aka Doctor Aunt Jane, physician in private practice, general internal medicine; executive director, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Arizona
Joined March 2009
- Tweets33.6K
- Following5.5K
- Followers9.7K
- Likes8K
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
My friends, here's the funny thing: we think we're living in a complex system.
They talk to us about multiple crises, multifactorial causes, endless "context." But step back, and the fight we're watching today is almost biblical in its simplicity.
It's the eternal fight. Freedom versus control. The individual versus the mass. The one who creates versus the one who confiscates. Capitalism versus communism.
And today, communism is infecting the West. Deeper in some countries than others, but everywhere. Not with tanks. Not with gulags. In a far more insidious way.
Antonio Gramsci understood this back in the 1930s, from a prison cell in Mussolini's Italy. The revolution had failed in the West because the people didn't want it. So he changed strategy: stop trying to seize power by force, and conquer the culture instead. Win the schools, the universities, the press, the arts. Impose your words, your assumptions, your morality. Make your ideas the "common sense" of the age. Once the culture is conquered, political power falls on its own, like ripe fruit.
In 1967, Rudi Dutschke gave it a slogan: the long march through the institutions.
Fifty years later, look at the result. The universities. The legacy media. The schools. The senior civil service. The NGOs. HR departments. A huge share of the institutions that govern our lives has been captured.
And yet the peoples never wanted this. They were never asked. And the one time they were asked, they said no.
That is the paradox of our time: entire nations governed by ideas their own peoples reject.
So look at the map. France. The United Kingdom. Germany. Sweden. Belgium. The Netherlands. Ireland. Canada. Different languages, different histories, different voters. The same chaos. The same paralysis. The same ruling class reciting the same catechism.
So stop looking for explanations everywhere. Stop looking for scapegoats. It's not the Jews' fault. It's not the boomers' fault. It's not the fault of the Muslim neighbor who works and raises his kids in peace. It's not the fault of the twenty-year-old who was never taught anything else.
Yes, some of them may be caught up in the effects of this system. Some may have benefited from it, voted for it, repeated its slogans. But never focus on the effects. Focus on the root cause. Attack the root cause, and the effects disappear on their own.
You don't cure a fever by fighting the thermometer. You cure it by killing the infection.
And the scapegoat is exactly the trap Marxism sets for us. Divide, designate a culprit, turn people against each other, so that everyone fights the symptoms and nobody touches the disease. Let's not hand them that gift.
The enemy is ideas. Marxism and all its offspring: class struggle turned into identity struggle, self-hatred turned into virtue, guilt turned into a political program. And the people who carry those ideas into power, we beat them on the very ground where they won: at the ballot box, in the institutions, in the culture. With votes, with arguments, with work. We take back what they took, institution by institution, exactly the way they did it.
In 1848, Marx ended his Manifesto with a call: "Workers of the world, unite!"
Today, I answer him:
Peoples of the West, unite.
Not against a people. Not against a religion. Against an idea that has already left tens of millions dead and now wants to finish the job on our soul.
And when we win, get ready.
Because what's waiting on the other side is an abundance the West has never known. AI, energy, science: we hold the most powerful tools in human history. The only thing holding us back is this mind virus that teaches us to be ashamed of succeeding.
The day it falls, everything comes back.
The return of merit. The return of courage. The return of hierarchy, the kind that rewards excellence instead of punishing it. The return of a society where the goal is no longer to complain about each other, but to impress each other.
We will build beautiful things again. The cathedrals of our time. Cities people actually want to live in. Works worth passing down. We will throw immense celebrations again, the celebrations of proud, joyful, living peoples who no longer need to apologize for existing.
But all of it goes through one thing: killing the disease that's eating us alive. Mental communism. The woke mind virus. Self-hatred dressed up as virtue.
Our ancestors built Athens, Rome, Chartres, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the conquest of space.
We will not be the generation that let it all go.
We will be the generation that took it all back.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Love this. Thank you.
There will never be a Doctors pay raise. Look at the data on the post.
Doctors have had a PAY CUT every year for the past 34 years. You’ll get one next year. You’ll get one the next 34 years.
You’ll never get a PAY RAISE getting paid with RVU Coupons.
Go cash. It IS possible.
#Healthinsurance #Hospital #Congress #CORRUPTION
Doctors haven't gotten a raise from Medicare since 1992. They've gotten a 55% pay cut. 📉
In 1992 Medicare paid $31.00 per unit of physician work. In 2026 it pays $33.40. If it had just kept up with inflation, it would be about $74.
Same work. Less than half the buying power.
Meanwhile your mortgage, your student loans, and your kids' tuition kept up with inflation just fine.
You can't control what Medicare pays you. You can control what you do with what's left.
What's your specialty? 👇
Hit follow to learn the personal finance topics you wish you learned in med school.
Sources: Medicare Physician Fee Schedule conversion factor history (AMA/CMS); 2026 = non-APM conversion factor. Inflation adjustment uses BLS CPI-U (1992 annual average → Aug 2026).
#physicianfinance #moneymeetsmedicine #medicare #doctorpay #physicianburnout
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
很多人以为，叫醒一个被洗脑的人，只要把铁证拍在他面前就行。
前克格勃特工尤里·贝兹梅诺夫（Yuri Bezmenov）几十年前就拆穿过这种天真。
极权洗脑真正摧毁的不是真相，而是人处理真实信息的能力。
事实本身失去了意义。
贝兹梅诺夫把这个过程称为“士气瓦解”。
处于这个状态的人，已经丧失了分辨真伪的基本机能。
哪怕你用海量真实证据、文件、照片淹没他，甚至强行把他拽到苏联指着集中营看，他也绝不会相信。
直到那一脚结结实实踹在他屁股上。
彻底瓦解一个国家为什么要花 15 到 20 年？
因为这是在敌国完整教育一代学生的最短时间。
把敌对意识形态不受挑战地灌进年轻人的脑子里，整整培育三代人。
认知底座一旦被物理焊死，再硬的事实也敲不开。
那些自以为代表进步的大学教授、民权活动家和激进左翼，在整套颠覆机制里究竟算什么？
贝兹梅诺夫给出的定位极度冷酷：工具。
在制造动荡、破坏秩序的阶段，他们冲在最前面拆解社会。
这些人真以为新秩序建立后，自己能顺理成章坐上权力的牌桌。
但结局从来不是加冕。
马列主义者一旦真正掌权，最先被清洗的恰恰是这批狂热的理想主义者。
因为他们懂太多，幻灭之后反弹最烈，会变成新政权最危险的刺头。
夺权后的统治者要的是掠夺和绝对稳定，不再需要任何激进运动。
大罢工停了，所有平权口号一夜清零。
曾经冲锋陷阵的学者、活动家、同性恋者，被成批送去流放、关进监狱、排队枪毙。
用完了。
整套剧本走完四步：思想瓦解、制造动荡、引爆危机、暴力维稳。
等到刺刀下的新秩序彻底落锁，贝兹梅诺夫最后留下的只是一句冷笑：
再见，同志们。
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
A farmer, tired of rats destroying his crops and stealing his grain, came up with a clever but cruel plan. He threw a dead pig into a deep, abandoned well. Attracted by the smell, nearly 80 rats rushed into the well to feast on the carcass. At first, everything seemed wonderful. There was more than enough food for everyone, and the rats ate until they were satisfied.
But when the food was gone, they discovered something terrifying. The walls of the well were too steep to climb. They were trapped. Days passed, and hunger turned into desperation. Desperation turned into aggression. The rats that had once eaten peacefully beside one another began fighting for survival. Eventually, they began killing and eating each other.
One by one, their numbers dwindled until only a single rat remained. Its eyes were bloodshot, and it had survived by consuming its own kind. Then the farmer returned, lowered a rope into the well, and rescued the last surviving rat. But he didn't save it out of kindness or compassion.
The farmer knew the rat had learned to survive by hunting other rats. When he released it into his fields, it would continue killing its own kind instead of eating his grain. The farmer had turned his enemy into his greatest weapon.
And that is the lesson of divide and conquer. Those who control the trap don't need to fight the battles themselves. They simply create the conditions in which others turn against one another.
The rats believed their enemies were the other rats. They never realized that the true enemy was the farmer who had put them there.
The greatest danger isn't always the enemy standing in front of you. Sometimes it's the one who created the conflict and stands quietly watching you destroy each other.
Before you turn against your neighbor because of their political beliefs, ask yourself who benefits from keeping Americans divided. While we fight each other over Republican and Democrat, we may be overlooking those who profit from the conflict. Perhaps the real question isn't which side you're on, but who built the well—and why they want us fighting at the bottom of it.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Billionaires are not vaccinating their own children.
People who have less money than that should stop and think about the high costs of supporting a special needs child & adult for life, before subjecting them to the atrocity of injected neurotoxins.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
There are two visions of universal basic income. And the gap between them is the gap between freedom and 1984.
Vision one is Sam Altman's. In Moore's Law for Everything, he proposes an American Equity Fund: the State taxes companies and land, then redistributes to citizens. The State sits between the people and the companies that create value. Every dollar you receive goes through it.
Think about what that means. The entity that decides who gets what, how much, and under which conditions becomes the most powerful entity in human history. Your income depends on your compliance. That's not a safety net. That's a leash. Orwell didn't need AI to imagine where this ends.
Vision two is Musk's. The companies that create value give it directly to the people. No ministry. No agency. No committee deciding who deserves what. You own a piece of the machine. Want to work on top of that? Work. Nobody can take it away because you voted wrong or posted wrong.
Notice the words Elon uses. He doesn't talk about Universal Basic Income. He talks about Universal High Income. That's not a detail. It's the whole thesis.
UBI is a scarcity concept. A minimum check, voted by politicians, to keep you alive while the machines do the work.
Universal High Income is an abundance concept. In the world AI is creating, value grows exponentially and the cost of almost everything collapses toward zero. That's massive deflation. In that world, a fixed check from the State is the worst possible model: it's always late, always negotiated, always smaller than the value actually created. Equity is the best model. When you own a piece of the companies building the future, your income grows at the speed of innovation, not at the speed of a parliamentary vote.
And it keeps the State from standing between the people and the companies, slowing down the very innovation that makes abundance possible.
Here's what most people miss: this design also kills institutional capture.
Look at how influence works today. You don't need to win elections. You fund the intermediaries. The Gates Foundation became one of the largest funders of the WHO. Soros money flowed into NGOs, think tanks, district attorney races. Same playbook every time: whoever finances the middle layer controls the middle layer.
Billionaires giving isn't the problem. Gates and Soros give too. The difference is where the money goes. They fund institutions that then decide for you. Musk gives ownership to individuals. No strings, no intermediary to steer.
Vision one builds a giant central intermediary, the most valuable capture target ever created. Every lobby, every foundation, every ideologue will fight to control it.
Vision two has no center to capture. You can't corrupt a pipe that goes straight from the company to the citizen. Corruption isn't fought. It's made impossible by design.
Will capture disappear overnight? No. But it loses its target. And a parasite without a host doesn't last long.
What Elon is doing is rewriting civilization's operating system. Removing the parasitic layer between those who create and those who receive. Because that's what it takes to become a Kardashev Type II civilization, one that harnesses the full energy of its star. You don't get there with a bureaucracy approving every step.
The question was never "should we share the abundance AI creates?" It's "who stands between you and it?"
His answer: nobody.
I don't know if you realize what just happened.
Elon Musk is completely bypassing the State.
For 100 years, we've been told the problem is capital. That it must be captured, taxed, redistributed. With an army of intermediaries standing between those who create wealth and the people: ministries, agencies, commissions, bureaucrats.
Musk is doing the opposite. He's taking his capital and giving it directly to the people. One SpaceX share to every kid in America. Not a handout. Not a subsidy. A piece of the machine that's taking humanity to Mars.
And he says it himself: this is the first of many.
Mises understood this back in 1944: the bureaucrat creates nothing. He administers what others created, following rules that have no connection to the value produced. The day value flows directly from the one who creates it to the one who receives it, the bureaucrat has no function left.
That's what's being born right now. A new liberal world order, where the very concept of the State will make less and less sense.
The world we're entering is a world of abundance. AI, robots, energy, space. And that abundance won't come through the State, for one simple reason: we have a century of proof that it doesn't work.
Redistribution was version 1.0. Direct distribution of capital is 2.0.
While France is still debating how to tax builders even more, America is handing stock to its kids.
Pick your side.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
The Official Carbon-Cycle Story Fails Its Own Measurements
By Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) 18 October 2026
claude.ai/artifact/Qidin7JCV…
A new manuscript by Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon, "Dominance of Natural Atmospheric CO₂ Dynamics," is a serious challenge to the account of atmospheric CO₂ that has been presented to the public for forty years. An earlier draft sits at papers.jcohler.com/co2. The version read here is more recent and is not yet public. What the paper does is unusual. It assembles the ordinary measurements and shows, from each one in turn, that the official story cannot be right.
The Reservoir the Data Picks
The authors apply the refined reservoir routing framework of Demetris Koutsoyiannis to the Mauna Loa and Barrow records. The data themselves select the simplest possible relationship between atmospheric CO₂ storage and outflow. It is linear. The exponent in the storage-outflow law comes out exactly one. The fit accounts for more than 99.7 percent of the variance in concentration. The resulting mean residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere is 3.5 to 4 years.
In a linear reservoir the time required to adjust to a perturbation cannot exceed the residence time. That is a property of the equations. The IPCC maintains a separate "adjustment time" of centuries to millennia for the anthropogenic fraction. The data say no such second timescale exists.
Two Airborne Fractions, Only One of Them Honest
The IPCC AR6 glossary defines the airborne fraction as cumulative anthropogenic CO₂ still airborne divided by cumulative anthropogenic emissions. Call that ABF_L, the logical airborne fraction. Compute it under a 4 year residence time and the answer is about 6 percent.
The figure the IPCC actually reports, roughly 44 percent, is a different quantity. It is the ratio of annual atmospheric growth to annual fossil-fuel emission. Call it ABF_C. It implicitly assumes the entire atmospheric growth is anthropogenic. That assumption is the conclusion the attribution exercise is supposed to prove. The ratio bounces between 18 and 77 percent year to year. Its apparent stability depends on smoothing windows four to eight times longer than the physical residence time.
The glossary definition and the reported number are not the same quantity. Only one of them is a mass-conservation statement.
A Pulse the Official Functions Cannot Match
Atmospheric nuclear tests in the early 1960s put a dated spike of radiocarbon into the air. A single exponential fits the global Δ¹⁴C decay with τ = 17.2 years for the 1965 to 1985 window and 18.4 years for the full 1965 to 2019 record. The two fits are consistent. The decay is clean. There is no long tail and no residual.
Every impulse-response function the IPCC has used is a sum of exponentials plus a non-decaying term. On a semi-log plot a single exponential is a straight line and any sum of positive exponentials bends upward. The data are a straight line.
The removal processes do not discriminate between isotopic variants of CO₂ at the level that matters for the bulk budget. The tracer decay therefore applies to the whole atmospheric reservoir.
The Isotope That Has Not Moved
The Keeling plot gives the isotopic signature of CO₂ entering the atmosphere net of removal. Across four instrumental sites over forty years the intercept sits between −12.9 and −13.3 per mil. The average is −13.2 per mil.
A separate reconstruction from coralline sponges and ice-core firn air, going back to 1520 AD, gives an intercept of −13.3 per mil. These are independent records and they agree.
Fossil carbon is far more depleted than the biosphere. A growing fossil contribution to the net input would move the intercept. The intercept has not moved. Not during the forty years when fossil-fuel emissions roughly doubled. Not across the five centuries from the Little Ice Age to the present.
Which Direction the Record Runs
Across every available record the sequence is the same. Local temperature changes first. CO₂ follows. Ice cores from Vostok, EPICA Dome C, WAIS Divide, Taylor Dome, and GISP2 show local temperature leading CO₂ by 200 to 1000 years at every glacial termination. Phanerozoic proxies going back 500 million years show the same lead on million-year scales. Modern observations show the same lead at months: a volcanic cooling slows CO₂ growth, an El Niño warming raises CO₂ about six months later.
The authors are not aware of a single record in which CO₂ leads local temperature. The direction of precedence is a datum, not a model output.
A Structural Impossibility
The Bern model represents the ocean as parallel compartments each in direct contact with the atmosphere. In the real ocean CO₂ molecules enter only through the surface. Transport to the thermocline and the deep ocean happens in series, after that. The permanent airborne fraction that falls out of the Bern model's parallel architecture has no physical pathway in a serial ocean. It is an artifact of the schematic.
The Thermodynamic Status of the Global Average
Temperature is an intensive property. The arithmetic mean of surface temperatures across a planet that is not in equilibrium has no referent in physics. Cohler proved this in 2025. It is a theorem.
Two consequences follow. The Bern coefficients inherit the defect because they are fitted to the pulse responses of Earth System Models tuned to that same mean. The Argo ocean heat content estimates inherit it too, because they rely on the same area-weighted average of an intensive quantity.
What CERES Actually Measures
The unadjusted CERES net top-of-atmosphere imbalance for July 2005 through June 2015 is 4.3 W m⁻². The widely cited 0.71 W m⁻² is not a CERES measurement. It is the sum of three in situ ocean and cryosphere heat uptake estimates. The CERES shortwave and longwave fluxes are shifted by 3.5 W m⁻² to match that sum.
The authors of the CERES product call the shift "within uncertainty." That phrasing, taken at face value, implies a global 1σ of at least 3.5 W m⁻². Against that uncertainty the 0.71 W m⁻² value sits about one fifth of a standard deviation above zero. It is not a detection.
Closing the Energy Balance Without Humans
The isotope data say the fossil contribution to net input is undetectable. The growth rate to explain is 2.25 ppm per year. Standard van't Hoff solubility kinetics and Arrhenius respiration kinetics, applied to the ocean mixed layer and to global soils, convert a top-of-atmosphere imbalance of 2.6 W m⁻² into exactly that growth rate.
That value sits well inside the raw CERES envelope of 4.3 ± 3.5 W m⁻². It is deduced from the measured growth rate, the measured isotopic intercept, and known physical constants. It is not tuned.
What the Measurements Say
The claims the public has been given are these. Human emissions dominate the modern rise in atmospheric CO₂. A large fraction of those emissions will remain airborne for centuries to millennia. The Bern model describes the real carbon cycle. The satellite record has established a precise, statistically significant energy imbalance driven by human forcing.
Each one fails on the measurements. The reservoir is linear with a 3.5 to 4 year residence time. The bomb pulse is a single exponential the Bern functions cannot reproduce. The Keeling intercept has not moved for five centuries. The Bern ocean has no physical pathway. The CERES value is a shift to an in situ target derived from an area-weighted average of an intensive quantity, and the raw measurement does not statistically differ from zero. The observed rise is accounted for by temperature-dependent fluxes from the ocean and the biosphere under a modest natural imbalance that sits well inside the uncertainty of the satellite record.
The story given to the public is not merely incomplete. It is contradicted by its own instruments.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
What would happen to the medical industrial complex if everyone left the broken system and let it collapse?
I will never pay for medical insurance ever again. I paid Kaiser Permanente over $100,000 (total) for monthly premiums to be denied emergency medical care when I needed it. I am now permanently disabled bc of Kaiser’s denial of emergency medical care.
Imagine paying $1,800 a month to insure three people in one family.
$21,600 a year just to say, "We have health insurance."
Your family gets some basic medical care and still comes home owing another $3,000.
“You haven’t met your deductible.”
Then you find out those same services would’ve cost $1,500 if you had paid cash.
So let me get this straight.
I paid you $21,600 for security and my reward is a bill twice as high as the cash price?
If I sold a butcher-shop membership for $1,800 a month, then charged members double for hamburger, you’d call the police.
This is why Americans can't have nice things. We are all one ER trip away from bankruptcy.
Why do we stand for this level of corruption in health care and why do the people we elect have no sense of urgency to do something about it?
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Many in the comments are saying: "The French voted for this."
Fine. Now ask yourself a better question.
Why is it the same story in every Western country at once? France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, Belgium, Canada. Different languages, different histories, different voters. Same outcome. Same open-border policies, sold in the same beautiful packaging: progress, inclusion, integration, "our values."
When dozens of peoples who never coordinated end up with the exact same policy, it wasn't the peoples who decided. It was the class that governs all of them. Same schools, same forums, same networks. For decades, they have systematically lied to Europeans about what was happening and what it would cost.
They tried it with you too, America. You came close. What saved you was your Constitution, and a handful of people like Elon Musk and the All-In crew who refused to stay quiet when silence would have been easier.
But don't celebrate too early.
The West is not a country. It's a civilization. Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, and every nation that inherited or built on what came out of them: Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, Israel, and allies like Japan who share its institutions and its fate.
If Europe falls, you don't get to watch from across the ocean. You lose half your civilization, your oldest allies, the cradle of everything you believe in. Nobody on either side of the Atlantic has any interest in waking up to an Islamist Europe.
So understand that this fight has two levels.
There is the national fight. Every people has to win its own battle at home, at the ballot box, in its own institutions, under its own laws. No one can do it for us. You can't vote in France, and we can't vote in Ohio.
And there is the civilizational fight. The West is under attack on two fronts at once. From the inside, by a soft communism that hates its own history and wants to dissolve nations into a managed mass. From the outside, by Islamism, which sees our weakness and fills the vacuum. And the two have found each other: Islamo-leftism, where the far left defends the very ideology that would crush it first.
The national fights are the battles. The civilizational fight is the war.
And here's what the other side exploits: your kindness.
Western civilization produced something rare in human history: a moral instinct to extend compassion to strangers. To the refugee, the outsider, the weakest. It's one of the most beautiful things we ever built.
The globalist class turned it into a weapon against us.
Gad Saad has a name for this: suicidal empathy. Empathy that no longer asks who it protects and who pays the price. Empathy that cares more about how it looks than about what it causes. Empathy so detached from reason that it ends up sacrificing your own people, the girl attacked on her way home, the worker priced out of his neighborhood, the town that no longer recognizes itself, just to signal virtue toward strangers.
And every time you object, they don't answer your argument. They question your heart. "Where is your compassion?" That's the trap. They know a decent people will hesitate before being called cruel. They've been running that play for thirty years.
Now add the money.
A few left-wing billionaires understood long ago that you don't need to win elections if you can shape the institutions around them. The Gates Foundation became one of the largest funders of the World Health Organization. George Soros's Open Society Foundations have spent billions funding NGOs, advocacy groups and legal networks, with Europe as a major focus. Unelected, unaccountable, and extremely well organized.
And it's not only private money. Brussels funds NGOs with taxpayers' money, and those same NGOs then lobby Brussels for the policies it already wanted. A closed loop. Citizens pay for it. Nobody ever asked them.
This is the supranational machine: Brussels, the galaxy of NGOs orbiting it, the foundations feeding them, and the political class moving freely between all three. It answers to no voter in any country. It does enormous damage. And it can't be voted out, because no one ever voted it in.
And if you want to know where its center of gravity is, look at Washington.
The Democratic Party is its political headquarters. Not because every Democrat is a globalist, but because that's where the whole network converges: the big foundations, the NGO galaxy, the international organizations, the legacy media, the platforms. Same donors, same people rotating from one to the other, same worldview. Brussels is the branch office.
Covid showed it in real time.
Within weeks, almost the entire Western world adopted the same playbook. Same measures, same messaging, same "trust the science." Anthony Fauci became the face of the official line far beyond America's borders. The Gates Foundation, co-founder of the global vaccine alliances and one of the WHO's largest funders, sat at the center of global health policy. And anyone who questioned the line was branded a spreader of misinformation.
The lab-leak hypothesis was a "conspiracy theory" right up until it became a respectable one. And in 2024, Mark Zuckerberg admitted in writing that senior Biden administration officials had repeatedly pressured Meta in 2021 to censor Covid content, including humor and satire.
Government, foundations, international organizations, platforms. All moving in the same direction, at the same time, and no voter ever consulted.
That's the machine. Covid was the moment it stopped hiding.
That machine is what has to be taken apart. Defund the NGOs living off public money. Bring decisions back to elected national parliaments. Make every foundation that shapes public policy as transparent as a political party.
Compassion is a Western virtue. Letting it be used against us is not.
So let's not fall into the trap.
The trap is Western nations turning on each other. Americans mocking Europeans, Europeans sneering at Americans, each country telling itself "they deserve what's happening to them, they voted for it."
I'm pro-border. I'm pro-nation. I believe every people has the right to decide who enters its home and to defend its own culture. That will never change.
But what we face today is not one nation attacking another. It's an attack on the civilization all our nations belong to. And a civilization under attack cannot afford to let its members watch each other burn.
When you see France on fire, don't say "they chose this." Understand how it happened. Understand who did it. And understand that the same people are working on you.
The West has to stand together against this, fully, without ambiguity, and its peoples have to understand each other. National pride and civilizational solidarity are not opposites. They are the same fight at two scales.
A Frenchman voting to take back his borders and an American voting on November 3rd are on the same front, in the same war, for the same civilization.
We lose it separately, or we win it together.
To every American, and to everyone watching France burn from abroad:
Do not blame the French people for this.
We never asked for it. We never voted for it. And the one time we were clearly asked, we said no.
Here are the numbers your media won't show you.
70% of the French say there are too many immigrants in France today.
79% want a tougher immigration policy.
77% disapprove of the government's record on immigration.
83% want foreign criminals and long-term unemployed foreigners sent home.
And no, it's not just the old. 69% of French 18 to 24 year olds support suspending legal immigration for three years.
This is not a fringe. This is the French people.
In 2005, we were asked if we wanted the European Constitution. 55% voted no. Three years later, our politicians passed the same text under another name, through parliament, without ever asking us again.
That is modern France in one sentence. The people say no. The elites do it anyway.
So who is responsible? The politicians who lied to us. A class of leaders formed in the same schools, the same forums, the same networks, loyal to each other before they are loyal to their nations.
In 2017, at Harvard, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, bragged about his Young Global Leaders program in four words: "We penetrate the cabinets." He added that it was true in France. Emmanuel Macron was one of his Young Global Leaders.
It's the same project in Brussels with Ursula von der Leyen and in Paris with Macron. Borders treated as an obstacle. Nations treated as relics. The people treated as a problem to be managed.
What you are watching in France is not the French people failing. It is the end of the globalist project, an abject, quasi-communist dream of a world run by unelected planners. It is collapsing everywhere in Europe at once, and the West has to cut this cancer out before it takes the rest of the body with it.
The peoples of Europe don't want this. They never did.
So when you see our town halls burning, don't say "the French chose this."
The French never chose this.
They were forced into it.
If you're French and you agree, repost this so the world hears it from us.
If you're American, look at us carefully. Then choose differently on November 3rd.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
People ask me why I'm so obsessed with ruminants. I've given it some thought, and my conclusion is that I'm not obsessed enough.
A cow walks onto a wet hillside that grows nothing a human can eat, puts her head down, and comes back with steak, butter, cream and a pair of boots.
She does it with a 150 litre fermentation tank she carries inside her, stocked with more bacteria than there have ever been people, which she feeds, waters and keeps at blood heat herself. Grass goes in. The bacteria take apart the one thing no animal can digest, and she lives on what they make. Then she digests the bacteria as well. Nothing is wasted. Even the fat comes out the far side rebuilt into something stable enough to fry in.
Fuel: rain and sunlight. Emissions: next year's grass. She repairs herself, builds her own replacement every spring, and improves the ground she is standing on while she works. The finest engineers alive have spent billions trying to copy one chamber of her stomach in a steel shed, and so far they have made a paste.
We have leaned on that machine for everything. The word capital comes from cattle, because a herd was the first bank. Domesday Book is written on sheep, and so was every deed in England for 500 years. Ruminants clothed our armies, lit our houses and carried our laws. Civilisation is a thing that happened to people who kept them.
And they are such good company about it.
A sheep remembers fifty faces for two years, which is forty-six more than I manage. A cow has a best friend, and her heart rate drops when that friend is beside her. A goat that cannot solve a problem will turn and look to you for help, as a dog does, and then ignore your advice. Let a herd out onto spring grass after a winter indoors and half a tonne of animal will skip.
They ask for grass, rain, and to be left to get on with it.
After ten thousand years of feeding, dressing and housing us, they will still walk over to the gate to see who you are.
So no, I will not be calming down.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Every surgeon general should have this level of ethical clarity and respect for rights. Thank you @FLSurgeonGen
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo just delivered a fierce defense of his decision to end vaccine mandates for Hep B, chickenpox, Hib, and pneumococcal.
Bookmark this.
“Parental rights … absolutely need to be protected.”
“It’s not a debate.”
“They’re immutable.”
“We’re not having a debate over what the herd immunity thresholds are.”
“We’re not having a debate over the effectiveness of these different vaccines, which vary.”
“We’re not having a debate over the safety of these different vaccines, which varies.”
“Herd immunity isn’t constant for different vaccines.”
“Some vaccines may protect against illness, but may not protect against transmission.”
“To advance the goals of public health, one of the things is that we need to respect … parental rights.”
“That’s been lost, unfortunately, in the conversation about public health recently.”
“We’re not actually doing anything very new.”
“We’re sort of falling back to classic tenets of public health.”
@FLSurgeonGen @HealthyFla
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Lina, you don't know the honest truth.
In the military, you got your POGs... Person Other than a Grunt. Guys who don't shoot anything. You need them, because you need all sorts of specialties, but you can't trust their big-picture judgement, because the overall mission of the military is shootin' people, and they don't do that.
In civilization, we have POMs.
Person Other than a Maker. Dudes what don't build things. You might need them. But you shouldn't take them too seriously, or listen to them too much, because on some fundamental level, they are never going to get it. They are never going to understand. The fundamental task of civilization is making things, and POMs don't do that.
"This is just a mash-up of existing technology" is the most POM-like typing you could ever hope to see. It's a tell that someone has never done a significant engineering project in a technical role.
Experienced engineers not only understand differently, we eat, sleep and breathe the basic reality that 99% of engineering challenges are "get mechanism to work with other mechanism". Without breaking, shaking itself apart or blowing up.
Every basic scientific principle behind the internal combustion automobile was understood by the ancient Greeks and Romans.
And yet they were not only unable to harness those principles to make a primitive steam-powered automobile, they were unable to conceive of the very idea, because their ability to implement and integrate wasn't advanced enough.
If you look at everything that Elon Musk has ever done, every company he has ever built, every technology he has ever brought to market, none of it was a purely new invention.
It was ALL taking stuff that already kinda worked, and making it do new things. And not just do them, but do them so well that they actually became practical.
SpaceX didn't invent the rocket. They made it reusable.
Tesla didn't invent the electric motor or the battery. They made them practical for ground transportation.
Neurallink didn't invent electrical nerve interfaces. They made them control a computer UI.
This shit is incredibly hard. If you try to use the known principle of a cold-gas thruster to make a car fly, you're going to crash and blow up a lot. You're going to have to make mistakes, and fix them, one by one, until you run out of mistakes and the thing flies.
Real engineers, real makers, know that this is what the word engineering means. POMs don't get it. Lina doesn't understand what she saw.
She thinks she saw a publicity stunt to impress yokels.
No. That was a publicity stunt to impress engineers.
It wasn't a demonstration of a flying car at all. It was a demonstration of the engineering capabilities of team.
It was a flex.
"Look," they said, "we can reify the Gernsback continuum. Give us your silliest, low-effort science fiction meme tech, and give us enough time, and we'll make it real."
The purpose of making a flying car isn't to let you do a jetpack leap over traffic. It's to learn all the little implementation details and balancing tradeoffs and gotchas that you have to master to make a car fly.
It's not the big scientific discoveries that build civilization. By themselves, they are nothing but curiosities.
What builds civilization is all the little discoveries that you make when you try to get the big ones to stop crashing and blowing up.
When someone does that on a unprecedented level, you either help them, or you stay out of the way and keep your ignorant POM opinions to yourself.
I'm not an Elon hater.
I'm just telling you the Honest Truth:
This is a marketing stunt.
The technology is quite old.
Just nobody ever thought of bolting it on a car.
Because it's pointless.
Porsche or Ferrari could also build something like this if they wanted, but they don't, because it's not worth it for them.
It's worth it for Elon though, because his entire brand is all about having the halo of futurism.
His marketing scales especially well with tech gimmicks like this, which is why he is financially incentivised to do them, while others aren't.
Again, I'm not hating, but actually educating yall.
This is not engineering genius.
It's marketing genius.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Ed Henry with @NEWSMAX tried to get me to go easy on MAHA and Kennedy. Here’s my response;
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Wrong. The best idea on the table is Free Market Medical Care with Catastrophic Only Health Insurance.
We have proven this already. Direct Primary Care and Direct Specialty Care is Better, more Accessible and More Affordable than Medicare for All and Corporate Healthcare.
95% of Americans CAN Afford Direct Primary Care and Direct Specialty Care. Saying otherwise is ignorance.
Two-thirds of Americans now say they favor Medicare for All, according to a new @KFF poll. That's the highest level KFF has recorded since it started polling the idea in 2016, up from 53 percent in 2020.
This tells me two things: Americans are fed up with rising health care costs, and no one is offering up a more realistic, more effective alternative.
You can't beat something with nothing, and right now Medicare for All is close to the only something on the table. Health policy experts need to offer something else.
What are your best ideas? (Mine are coming)
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo just delivered a fierce defense of his decision to end vaccine mandates for Hep B, chickenpox, Hib, and pneumococcal.
Bookmark this.
“Parental rights … absolutely need to be protected.”
“It’s not a debate.”
“They’re immutable.”
“We’re not having a debate over what the herd immunity thresholds are.”
“We’re not having a debate over the effectiveness of these different vaccines, which vary.”
“We’re not having a debate over the safety of these different vaccines, which varies.”
“Herd immunity isn’t constant for different vaccines.”
“Some vaccines may protect against illness, but may not protect against transmission.”
“To advance the goals of public health, one of the things is that we need to respect … parental rights.”
“That’s been lost, unfortunately, in the conversation about public health recently.”
“We’re not actually doing anything very new.”
“We’re sort of falling back to classic tenets of public health.”
@FLSurgeonGen @HealthyFla
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
The Lancet was an outstanding medical journal; I was a subscriber from medical through residency and fellowship. It was printed on thin, non-gloss paper, had no or minimal ads, was beautifully written, and had timely, clinically relevant content. I read it religiously. Peer review was a one week process! At some point, they went to the dark side with Pharma, and the Left.
The New England Journal of Medicine followed a similar trajectory.
The decline of these formerly excellent institutions parallels the decline of the medical profession. The common denominator is corruption.
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, concluded that medical journals had “devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
This statement comes from his March 2004 New York Review of Books essay “The Dawn of McScience.” He described how companies sponsor meetings, pay speakers, have communications firms turn the talks into articles (often with minimal or no peer review), and then pay publishers large sums to run them as journal supplements. The result, he argued, is marketing dressed up as science that seeds the literature with weaker evidence used to promote products.
Around the same period, in written and oral evidence to the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee (2004–2005), Horton described the journal–industry relationship as “somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic,” noting that it had swung too far toward the parasitic side. He highlighted financial pressures (e.g., companies promising large reprint orders if a favorable paper is published, or threatening to pull papers if criticism is not softened) and listed roughly 10 distorting practices, including:
• Manipulation or selective reporting of findings
• Bias toward positive results in industry-sponsored studies
• Hiding negative or adverse data
• Ghostwriting
• Lightly peer-reviewed supplements used for marketing
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
He stated that commercial sponsorship of research and its intrusion into academia represented “one of the gravest threats to the independent evaluation of new medicines—indeed to the notion of an independent science base,” and that the for-profit motive of the sector clashes with public-health values and independent scientific research.
In a 2013 Lancet piece (“Falling out with pharma”), Horton withdrew the journal’s support from industry-linked guidance on doctor–pharma collaboration, saying the document’s claims did not match the evidence on company behavior regarding transparency, medical education, and prescribing influence.
His better-known 2015 editorial (“Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”) was broader—arguing that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” due to small samples, invalid analyses, tiny effects, and “flagrant conflicts of interest”—but conflicts of interest (often industry-related) were explicitly part of that critique.
These statements reflect Horton’s long-standing concerns about industry influence on the medical evidence base rather than a single one-off finding.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
The evidence of history suggests the modern climate agenda is designed to reshape human society, weaken sovereignty and consolidate centralised global control.
The foundational flaw of the climate narrative is the omission of context. We were told current temperatures and CO₂ levels were unprecedented, yet geological history tells the exact opposite story. For the past 34 million years - since the glaciation of Antarctica, and driven by tectonic shifts and changing ocean currents - Earth has been locked in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
These conditions intensified 2.58 million years ago into the Quaternary glaciation, characterised by long, brutal glacial periods interrupted by temporary, warmer interglacials, like the Holocene we live in today.
During the past 541 million years of exploding biological diversity (the Phanerozoic Eon) the global temperature has averaged 24°C, ranging from 18°C to 34°C peaks. This is fully 9°C warmer than today’s calculated average of 15°C. We are living in unusually 'cold times' and there is no likelihood of an urgent global warming or climate change facing human society.
The other nemesis comes in the form of CO₂, which is the foundation for photosynthesis, agriculture and the rise of complex life on Earth. Rather than suffering from an excess of CO₂, Earth has been experiencing a long-term carbon decline.
Prior to the industrial era, low CO₂ levels contributed to global aridity, the retreat of biomass and loss of ancient rainforests. An increase in atmospheric CO₂ represents an opportunity for life's biological resurgence, as a fertiliser that stimulates biological growth and expands the planet's agricultural produce.
The natural world has endured genuine, cataclysmic upheavals - but this is not one of them. The great extinction events of the past - such as the Carnian Pluvial Episode or the End-Permian extinction - played out over tens of thousands to millions of years. Yet the biological world survived, adapted and survived.
When the planet experienced sustained, greenhouse conditions, life didn't collapse - it flourished. During the Eocene Epoch 56 million years ago, palm trees grew in the Arctic, ice disappeared from the poles and lush rainforests and endless biology blanketed 85% of the Earth's landmass.
Far from a wasteland, the Eocene was a time of astonishing biological abundance of food and a massive radiation of mammalian life. The lessons of history show us that warmer conditions are not to be feared; they are catalysts for biological resilience and growth.
The brief fluctuations of past decades do not constitute a climate crisis; they are evidence of a temporary, microscopic blip in geological time.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
Have you noticed the insane pressure to put your kids through college – almost like a blackmail?
It is as if it was recruitment into a sect…
Because it is.
The sect of leftism.
Look at how it works. Every sect uses the same toolkit.
First, the threat. Without us, you are nothing. Your child will flip burgers, marry badly, disappoint the family. Parents hear it from teachers, from neighbours, from other parents at dinner. Nobody says it outright. Everybody feels it.
Second, the price of entry. Years of the child’s life, and often a debt that follows him for decades. A sect that costs nothing is easy to leave. A sect that cost you everything you defend to the end, because the alternative is admitting you were fooled.
Third, separation from the family. The child leaves home at eighteen, the age when the mind is most open and the family most absent. He arrives where nobody knows his parents, and everybody knows what to think.
Fourth, a new language. He comes home at Christmas with words his parents don’t understand, and a moral vocabulary in which they are the problem. The father who paid for it all is now part of what must be overcome.
Fifth, the reward for loyalty. The diploma is not proof of knowledge. It is proof of membership. It opens the doors – jobs, marriages, social standing – that members keep for each other.
And the cleverest part: the parents pay for it. Conservative families raise the child, feed him, form him for eighteen years. Then they pay to have him converted. No sect in history has managed that.
Now the honest part, which makes the blackmail worse, not better: the threat is partly real. In many professions the diploma is still the gate. That is exactly why it works. Blackmail only works when the hostage is real.
The diploma was meant to certify that a young person can think. It now certifies that he thinks correctly.
A society that only hires on the second has already stopped needing the first.
So what do we do? Not refuse education. Refuse the monopoly. Learning is not the same as college. A young person can master mathematics, physics, history, a trade and three languages without four years of moral re-education. If he must go, prepare him before he goes. Build alternatives that don’t ask for his soul as tuition. Hire people for what they can do, not for which sect stamped their papers.
We can make flying cars without them!
Conservatism reproduces by birth. Leftism reproduces by conversion.
Look at almost any country. Conservatives have more children. Liberals have fewer. And yet the left does not die out. It grows. How?
It takes ours.
The left does not need children of its own. It needs schools, universities, big cities and screens. We raise our children for eighteen years. The university converts them in four. We do the work. They collect the harvest.
So conservatism has the children and keeps losing them. This has to stop, and ideally reverse.
First: stop giving them our children.
This doesn’t mean hiding them from the world. It means refusing to hand them over by default. The school is not neutral. The university is not neutral. The big city is not neutral. A family that sends a child into all three unprepared is not being open-minded. It is making a donation to its opponents.
Second: give the young something worth staying for.
A young person doesn’t leave because the left has better arguments. He leaves because the left offers belonging and a cause, and we offer him rules. The young are critical. Good. They will not swallow dogma. The Church asks them to believe first and understand later, and most of them walk away before later arrives.
We need an attractive ideological offering – ideally a religion, but one that doesn’t reject the critical minds of today’s young – not the Church with its dogma.
They need a faith that survives questioning. I suggest a Religion of Life (and Fertility).
The objection comes at once: invented religions fail. Comte tried a Religion of Humanity. Robespierre tried the Cult of the Supreme Being. The Soviets tried to worship the State. All dead.
But look at what they worshipped: abstractions. Nobody can love Humanity. Nobody can love Reason. You can love a child. Life is not an idea you must believe in. It is something you hold in your arms at three in the morning.
Fertility may or may not be in the name. Nobody has a child to improve a statistic. Fertility is the fruit, not the root… The root is a simple conviction: life is good, the future is worth inheriting, and what you received you owe forward. Believe that, and the children follow. Chase the birth rate without it, and you get Hungary: a bump, then a fall.
Such a religion asks for no miracles and fears no questions. It offers the one thing the left cannot: a reason to want tomorrow.
The left converts. We must convince. Better still, we must become something worth being born into. If we can’t, the children will keep leaving. And they will be right to.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
My dear American friends, in my last post I gave you a snapshot of where France stands today. Now let me show you how we got here. I want you to see the whole movie before you buy the ticket.
After the war, France was a machine. We called it the Trente Glorieuses, thirty glorious years. We built Concorde, the most beautiful aircraft ever made. We built a fleet of nuclear reactors in about fifteen years and gave ourselves some of the cleanest, cheapest electricity in the world. We built Ariane and put Europe in space. We built the TGV, the fastest train on earth. We invented the Minitel, an online network in millions of homes before most of you had heard of the internet. We were not a museum. We were builders.
Then came 1981. François Mitterrand. Think of him as our Bernie Sanders, except he actually won. At his side, in the office next to his at the Élysée, sat a 37-year-old prodigy named Jacques Attali, his special adviser for the next ten years. The brightest minds of the left, convinced they could run an economy from a ministry.
Here's what they did. They governed with Communist ministers. In 1982 they nationalized dozens of banks and the biggest industrial groups in the country: Paribas, Suez, Saint-Gobain, Thomson, Pechiney, Rhône-Poulenc. They lowered the retirement age to 60. They cut the work week to 39 hours and added a fifth week of paid vacation. They created a wealth tax. They hired massively into the public sector.
Reality hit in less than two years. Capital fled, inflation ran wild, and the franc was devalued three times. In March 1983 Mitterrand had to slam on the brakes and impose austerity just to stay in the European monetary system.
But here's the trick: the brakes never reversed anything. They just slowed the ratchet. The so-called right came back with Jacques Chirac, and nothing was undone. Under Chirac's presidency, France passed the 35-hour work week. Left or right, every government added one more program, one more rule, one more tax, and nobody ever took one away.
At the same time, the political class did something even more destructive than bad economics. It turned the youth into a political instrument. Instead of teaching young people, including millions of children of immigrants, to love the country they lived in, it taught them a story of guilt and grievance: France as the oppressor, France as the thing to resent. You cannot integrate people into a country you've taught them to despise. We are living with the consequences of that narrative today, in our schools, our suburbs, our streets.
Then forty years of slow decline, all the way to Macron. And the story has a perfect ending. In 2007, Jacques Attali chaired a commission on how to unleash French growth. Its deputy rapporteur was a young civil servant named Emmanuel Macron. The commission proposed more than 300 reforms to free the economy. Almost none were ever implemented. Even the men who built the system knew it wasn't working, and even they couldn't undo it.
No balanced budget since 1974. Public spending around 57% of GDP. Debt above 3,300 billion euros. Growth stuck under 1%.
Now the number that should keep you up at night. In 1995, GDP per person in France was about $27,000. In America, about $29,000. We were neck and neck. Today France is around $49,000. America is around $90,000. You are now nearly twice as rich per person as we are.
What changed? Not our talent. Not our engineers. Not our schools of mathematics. The only thing that changed is that we went all in on socialism. The 35 hours, the endless regulation, the taxes that chase out anyone who builds, the belief that the state should do everything and the individual should ask permission for everything.
There's a line people love to attribute to Einstein: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We tried. For forty years, we tried. Every government promised that one more program, one more tax, one more regulation would finally fix things. You just saw where it got us.
So if you choose the Democratic Party, which is literally turning socialist in front of your eyes, you will deserve what comes next.
Let me tell you exactly what will happen if you go down that road. Nobody will vote for decline. Every single measure will sound generous, compassionate, reasonable. Your builders will slowly leave or stop building. Your state will grow every year and never shrink. Your debt will compound. And in thirty years, your kids will look at a chart like the one I just described and wonder when it all went wrong.
You still have something we lost. You have Elon Musk sending rockets to orbit and landing them on their tail. You have Palmer Luckey building the defense industry of the future. You have Jeff Bezos, Jensen Huang, and thousands of founders nobody has heard of yet, building in garages right now.
Trust your entrepreneurs. Don't trust your politicians.
I come from your future. Don't make it yours.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Jane Orient, MD retweeted
My dear American friends, in my last post I showed you a number that should terrify you: 70% of Millennials say they're pro-socialist. Today I want to show you why. Not with emotion. With pure logic. Step by step, A plus B, until the conclusion is impossible to escape.
Adults, this one is for you. Read it, then explain it to the young people in your life.
Start with Peter Thiel. Years ago he summed up our era in one line: we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters. His thesis is that since the early 1970s, the world of bits has kept racing forward while the world of atoms has stalled. Computers, phones, software, the internet: incredible progress. Housing, energy, transportation, medicine, education: stuck. We build almost nothing physical faster or cheaper than our grandparents did.
Why would progress stop in some places and not others? Same country, same people, same capitalism. The only thing that differs is how much the state is involved.
Here is the proof.
Step one: look at prices. Since 2000, in America, the price of TVs has fallen by more than 90%. Software, phones, toys, clothing: cheaper and better every year. Over the same period, college tuition, hospital services, childcare and housing have more than doubled.
Step two: look at which is which. The goods getting cheaper are the ones where companies compete freely and the state mostly stays out. The goods exploding in price are the ones where the state regulates the most, subsidizes the most, or controls who is allowed to sell.
Step three: look at what young people complain about. They don't complain about TVs. They complain about rent, student debt and healthcare. Exactly the three sectors the state controls the most.
That's not a coincidence. That's a pattern. Let's go one by one.
Housing. In many American cities, most residential land is zoned for single-family homes only. Building an apartment building can take years of permits, hearings, environmental reviews and lawsuits from neighbors. When you make it nearly illegal to build, supply can't keep up, and prices go up. The young don't have a capitalism problem. They have a permission problem.
Education. Washington hands out loans without asking whether the degree is worth it, so universities raise prices because they can. The money doesn't go to better teaching. It goes to layers of administrators that have grown faster than the faculty. And the accreditation system makes it extremely hard for a new, cheaper school to compete. The incumbents are protected. The students pay.
Healthcare. In many states, if you want to open a new hospital or even buy a new MRI machine, you need a "certificate of need," permission from a board where your future competitors often have a say. The number of residency slots that train new doctors is effectively capped by Medicare funding. Getting a new drug approved costs billions. Every rule adds a layer. Every layer adds a cost. Every cost lands on the patient.
Energy. America built dozens of nuclear reactors in the 1970s. Since then, only a handful, years late and billions over budget. Not because physics changed. Because the rulebook did.
Now step four, the most important one. Who benefits from all these layers?
Not the young. Not the poor. The incumbents. The big hospital systems, the big universities, the big developers, the big pharma companies, the big unions. Every complex regulation is a wall that only the giants can afford to climb. So they lobby for more of it. They fund the politicians who write it. They hire the regulators when they leave office. That's not capitalism. That's cronyism. Capitalism is a newcomer allowed to compete. Cronyism is an incumbent paying the state to stop him.
Step five: so what do young people see? They see prices going up, a system rigged for insiders, and no way to build anything for themselves. Their anger is legitimate. Their diagnosis is wrong. They look at the result of the state's capture and call it capitalism.
Step six: and what cure are they offered? Socialism. Which means giving the state even more power over housing, education, healthcare, energy. Giving the keys of the house to the exact institution that locked them out of it.
Follow the logic to the end. If regulation creates cronyism, then total regulation creates total cronyism. If a little state control makes things expensive, total state control makes them scarce. That's not theory. The Soviet Union had a ruling class with its own shops, cars and dachas while ordinary people stood in line for bread. Stalin's collectivization caused a famine that killed millions in Ukraine. Mao's Great Leap Forward caused a famine that killed tens of millions. Venezuela went from one of the richest countries in Latin America to a nation where millions fled. Every time the state got all the keys, the insiders ate and the people starved.
So here's the conclusion, and there's no escaping it:
Where entrepreneurs are free to compete, prices fall and life gets better. Where the state controls, prices rise and insiders get rich. Young people are suffering in the sectors the state controls. Socialism means handing the state everything. So socialism gives you more of the very thing that's hurting you.
The enemy is not capitalism. The enemy is a state captured by insiders, blocking the builders who would solve your problems.
Adults, this is your job now. Don't tell the young they're stupid. Don't tell them their anger is fake. Tell them they're right to be angry, and show them where to aim it. Ask them: what got cheaper in your lifetime, and what got more expensive? Who controls each one? Let them do the math themselves.
The real counter-revolution isn't against the young. It's with them. Free the builders. Let people build homes, open schools, open clinics, build reactors. Give the next generation a stake in the system, and they'll defend it with their lives.
I come from your future. We gave the state the keys. Don't make the same mistake.
My dear American friends, I've shown you where the disease came from and who sells it. Now I want you to look at this email.
January 5, 2020, 2:44 in the morning. Peter Thiel writes to Mark Zuckerberg, Nick Clegg, Sheryl Sandberg and Marc Andreessen. It became public years later, in a lawsuit between the state of Tennessee and Meta. The subject line is one word: Millennials.
Thiel starts from a number: 70% of Millennials say they are pro-socialist.
Read that again. Seven out of ten young adults in the richest, freest, most innovative country in human history say they want the system that ruined every country that tried it.
And Thiel, one of the sharpest minds in Silicon Valley, says something important. Don't just dismiss them as stupid or brainwashed. Understand why. His answer: when you're crushed by student debt and housing is unaffordable, you have no capital and no way to build any. And if you have no stake in capitalism, you turn against it.
He's right. But follow the thread one step further, because that's where it gets interesting.
Who made college unaffordable? Washington flooded universities with easy federal loans, and universities raised their prices year after year, because they could. The same universities that then taught those students, for four years, that capitalism is the problem.
Who made housing unaffordable? Zoning rules, permits, environmental reviews, endless regulation that makes it nearly illegal to build. Remember Piketty's famous rise of capital? It was mostly housing. Scarcity created by the state.
So here's the full picture. The state creates the scarcity. The universities teach that capitalism caused it. The politicians sell socialism as the cure. The arsonist is selling fire insurance.
That's why 70% is not a natural opinion. No generation wakes up one morning wanting central planning. It takes decades of teaching, a captured culture, and an economy rigged to give young people no stake in it. In a healthy country, that number would trigger a serious public investigation into what American universities have been teaching for fifty years. This is not a debate. It's the result of a long, patient operation, exactly the war of position Gramsci described from his prison cell.
Now let me tell you what history says happens when an ideology captures a generation and turns it against everything that came before.
China, 1966. Mao unleashes the Cultural Revolution and hands it to the youth. Students become Red Guards. Their mission: destroy the "Four Olds," old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. Temples, books, art, centuries of history, smashed.
In August 1966, at a girls' school in Beijing, students beat their vice principal, Bian Zhongyun, to death. She was one of the first. Teachers across the country were humiliated, tortured, killed by the children they had taught.
In 1970, a 16-year-old boy named Zhang Hongbing denounced his own mother for criticizing Mao. She was executed. He spent the rest of his life trying to apologize for it.
Children were taught that loyalty to the Party came before loyalty to their parents. Historians estimate the Cultural Revolution killed somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people.
The Soviet Union did it first. It turned a boy named Pavlik Morozov into a national hero for denouncing his father. Generations of Soviet children were raised on his story.
Cambodia, 1975. The Khmer Rouge declare Year Zero. Teenagers with rifles empty the cities. Wearing glasses was enough to mark you as an intellectual. In four years, roughly a quarter of the population was dead.
Every time, the same pattern. Take the young. Teach them that the past is guilty. Teach them that their parents, their teachers, their history are the enemy. Then give them power.
So when you see statues pulled down, words banned, books rewritten, and parents treated as obstacles in their own children's schools, understand what you're looking at. It's not the end of the story. It's the opening act. It always starts with the young, and it always starts with good intentions.
If the West ever gets its Marxist youth revolution, it won't end in Scandinavia. It will end the way it has ended every single time it was tried for real. And we will have learned nothing.
Thiel saw the number. I'm telling you where it leads.
The answer is not to hate the young. It's to give them back a stake in the system. Let them build. Let them buy a home. Make college worth its price or skip it. Let them start companies instead of drowning in debt. A generation that owns something defends it. A generation that owns nothing will burn it down.
I come from your future. Don't let your children write the next chapter of this story.
