Nazis bring the receipts on the long proven the practical track record of this.
We in the West don't do this because it violates our sensibilities of what "humane" looks like. It leaves behind trauma for all participants and witnesses, and an ugly, bloody, brain splattery mess.
So instead, we do just about anything else, and often botch it.
-----------------------
Having said all that, while I'm not against the death penalty per se, I have seen too many botched verdicts and sentences to believe that our process is sufficiently accurate to deal out irreversible consequences.
Tennessee really needs to consult with Canada.
They've had more successful MAID executions than gun murders in America.
BREAKING: Tennessee death row inmate Christa Pike is still alive after 2 lethal injections, according to her lawyer.
At 8:26 p.m. local time, witnesses said executioners had "injected both syringes of lethal injection chemicals and Pike is still alive and snoring," her lawyers said.
Authorities appeared to give Pike two doses of pentobarbital, but she was still alive more than 40 minutes after the last dose. Officials then escorted media witnesses out of the area, and the Tennessee Department of Corrections said it was unable to immediately provide information about what happened.
The attempted execution comes after the Supreme Court vacated a last-minute stay that had temporarily spared Pike from becoming the first woman executed in Tennessee since the early 1800s.
Read what unfolded inside and the legal battle that preceded the execution attempt: foxnews.com/us/supreme-court…
I'll say it again:
The bold will inherit the stars.
The meek can inherit the earth when we're done with it.
I'm gonna unravel the mystery of Sydney Sweeney. It's simple:
Men don't want women in their lives who are mainly:
* Rancid bitches
* Mentally deranged
* Treacherous whores
* Dead weight
They want the opposite.
Many can't or won't offer that.
Those who do carry a premium.
John Lockeson retweeted
I'm an atheist, and I understand evil as anything deliberately inimical to human life.
This is easy for me.
And: I score all of it as the consequences of *shitty philosophy*, beginning with the summary dismissal of metaphysics in the late 19th century and resulting disintegration of epistemology. It all goes downhill from there.
This is the general reason for my blazing contempt: there is no good reason why entire generations have lost their goddamned minds, and I hate them for it.
As a general rule, you should demand that anyone who speaks with God's authority produce the Power of Attorney their actions imply they carry for inspection.
Marxism.
A mental masturbatory theory grounded in envy, weaponized to justify parasitism.
Karl Marx – The Man.
You know him as the author of the Manifesto.
But behind the manifesto there was a man – an envious, deceitful and lazy one – constitutionally averse to productive work. The theory is just a result of that. It is the man, elevated into a system.
Do you recognize any of this in the socialists and communists around you? Read on.
1. His father Heinrich was a hardworking lawyer from Trier who wrote his son letters in the tone of a man watching a slow-motion disaster he cannot stop. Not angry – exhausted. "Is your heart in accord with your head, your talents?" he wrote in 1837. "Is that demon heavenly or Faustian? Will you ever be capable of truly human, domestic happiness?" The tone was like: "My heart often sinks when I think of you and your future." The despairing correspondence of a disciplined, hardworking man who cannot understand what is wrong with his brilliant, promising, and comprehensively useless son. A loving father watching his brilliant son consume money, accumulate debts, drink heavily as a student, produce poetry of remarkable mediocrity, and demonstrate a comprehensive inability to translate intelligence into anything useful. A father asking his clever son whether he is a visionary or a catastrophe. The answer turned out to be both. Heinrich died before seeing the full scope of the disappointment. He was spared the Manifesto.
2. He never worked. The foundational fact about the man who devoted his life to the theory of labor. For most of his adult life he was kept by Friedrich Engels – son of a factory owner, manager of a Manchester textile mill – who spent his days doing the precise capitalist management the theory condemned, so that Marx could theorize about it in comfort. Engels also paid the rent, covered the debts, funded the cigars, and at one point claimed paternity of Marx’s illegitimate child – born to the family’s unpaid servant – to protect his friend’s reputation. The servant was not paid. The child was not acknowledged. The theory of "liberation" was produced in conditions of domestic exploitation that would have embarrassed a Victorian mill owner. If you remember Rousseau you’ll notice a pattern here…
3. Helene Demuth – cooked, cleaned, raised the Marx children, and managed the household through decades of poverty that was chronic not because of capitalism but because Marx could not hold a job and would not try. Her specific working-class life was spent in unpaid service to the man theorizing about her liberation. He did not liberate her. He did not pay her. He fathered her child, denied it, and let Engels take the blame. The secret held until after both men were dead. Engels confessed on his deathbed.
4. The debts are almost comic. In one year at university he spent 700 talers – his father noted with incredulous precision that "the richest spend less than 500." Expelled from Belgium, France, and Prussia. Ended up in London, stateless, in damp apartments, pawning the family silver, writing to Engels for money with the regularity of a man who has made extracting funds from a friend into an art form. Several of his children died young in conditions produced by his inability to earn. Marx noted the deaths in letters and continued the manuscript.
5. The envy is the key to everything. A brilliantly clever man who felt the world had not given him his due – who watched others succeed and experienced their success as an offense requiring theoretical explanation. The result: the most sophisticated intellectual expression of resentment ever produced. A complete systematic account of why the successful are guilty, why their success is stolen, and why the man who has not succeeded is the true repository of value. A theory of envy with footnotes. Nietzsche called this ressentiment. He was describing the same type, from a different angle, at roughly the same time.
6. He died in 1883. Eleven people attended the funeral. Engels compared him to Darwin – generous, since Darwin spent twenty years accumulating evidence before publishing and Marx spent twenty years accumulating debt. His wife had died two years earlier, exhausted. His servant had spent a lifetime unpaid. His illegitimate son grew up unacknowledged. The Manifesto was by then on its way to inspiring experiments that would kill approximately a hundred million people.
7. The Manifesto was not written from the bottom. It was written by a clever man funded by a factory owner’s son, who had never done a day of proletarian labor, who exploited the people closest to him, whose father despaired of him, and whose considerable talents were deployed entirely in explaining why the world owed him more than it had given. Look around you. The envious intellectual who has never built anything but knows exactly what is wrong with everything others have built. The "man of the people" who cannot manage his own affairs. The revolutionary funded by the people he condemns. You have met this person. You may have voted for him.
The Left invades, suborns and enshitifies everything it touches.
Consequentially:
* You no longer have any obligation under any theory to support an enshitified institution.
* Don't let the Left touch your institutions. Eject anyone who tries. Keep them away at all costs.
I have grown intolerant and unsympathetic to the “few bad apples” argument that excuses police misconduct. It carries no weight with me, and in fact signifies breakage.
Institutions carrying powers of directing or implementing force on a society’s behalf must meet the highest standards of honor and integrity in order to be worthy of the public trust.
No institution that tolerates “a few bad apples” is qualified.
This is why the military academy’s honor code is explicit and unambiguous on such matters: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Police academies try to ape the honor code, but their version is squishy, leaving a lot of wiggle room for interpretation, oppressive police statism (“we don’t make the law, we just enforce it”) and entirely leaves out the premise of personal intolerance for ethical lapses: “On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust”. Keydokee, brah. Whatever that means.
Bottom line: soldiers are taught, socialized, trained and supported in taking the personally painful step of turning in their dishonorable friends. Police are not. Consequently...they don’t. At least not at institutionalized levels.
Free societies cannot afford force wielding institutions that tolerate unethical behavior. Frankly, it would be better for everyone if the people themselves did not tolerate the existence of police institutions that tolerate “a few bad apples”, even if it meant no police.
Clean up your act, "thin blue line".
We can just go ahead and skip past "society of free adults enjoying privacy, the presumption of innocence, and due process" straight to "imprison everyone in a dystopian hellscape".
John Lockeson retweeted
Elon Musk a écrit ce matin une phrase que l’école vous a appris à trouver obscène : « McCarthy was right (obviously). » On vous a enseigné à haïr ce nom comme on apprend une table de multiplication, sans jamais vous dire ce qu’il avait vu, et c’est précisément pour ça que la phrase dérange encore.
Il faut comprendre ce qu’était sa thèse, parce qu’on l’a réduite à une caricature pour n’avoir pas à la regarder. McCarthy ne disait pas seulement qu’il existait des espions assez stupides pour voler des plans dans un tiroir. Il disait que le communisme avait compris quelque chose de plus décisif : qu’un pays se prend moins par ses frontières que par ses institutions, moins par ses usines d’armement que par ce qui fabrique, dans la tête des gens, le réel lui-même. Département d’État, universités, syndicats, rédactions, bibliothèques, écoles : non pas pour piquer un secret, mais pour orienter ce qu’une civilisation croit être vrai, juste, enseigné, publiable.
Le scalpel était souvent imprécis, les chiffres bougeaient, la méthode était sloppy, et une partie des noms qu’il agitait n’aurait jamais dû l’être. Cela ne change rien au diagnostic. Quand les câbles de Venona ont été déclassifiés en 1995, on a retrouvé ce que l’intelligentsia avait passé quarante ans à traiter comme une hallucination : Alger Hiss, les Rosenberg, Harry Dexter White, et des centaines d’Américains qui travaillaient pour Moscou pendant qu’on expliquait aux collégiens que le seul danger, c’était l’homme qui osait le dire. On a utilisé ses erreurs pour enterrer le phénomène. On a brûlé le thermomètre. La fièvre est restée.
Car voici ce qui s’est passé ensuite, et c’est cela qu’on refuse encore de nommer. L’URSS est morte en 1991. Le logiciel, non. Le communisme a perdu la guerre des tanks et gagné la guerre du compilateur. Gramsci l’avait écrit avec une clarté que nos manuels ont préféré noyer : tu ne prends pas le palais d’assaut, tu staffes le palais. Une fois que tu tiens l’école, l’université, la presse, le syndicat, la culture et demain la RH, tu n’as plus besoin du KGB. Le bâtiment travaille pour toi.
Le virus a simplement changé d’enveloppe. La première portait le parti, la carte, l’espion, Moscou ; on l’a reconnue, le mur est tombé, et tout le monde a conclu trop vite que c’était fini. La seconde n’a plus besoin de faucille : elle avance avec un vocabulaire moral, des victimes permanentes, une rareté qu’il faut administrer, des intermédiaires qui se rendent indispensables, et un soupçon généralisé contre tout ce qui construit. Même charge utile, nouveau packaging. C’est pour cela que l’Occident a l’air rongé. Pas parce qu’un colonel russe est assis dans ton rectorat. Parce que le logiciel tourne tout seul, dans une école qui enseigne d’abord à soupçonner, dans une université où la question n’est plus « est-ce vrai ? » mais « qui a le pouvoir de dire que c’est vrai ? », dans une entreprise où un fait devient une violence, dans un État où allouer le capital est un droit et où le créer est presque une faute. La France teste cette architecture à 57 % du PIB. Ce n’est pas une coïncidence culturelle. C’est le même système d’exploitation.
Le mot a disparu. La fonction est restée. Et ceux qui portent ça ne sont pas des monstres : ils ont reçu un logiciel, souvent par générosité, souvent parce que le mot justice sonnait mieux que le mot responsabilité. Les mauvaises idées tuent d’abord ceux qui y croient. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n’a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer.
McCarthy avait raison sur l’essentiel : les institutions peuvent être prises, les idées peuvent coloniser un pays plus sûrement qu’une armée, et ceux qui le disent en premier sont toujours traités comme le problème. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commissaires du récit. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu’elle vaut qu’on s’y consacre.
Et au travail.
John Lockeson retweeted
I lived oversees for a substantial portion of my childhood, and consider myself a well-traveled cosmopolitan who has no trouble adopting a Canadian or European perspective on world events. And about the piece of furrowed-brow concern trolling I have quote-tweeted, let me just say:
It never ends, and it never changes. The impotent, dimwitted anger that is actually a manifestation of weakness and failure in the cultures that produce it. The patronizing, pseudo-sophisticated tut-tutting from people who presume to instruct us. The poorly concealed demand that the American taxpayer perpetually remain the world's daddy while everyone who benefits from our largesse gets to act out like a spoiled teenager.
I've been listening to this crap for 60 years. And every single exudation of it sounds stupider than the last.
unavailable


















