Twitter poster of the year 2020, 2021, 2023
Florida
Joined October 2023
- Tweets19.8K
- Following91
- Followers1K
- Likes43K
Professor X retweeted
We spend way too much time in our apartments and it's making everyone anxious and depressed.
Bring back the office, bring back the office romances, bring back the annoying coworkers, bring back the post-work happy hours.
You're not depressed.
You're just under-socialized!
Professor X retweeted
When I say that women lack the concept of an honorable enemy, this is what I’m talking about.
Obviously a lot of the Democrats’ new vindictiveness is Trump derangement, but the Great Feminization is part of the story, too.
Men understand that the other guy is a professional just like me, and we should have an open fight by fair rules and both go home at the end of the day.
For women, conflict isn’t over until the other side is gone and they never have to talk to them again.
Men believe in hierarchy, so a fight is about establishing dominance within the hierarchy and making the other guy subordinate.
Women don’t, everything is egalitarian and consensus-driven, so if you do get conflict, the only possible outcome is total exclusion from the group.
It makes sense that the Democratic Party is abandoning old-fashioned ideas about honorable conflict as it becomes more dominated by women.
ON UCHICAGO CAMPUS: U.S. Senator from Michigan Elissa Slotkin hopes planned political prosecutions of republican leaders will scare young conservatives from getting involved in politics.
@ElissaSlotkin
I want to live in a society where behavior like this is met by police allowed to shoot anyone who acts out of line.
Completely agree. Republicans should go after her staff viciously, just playing this on loop every time they complain.
My takeaway from this is that every staffer for @SenatorSlotkin should be investigated, not because I think they’ve done anything wrong, but to send a signal to any elected official that if they are seeking to weaponize the government to put a chilling effect on the speech of their opposition, that there are consequences for that.
Let every single staffer for Slotkin face an avalanche of subpoenas, etc., until the signal is sent that the purpose of government is not to target those you disagree with.
Professor X retweeted
My strongest “vibes not evidence” belief is that remote work is a cancer that’s making (most) people miserable even though it seems better in the short term.
Professor X retweeted
Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility. They were told it would lead to this and they didn't listen.
I pray that France, a beautiful country of amazing people, will stop this madness before more of its landmarks burn.
And I hope Americans are paying attention. This is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.
PSA: most campus "rape" is women who wish to be absolved of their poor decisions. And to the extent that criminal behavior does happen, it is mostly minorities.
I’m going to let you in on a secret about rape that I learned while bouncing at 3 nightclubs concurrently for my entire undergrad. 500 nights at the club dealing with women and creeps have produced some insight.
The first thing to understand is that 99% of date-rape cases are just patently false. Every weekend like clockwork a new tiny girl who hadn’t eaten all day would confidently down 5 shots of tequila then claim she was drugged once word got around that she shit herself in a cab, or fell asleep in a dumpster.
I’ve lost count of how many of them were perplexed to report that their drug tests came back clean the next morning.
BUT… In my 500 nights of service, I witnessed it happen for real, bill cosby style, twice.
And in 100% of those cases it was a black or an Indian guy.
The first was a guy named Sohil who had actually openly made some suspect remarks to people I knew. Why was nothing done? Because the concept was so completely alien to the white guys around him that they simply didn’t believe what they were hearing.
It was exactly like the scene from American Psycho where he talks about a girls head on a stick as though it’s the punchline to a joke, and his friends just exchange a weird look and carry on. That’s how crazy the prospect of rape sounds to white guys, he might as well have said he had a head in his freezer.
Ultimately, Sohil was caught trying to sneak into a drugged girl’s bedroom window after her roommates had shuttled her home for the night. He was sentenced to 2 years in prison. There was no international outrage, no big news articles, nothing. Just a post on Facebook shared between the bar staff.
The second was a black guy from Martinique. He was a charming niggardly character who hung around the bars every weekend bumming cigarettes or making a few bucks selling fake cocaine. He lived in someone’s walk-in closet for $300 a month.
He had rumours circulating about his predation, but nobody had anything concrete until he was finally caught inappropriately touching an incapacitated girl and force feeding her drugs.
He was quickly and brutally sentenced to a swift release and a mild scolding from a social worker. He had successfully argued to the judge that people would kill him if he were sent back to Martinique, and was therefore let off with not even a slap on the wrist.
The funniest part of this whole ordeal is that we have reason to suspect that he was a refugee in the first place because he had raped the wrong guy’s sister back home. You genuinely can’t make this shit up.
Word got around to the bars, but this was back in the day. We didn’t have ID scanners, and hiring was a revolving door. Every Fortnite we’d have a new roster of Dianabol enthusiasts standing at the entrance letting groups of bombshells skip the line. It was impossible to entirely keep people out.
And so within 2 months it happened again. Exactly the same as last time. And the black guy hit the judge with the exact same excuse. Luckily the judge finally came to his senses, and sent him back to a third world shithole. He has lived in Paris France ever since.
I tell these stories because I’m at my whits end with headlines like the one I see below. At this point we’re so used to being gaslit that the omission of a description is as good as a 4K portrait.
So I’ll do my small part to set record straight.
It is never the white men.
This is exactly right. I have two sons that are almost college age.
@Cornell has made it clear they will not take the rights of my sons seriously and will engage in the destruction of their lives if they upset any women. Message received, loud and clear.
What a bind Cornell finds itself in! Enjoy it!
To retain its credibility as a progressive school, sympathetic to every manner of oppression that its pampered students allege they suffer from, it needs to embrace Jane Doe’s phony gang rape narrative. It must never ever disbelieve a “survivor.” It must also accede to the larger claim that females are unsafe at Cornell and beyond.
And so, as Cornell’s students indulged in the pleasures of property destruction, President Michael Kotlikoff validated Doe’s account and apologized for Cornell’s alleged negligence. “My heart aches when I think of what she experienced,” he said in his weepy October 3 video. “I am deeply sorry for the harm Jane Doe suffered in 2024 and appalled that this act of sexual violence occurred within our Cornell community,” he said in his October 13 campus-wide email. Cornell needed “systemic change,” according to Kotlikoff. Cornell must be a place where “safety is not an open question.” Apparently, at present safety is an open question. He even suggested that Doe was just one in a line of “other survivors” of Cornell’s rape culture.
So far, so good. Such rhetoric may not fend off further rioting, but it at least shows students that they continue to determine what is true and what is false.
But here is the catch: What if people outside this loop of co-dependency between self-engrossed students and fawning administrators—to wit: prospective applicants and their parents--actually believe Kotlikoff’s statements? What if they decide not to apply to a school where their safety is an “open question,” and which does not respond with sufficient rigor and seriousness to “campus rape?” Without the tuition dollars pouring in, Cornell would have to go on a diet and pare back its billowing student services bureaucracy!
So at the same time that Cornell’s leadership is pandering to its student mob, it is signaling to prospective applicants and to the massive college admissions industry not to take Cornell’s self-flagellation seriously. Cornell wants to reassure parents that their children would be safe at the school, Kotlikoff told the New York Times. Cornell’s admissions officials sent a letter to high school guidance counselors noting Cornell’s fulsome student safety and sexual violence infrastructure. Kotlikoff has personally reassured parents that the school takes sexual assault seriously—as the draconian punishments (two expulsions, two suspensions, and one ban from campus) meted out to the Cornell 7 demonstrate--despite the delusional received wisdom that Cornell did little to nothing in the case.
This dilemma of needing to play to multiple audiences has afflicted universities since the start of the campus rape hysteria. Fortunately, truth has long been malleable on college campuses, which embrace the idea that there is no such thing as a stable reality outside the play of rhetoric. So the adults on campus, such as they are, are adept at affirming contradictory propositions. Nevertheless, if applications to Cornell drop, expect the school to cut the BS and insist, truthfully, that there are few safer places for a young female to be than on the Cornell campus. And the student neurasthenics will just have to chant their victimhood by themselves.
Professor X retweeted
This is the most horrifying video to come out since 2016. All liberals assume Trump is a temporary disruption in their ability to oppress you. Until these people are mining lithium with dinner forks justice hasn't even been approximated.
Professor X retweeted
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred.
The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead.
By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable.
Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini.
The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place.
Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers.
On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse.
When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting.
On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT.
On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment."
The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients:
An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations.
As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board.
When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family.
At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims.
I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis.
The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide.
[In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.]
On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David.
Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice.
Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest.
The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.
While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view.
To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation.
Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here.
And the reputational damage was not just to David.
David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?"
For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts.
How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time.
For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute.
I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world.
To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here.
At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report.
Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
Seems pretty clear to me this situation with Omar is a trap.
Feds raid her home, and Democrats spring into action and reflexively defend her.
But that's not the end. There is going to be a slow drip of new evidence of obvious fraud, and each day Dems are going to have to decide if this is the day they finally drop their favorite pet Somalian.
Some won't, and they will find themselves absolutely cooked come the last week of October or so.
It's funny to me that Ilhan Omar has the shadiest history possible and yet Democrats will line up to defend her solely because she's one of them.
Directly connected to $250m fraud, husband had a fake wine business he got sued over, then his companies assets go from a thousand to millions.
That's not even including that she might not even legally be a citizen.
Professor X retweeted
I'm South African. I also want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. To warn you.
I come from even further into the future.
South Africa used to be a first-world country. We had the best infrastructure and hospitals in the world, and we were developing our own nuclear capability.
Today, there is literally shit running in the streets; people in our capital, Johannesburg, haven't had running water for months and more than 40 000 rape cases are reported every year.
For most South Africans, there is no such thing as healthcare. You go and stand in a queue for days, then go home.
This is what happens when you hand your country to economically illiterate progressive fools with catchy slogans.
Don't do it.
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.
Professor X retweeted
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.
Je n'ai jamais été aussi optimiste. Pas malgré le chaos actuel, mais grâce à lui.
Je vais vous expliquer pourquoi l'empire du mensonge construit par la gauche depuis cinquante ans va s'effondrer, et pourquoi ce n'est pas une opinion mais une question de physique.
Tout commence avec un mouvement né sur X il y a quelques années : l'effective accelerationism, ou e/acc.
Au départ, c'est une idée presque thermodynamique. L'univers a une tendance de fond : la matière s'organise pour capter et dissiper l'énergie de plus en plus efficacement. Une cellule fait ça. Une forêt fait ça. Une civilisation fait ça. Le marché, la technologie et le capital sont les formes les plus avancées de ce processus. Ce sont des machines à transformer l'énergie en intelligence, en abondance, en complexité.
La thèse e/acc est simple : il ne faut pas freiner cette dynamique, il faut l'embrasser. Plus d'énergie, plus de calcul, plus d'innovation, plus de croissance. Monter sur l'échelle de Kardashev au lieu de s'excuser d'exister. En face, il y a les « décels » : ceux qui veulent ralentir, réguler, taxer, interdire, culpabiliser. Ceux qui voient le progrès comme une menace à contenir plutôt qu'une force à libérer.
Mais il y a une dimension de l'accélération dont presque personne ne parle. L'accélération n'est pas seulement un moteur. C'est un filtre.
Pensez à n'importe quel organisme. Un corps humain en bonne santé peut courir. Il accélère, son cœur pompe plus fort, ses muscles consomment plus d'oxygène, et tout fonctionne parce que le système est bien conçu. Maintenant, prenez un corps malade. Des artères bouchées, un cœur fragile, des organes qui ne communiquent plus entre eux. Faites-le courir. Il ne va pas plus vite vers la santé. Il va plus vite vers l'infarctus.
L'accélération ne corrige pas les défauts d'un système. Elle les amplifie. Un système sain qui accélère devient plus fort. Un système dysfonctionnel qui accélère meurt plus vite.
Et c'est exactement ce qui est en train d'arriver au projet que je vais appeler par son nom : le projet globalo-socialiste. Celui porté par les démocrates américains, par la technostructure de Bruxelles, par les entités supranationales qui n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, par un réseau d'ONG financées par l'argent public pour dicter la morale aux peuples qui les financent.
Regardez ce que ce projet a produit.
Des États obèses qui prélèvent plus de la moitié de la richesse produite et qui délivrent des services publics de plus en plus dégradés. Des écoles qui n'apprennent plus à lire mais qui apprennent à culpabiliser. Des hôpitaux à bout de souffle malgré des budgets records. Une immigration massive sans aucune exigence d'assimilation, présentée comme une chance par ceux qui n'en subissent jamais les conséquences. Une désindustrialisation organisée au nom d'une écologie punitive qui délocalise la pollution en Chine et l'emploi avec. Des normes, des normes, et encore des normes, jusqu'à ce qu'il devienne plus simple de créer une entreprise à Austin qu'à Lyon. Une justice qui excuse le coupable et soupçonne la victime. Une censure qui avance masquée sous le nom de « lutte contre la désinformation ». Et une jeunesse à qui l'on a expliqué que son pays, son histoire et sa civilisation étaient des crimes à expier.
Ce n'est pas un ensemble de bugs. C'est la conception elle-même.
Maintenant, changeons d'image. Voyez ce système comme un moteur.
Un bon moteur, c'est de la précision. Des pièces qui s'emboîtent, un minimum de frottements, une énergie qui se transforme en mouvement. Le marché libre, la propriété, la responsabilité individuelle, la monnaie saine : c'est ça, un moteur bien conçu. L'information circule par les prix, chaque erreur est sanctionnée, chaque bonne idée est récompensée.
Le moteur socialiste, lui, est mal conçu dès le départ. Il ne tourne pas sur la création de valeur mais sur sa redistribution. Il ne récompense pas la performance, il la taxe. Il ne laisse pas les erreurs mourir, il les subventionne. Résultat : ça frotte partout. Ça chauffe. Ça grince. Chaque pièce use la pièce d'à côté.
Et que font ceux qui pilotent ce moteur ? Au lieu de le reconcevoir, ils changent les pièces. En permanence. Une pièce cède, on en remet une neuve. Encore une. Encore une.
Ces pièces de rechange, vous les connaissez. Elles s'appellent la dette publique et la planche à billets.
La France a dépassé les 3 300 milliards d'euros de dette et n'a pas voté un budget à l'équilibre depuis le milieu des années 70. Les États-Unis ont franchi les 37 000 milliards de dollars. Les banques centrales ont maintenu des taux à zéro pendant des années, imprimé des montants que plus personne ne sait se représenter, et quand l'inflation est arrivée, elles ont fait semblant d'être surprises. Milton Friedman l'avait pourtant dit il y a cinquante ans : l'inflation est toujours et partout un phénomène monétaire.
Chaque crise, on rachète du temps avec de l'argent qui n'existe pas. Chaque problème structurel, on l'arrose de liquidités pour masquer le bruit du moteur. Mais les frottements sont toujours là. Ils s'accumulent. Et la facture des pièces de rechange finit par coûter plus cher que le moteur lui-même : la charge de la dette devient l'un des premiers postes de dépense de l'État français.
Pendant des décennies, ce moteur mal conçu a pu tourner à 3 000 tours par minute. Lentement. Bruyamment. Mais il tournait. Le monde allait assez doucement pour que le bricolage permanent suffise à masquer l'absurdité de la conception.
Et puis l'IA est arrivée.
L'intelligence artificielle, c'est l'accélération la plus brutale de l'histoire humaine. Ce qui prenait des années prend des mois. Ce qui prenait des mois prend des jours. Des entreprises de dix personnes font ce que faisaient des entreprises de mille. Le capital, les talents et les idées se déplacent à la vitesse de la lumière vers les endroits où ils sont bien traités.
L'IA vient de faire passer le moteur de 3 000 à 20 000 tours par minute.
Posez-vous la question qu'un ingénieur se poserait. Que se passe-t-il quand on fait monter à 20 000 tours un moteur mal conçu, rafistolé de partout, qui frotte à chaque rotation ?
Il explose.
Pas parce que quelqu'un l'a saboté. Parce que la physique ne négocie pas.
Et c'est exactement ce que nous voyons en ce moment, sous nos yeux.
L'insécurité qui gagne des villes entières qui étaient paisibles il y a vingt ans. Le conflit de Gaza importé dans nos rues et instrumentalisé par une gauche qui a troqué l'ouvrier contre le clientélisme communautaire. La misère qui revient dans un pays qui a pourtant un des taux de dépense publique les plus élevés au monde. Des classes moyennes qui travaillent et n'arrivent plus à se loger. Une France fracturée, où l'on parle désormais à voix haute de risque de guerre civile.
Ce ne sont pas des accidents. Ce ne sont pas des « crises » successives sans lien entre elles. Ce sont les pièces du moteur qui commencent à voler.
C'est la conséquence logique de cinquante ans de socialisme international : un système qui a détruit la responsabilité, la frontière, la monnaie, l'école et la fierté, et qui découvre qu'à haute vitesse, tout ce qui a été détruit ne peut plus être compensé par une ligne de dette supplémentaire.
Et c'est là que je deviens profondément optimiste.
Parce qu'une fois qu'on a compris ça, on comprend aussi que leur projet a une date de fin. Pas une date politique. Une date physique. Un système qui consomme plus qu'il ne produit, qui punit ceux qui créent et récompense ceux qui détruisent, qui finance son présent en hypothéquant l'avenir de ses enfants, ne peut pas durer indéfiniment. Il n'est pas soutenable par construction. L'IA ne fait qu'avancer l'échéance.
Le mensonge a besoin de lenteur pour survivre. Il a besoin que les conséquences arrivent assez tard pour qu'on puisse accuser quelqu'un d'autre. Dans un monde à 20 000 tours, les conséquences arrivent immédiatement. Le mensonge n'a plus le temps de se cacher.
Alors, que faire quand le moteur explose ? On en construit un nouveau. Et cette fois, on le conçoit correctement.
Écoutez Elon Musk. Un homme qui a reconstruit l'industrie spatiale, la voiture électrique et l'infrastructure satellite en partant d'un principe simple : revenir aux premiers principes. Ne pas demander « comment on a toujours fait », mais « qu'est-ce qui est physiquement vrai ». C'est exactement ce dont nos États ont besoin : arrêter de rafistoler et repartir de la base.
Écoutez Javier Milei. Un homme dont tout le monde se moquait, arrivé à la tête d'un pays ravagé par un siècle de péronisme, et qui a pris la tronçonneuse au sens propre. Ministères supprimés, dépenses coupées, inflation écrasée, excédent budgétaire retrouvé. Il a prouvé une chose que la gauche jurait impossible : on peut démonter le moteur socialiste et le peuple peut le soutenir.
Écoutez Milton Friedman. Relisez-le. Tout était déjà là. La monnaie, la liberté de choisir, la responsabilité, les effets pervers de l'intervention publique. Il disait que si l'on confiait le Sahara au gouvernement fédéral, il y aurait pénurie de sable en cinq ans. On a ri. On a confié le sable. On a eu la pénurie.
Revenez à une hiérarchie et au respect du beau. Une civilisation ne tient pas que sur des chiffres. Elle tient sur l'idée qu'il existe des choses supérieures à d'autres. Que l'excellence vaut mieux que la médiocrité. Que le mérite compte. Qu'une cathédrale est plus belle qu'un parking. Que transmettre est un devoir et pas une oppression. Le relativisme a été l'arme culturelle de ce projet. Le retour du beau, du vrai et de l'exigence en sera l'antidote.
Et enfin, faites le Nuremberg du communisme. Le nazisme a été jugé, documenté, enseigné, et il est devenu moralement indéfendable. Le communisme, avec ses dizaines de millions de morts, ses goulags, ses famines organisées et ses peuples réduits en esclavage, n'a jamais eu ce procès. On peut encore porter un t-shirt du Che dans une université sans que personne ne cille. Tant que ce procès historique et moral n'aura pas eu lieu, l'idéologie continuera de muter et de revenir sous de nouveaux noms. Il faut nommer les crimes, les enseigner, honorer les victimes, et rendre cette idéologie aussi infréquentable que celle qu'elle prétendait combattre.
Le monde qui vient sera plus rapide, plus exigeant et plus impitoyable avec les systèmes mal conçus. C'est une terrible nouvelle pour ceux qui ont vécu du mensonge.
Et c'est la meilleure nouvelle de notre génération pour tous ceux qui veulent construire.
Le moteur va exploser. À nous de dessiner le suivant.
100% true, having lived in a deep blue state, a red state, and a purple state
The Blue state was WAY more totalitarian in terms of what thoughts were acceptable in discourse. You could get ruined socially for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.
