In 1957, a Russian immigrant published a novel of more than a thousand pages built around one question: what happens if the people who make the world run simply stop? Its title is Atlas Shrugged. In France it's called La Grève, The Strike. It wasn't even translated into French until 2011. That tells you something. This morning, I think Elon Musk wrote the sequel. A. Where the book comes from. Ayn Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Saint Petersburg in 1905. As a teenager, she watched Bolshevik soldiers walk into her father's pharmacy and seize it in the name of the people. Her family lost everything. Not to a competitor. To a committee. She fled to America in 1926 and spent the rest of her life writing about one distinction: those who create, and those who seize. B. The story. In Atlas Shrugged, America is sliding into decline. Not because of war. Because of rules. Year after year, a growing class of bureaucrats, regulators and planners decides that production must be controlled, shared "fairly," frozen. They never build anything. They issue directives. The worst one freezes every worker in his job and forces every inventor to hand over his patents for the public good. And one by one, the people who make the country run start disappearing. The best engineers. The industrialists. The inventors. An oil man sets his own wells on fire before vanishing. The whole country keeps repeating a question it doesn't understand: "Who is John Galt?" John Galt is the man behind the disappearances. He has convinced the creators to go on strike. They withdraw to a hidden valley in the Colorado mountains, where everyone keeps what they make and trades freely. And they let the world find out what it looks like without them. The lights go out in New York. The grey men are left alone with their directives, and discover that a directive has never produced a single kilowatt. C. The core idea. The strike isn't about money. It's about consent. Rand's insight is that the system that captures the creators runs on their cooperation. It needs them to keep producing so it has something to redistribute. The bureaucrat is a parasite who needs a host. Remove the host, and he's exposed as what he always was: useless. D. What Musk just did. This morning, Musk announced that next year he will give one of his own SpaceX shares to every kid in America. "The first of many." Here's what's fascinating. It's the strike, run in reverse. Rand's creators withdrew. Musk stays. He keeps building rockets, satellites, AI. But instead of walking away from the system, he walks around it. The value goes straight from the builder to the citizen. No ministry, no agency, no committee in the middle. Rand had to make the creators disappear to prove the bureaucrats were useless. Musk doesn't need to disappear. He just needs to stop routing value through them. Same result. The grey men are left standing in the middle of a pipe nobody uses anymore. E. The difference that changes everything. Rand's strike has a flaw her critics never stopped pointing out: ordinary people are left behind. The creators retreat to their valley. The rest of the country sits in the dark. Musk's version fixes that. He isn't taking the creators out of the world. He's bringing the world into the valley. Every kid in America becomes a shareholder in the machine. Not a spectator of the strike. A participant. That's the alliance being formed right now: builders and citizens, directly, with nothing in between. And the only people who lose that deal are the ones who never built anything. F. Why now, and not in 1957. In Rand's time, the strike was a fantasy. You couldn't produce at scale without the state's permission, and you couldn't reach every citizen without its pipes. In 2026, one founder can build rockets, run a global network from orbit, and pledge equity to 73 million children in a single post. AI will soon do in seconds what a ministry does in years. The tools of the strike finally exist. And they don't require anyone to leave. G. The ending. For seventy years, "Who is John Galt?" was a shrug. A way of saying nothing can be done. In the book, the strike ends when the creators decide the road is clear and walk back into the world to rebuild it. That's the scene we're watching. Not a man leaving. A man coming back, with a gift for every child. The grey men are about to discover what Rand promised them seventy years ago: a world that no longer needs them.

Je suis passé sur Fox News il y a deux jours. On m'a demandé ce que je pensais de Marine Le Pen. Mais visiblement, les Américains commencent à découvrir une autre Française qui est en train de devenir une star internationale : Sarah Knafo (@knafo_sarah) Sur l'économie comme sur l'immigration, elle a une ligne que je trouve beaucoup plus intéressante. Ce qui me plaît chez elle, c'est qu'elle regarde ce qui marche ailleurs. À un moment, il faut arrêter de réinventer la roue. Sur l'économie, on sait ce qu'il faut faire : suivre ce que Milei a fait en Argentine. Sur l'immigration, l'insécurité et les sujets de société, s'inspirer de ce que Bukele a fait au Salvador me paraît être une très bonne idée. On le qualifie de dictateur. Il a été réélu en 2024 avec 84,6 % des voix, et il est aujourd'hui autour de 90 % d'opinions favorables. En face, Emmanuel Macron : 15 % d'opinions favorables. Le plus bas de toute sa présidence. Bukele a puni le 1 % pour que les 99 % puissent vivre normalement. Nous, on protège le 1 % et on demande aux 99 % de payer. Sarah Knafo est dans la recherche de la vérité et dans l'application de solutions qui ont fait leurs preuves, pas dans un énième clientélisme où l'on dit aux gens ce qu'ils veulent entendre. Aujourd'hui, les gens veulent de l'authenticité, pas du calcul politicien. Ce matin encore sur Fox News : "Il y a un espoir : une nouvelle femme politique française, Sarah Knafo."