Peter Maltby

Proud Canadian-born American entrepreneur. First business at 16 in Calgary. Many failures → 700 employees by 33. Now decades older... and pray a little wiser.

[Peter Maltby @PeterM87595]

I've been a futurist ever since seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey in the ’70s. Here’s me with Ray Kurzweil at the premiere of his film The Singularity Is Near in 2010. Amazing to be alive at the same time as Elon Musk who’s turning Ray’s predictions into reality ahead of schedule.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will:

1. Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate.

2. Open the borders and legalize everyone living in America illegally to cement a permanent majority.

3. Increase the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.

This would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state and the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

All that is needed to ensure this doesn’t happen is 51 Republican senators in 2029. That is why you should vote for Republican senators this election. Other reasons are irrelevant compared to this one.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Yesterday I was talking with an economist. A genuinely sharp guy.

We ended up agreeing on a conclusion that isn't comfortable: Europe and the West are down to two scenarios.

Scenario one: communism gets defeated within the next 5 years. We finally do what has to be done on immigration and on the economy. It will be hard, really hard. But better a horrible ending than horror without end.

Scenario two: communism wins. And right behind it, most likely, Islamic tyranny. Not in 50 years. Soon after.

There is no in-between. No "it'll sort itself out," no lukewarm third way where everyone keeps their little comfort zone.

What fascinates me is that the vast majority of people don't see this at all. They're living through this period as if it were just another political cycle.

But there's good news. The people who've been sounding the alarm for 20 years were right. They were called crazy, doomers, prophets of decline. And every month, reality proves them a little more right.

The faster people realize this, the further ahead we get.

Waking up is already half the battle.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

This is why I'm super optimistic.

[Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit @drawandstrike]

Holy shit, I'm literally preparing to do a show at 10:00 am this morning on this very topic and this guy is explaining it better than I can.

[starts taking notes]

https://t.co/SV3EgQq72e

[Max @mad_maximus]

Like I said, we ride at dawn for Elon

[@jason @Jason]

Let me explain reality… if you have but sixty seconds:

They were targeting Elon

They were targeting him with fake charges because the socialist-industrial complex is terrified that he would expose their long grift.

They came after him for the Model 3 and Elon’s claims around its potential.

That potential was realized, and it became, along with the Model Y, the best-selling electric vehicle ever created.

These were fake charges to try to stop somebody from building the best category-defining product.

Let that sink in: that's how evil these motherfuckers are.

The loooooong grift has been exposed: socialist grifters are stealing our tax dollars to fund fringe lunacy, NGOs and government programs without oversight or audits.

They’re parasites incapable of creating any product or service that has to compete in the open market.

Elon creates a couple of cutting-edge products each year, and half of them succeed.

Some of them actually change the world. Some of them fail brutally.

It's called capitalism. It's called creation.

This is what moves the human condition forward: trying things.

Trying really hard things.

Socialists come for the people building valuable products and services — that’s the tell

Keep your eye out for the people who've created nothing and risked nothing, but who are attacking the people who risk everything to create Something.

That's the tell.

[Sir James Britain🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @SirJBritain]

Hang it in the Louvre.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

🇧🇪 Brussels
1955: 95% native Belgian background
2025: 21% native Belgian background

🇬🇧 London
1955: 97% native British background
2025: 36% native British background

🇳🇱 Amsterdam
1955: 98% native Dutch background
2025: 40% native Dutch background

🇩🇪 Berlin
1955: 98% native German background
2025: 57% native German background

🇦🇹 Vienna
1955: 95% native Austrian background
2025: 51% native Austrian background

🇸🇪 Stockholm
1955: 97% native Swedish background
2025: 65% native Swedish background

[FugitiveMama @fugitivemama]

Why are you involved in planning a coup against the President @GovBobFerguson?

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

I only see two scenarios.

Scenario one: the Democrats take back power. Remember what Elon said in 2024: "If he loses, I'm f*cked. How long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?" Everyone laughed. Read those documents again and tell me he was joking. If a movement that pre-writes the criteria for declaring an elected government illegitimate comes back to power, there's a very strong chance Elon gets persecuted. Him, X, and everyone who dared to speak up. And the world that follows is 1984 with GPUs. A hyper-class owning all the means of production: AI, robots, data, energy. The rest of humanity locked into a form of techno-feudal slavery, on a drip, surveilled, docile. Communism always promised equality and delivered a nomenklatura. With AI, the nomenklatura won't even need the people anymore.

Scenario two: Elon wins with the Republicans. And this deathly project gets dismantled. Not reformed, not slowed down. Dismantled. Every network, every unelected structure, brought into the light. And we finally do what history never had the courage to do: the Nuremberg of communism. The great moral and historical trial of an ideology that killed tens of millions of people and is still trying to sneak back in through the back door.

There is no third way.
No lukewarm scenario.

The coming decade will decide.

Pick your side while you still have the right to.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

🚨 🚨🚨 I think we're living through a civilizational turning point. And most people haven't realized it yet. 🚨🚨🚨

We keep hearing that the globalist project is collapsing. It isn't. It's alive and well in the European Union, where Brussels keeps marching on as if nothing happened. And in the United States, it didn't die. It mutated.

If you want to see what that mutation looks like, read what DataRepublican just published. According to the audio and the thousands of documents she scraped, a network of former USAID and State Department officials, organized under a group called Renew to Thrive, is working on what they call "the day after tomorrow": what a rewritten American government should look like.

And they're not alone. She reports that this group sits inside a much larger, extremely discreet umbrella, the United Democracy Alliance, which coordinates the major "resistance" NGOs: when protests get deployed, on what timeline, how to respond. Operationalized, according to her, by an organization of 1,600 former military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.

The most chilling part: they've reportedly drafted a list of "red lines" past which the elected federal government should be declared illegitimate. The one they discuss most is invoking the Insurrection Act. And the mechanism doesn't even require governors to sign anything. They just have to refuse federal troops in their state and let the network do the rest.

Senator Mike Lee said he was speechless. Elon replied with one word: "Troubling."

Understand this: for these people, it isn't politics anymore. It's survival. They lost power at the ballot box, so they're building the machinery to contest the very legitimacy of the people who won. Their influence, their networks, their money, their impunity, everything they've built over decades depends on getting back in. So they're going all in.

And this fight is happening at the most decisive moment in human history: the arrival of superintelligence.

Whoever controls the state when AI surpasses humans won't just win an election. They'll win the century.

I only see two scenarios.

Scenario one: the Democrats take back power. Remember what Elon said in 2024: "If he loses, I'm f*cked. How long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?" Everyone laughed. Read those documents again and tell me he was joking. If a movement that pre-writes the criteria for declaring an elected government illegitimate comes back to power, there's a very strong chance Elon gets persecuted. Him, X, and everyone who dared to speak up.

And the world that follows is 1984 with GPUs. A hyper-class owning all the means of production: AI, robots, data, energy. The rest of humanity locked into a form of techno-feudal slavery, on a drip, surveilled, docile. Communism always promised equality and delivered a nomenklatura. With AI, the nomenklatura won't even need the people anymore.

Scenario two: Elon wins with the Republicans. And this deathly project gets dismantled. Not reformed, not slowed down. Dismantled. Every network, every unelected structure, brought into the light. And we finally do what history never had the courage to do: the Nuremberg of communism. The great moral and historical trial of an ideology that killed tens of millions of people and is still trying to sneak back in through the back door.

There is no third way. No lukewarm scenario. The coming decade will decide.

Pick your side while you still have the right to.

[Race 🕊️ @multiplanet1]

Maye Musk, Elon's mother, visited the Tesla Fremont factory during the Model 3 production crisis and found her son sleeping on the factory floor. She described the scene: the CEO of a public company lying on a thin mattress under a desk next to an assembly line, surrounded by the noise of manufacturing, looking like he hadn't slept properly in weeks. Because he hadn't.

She didn't try to convince him to go home. She knew better. Instead she got a sleeping bag and slept on the factory floor next to him. A 70 year old woman. A supermodel who had appeared on magazine covers. A mother of three successful children. Lying on a concrete floor in a car factory because her son was there and she was not going to leave him sleeping alone.

Maye has described Elon's childhood as one she worried about constantly. The bullying. The reading obsession. The emotional distance from his father. The decision to leave South Africa at 17. Every phase of his life involved a form of isolation that a mother could see but couldn't fix. The factory floor was another version of the same isolation. Different decade. Same boy. Alone with a problem.

She has said that the hardest part of being Elon's mother is not the controversy or the media. It is watching a child work himself to the edge of physical collapse and knowing that asking him to stop would be like asking him to stop breathing. The drive is not a choice. It is architecture. She has watched it operate since he was a child reading encyclopedias for 10 hours. The scale changed. The architecture didn't.

A mother who raised three children alone. Who held five jobs simultaneously to keep them fed. Who built a career as a model in her 60s. That woman looked at the factory floor, looked at her son, and concluded that the best thing she could do was lie down beside him. Not to fix it. Not to lecture. To be there. On the floor. In the noise. So he wasn't alone.

The most powerful image in Elon Musk's life is not a rocket launch. It is a 70 year old mother on a factory floor next to a son she could never teach to rest.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

The real tragedy behind the 250,000+ British girls that were systematically raped over the past 3+ decades largely by Pakistani Muslim men is that this might lead to Islamophobia. Sure, child rapes are bad but Islamophobia is the real tragedy. - @JessicaTarlov

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

You've probably seen the video. A young Frenchwoman in Paris, in tears, begging looters to stop. "Why are you doing this? That's not what we stand for."

Some accounts are mocking her. "She voted for it."

I won't. Because what you see on her face is not stupidity. It's a disease that has infected the entire West, and it has a name: suicidal empathy.

The term comes from Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University in Montreal. A man who fled the Lebanese civil war as a child, and who knows what it looks like when a society falls apart. His new book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind, is the follow-up to The Parasitic Mind. Here is the thesis, and why it concerns every one of us.

Empathy is one of the best things about us. It evolved for a reason: to care for our children, our kin, our tribe. It was calibrated for a world where the people you felt for were the people around you, and where empathy always came paired with its counterweight: the instinct to protect your own and to recognize a threat.

Suicidal empathy is what happens when that mechanism misfires. When it fires at the wrong targets, in the wrong amounts, with no brake. When we feel more for the criminal than for his victim. More for the stranger who breaks the rules than for the citizen who follows them. More for how compassionate we look than for what our compassion actually produces.

Where does it come from? Four layers.

First, biology. Empathy is a spotlight, as the psychologist Paul Bloom put it. It lights up the one face in front of you and leaves everything else in the dark. The crying migrant on the boat is visible. The thousands of future victims of a broken system are statistics. A spotlight is a terrible tool for running a country.

Second, our own civilization. The West is the civilization that put the victim at the center of its morality. Christianity taught us to care for the stranger, the poor, the weak. It was one of the greatest moral revolutions in history. But cut off from its other half, justice, responsibility, the duty to protect your own, it turns into something else.

Third, ideology. In The Parasitic Mind, Saad described idea pathogens, ideas that hijack our reasoning. Suicidal empathy is the emotional counterpart: an ideology that hijacks our compassion. It sorts the world into oppressors and victims, then demands unlimited empathy for whoever ranks as the victim, whatever they do.

Fourth, status. In the age of social media, empathy has become a display. Posting "refugees welcome" costs nothing and earns applause. The bill goes to someone else: the working class, the suburbs, the women walking home at night.

The results are everywhere. Criminals treated as victims of society. Sexual assaults by migrants met with lenient sentences. Self-defense branded as aggression. Borders treated as cruelty. Saad's conclusion is simple: a society dies when it would rather display infinite tolerance than use its survival instinct.

Now the part I'll add myself, and that few people dare to say.

On average, women score higher than men on measures of empathy. It's one of the most consistent findings in psychology, across cultures, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense: for most of human history, the survival of children depended on it. It's a strength.

But it means an ideology that weaponizes empathy will hit women harder. And the data shows it: in country after country, young women have moved sharply to the left of young men, especially on immigration.

This is where men have a responsibility.

Not to mock. Not to lecture. Not to say "she deserved it." Empathy has always needed a counterweight, and that counterweight was the protective instinct: the one that draws lines, says no, and stands between the threat and the people it loves.

Men abandoned that role. They were told it was toxic, and many believed it. So they stayed silent at the dinner table, at work, with their partners, sisters, daughters and friends.

That has to end. Men have to have this conversation, honestly and with respect: compassion that cannot say no is not compassion. It's surrender. And the first to pay for it are women.

Many women already understand this better than anyone. Some of the bravest voices in this fight are women, precisely because they are the first to feel the danger in the street.

A civilization rests on a balance: compassion and strength, openness and borders, mercy and justice. When one side swallows the other, the foundations crack. What we are watching in Europe is what happens when empathy has no counterweight left.

Look at that young woman again. She isn't the enemy. She's what this ideology made of a generation that was told kindness would be enough.

Our job is to make sure she's the last generation that has to learn it this way.

[Peter Maltby @PeterM87595]

@data_republican Not too too late: https://t.co/ifnB1XhvNX

[Arthur MacWaters @ArthurMacwaters]

Genuinely the best and most important post on the entire timeline right now. Zero question.

[Lee Kuan Yimby @LeeKuanYimby]

Visionary Inventor. Bullshit Artist.

[Bethany O’Leary 🇺🇸 🦅 @BethanyForTruth]

🚨BREAKING: The HERO who stopped the deadly Oregon elementary school shooting is reportedly being identified online as KAYLEB GIAMANCO!!

Kayleb is a father of two little girls who attend that very school. He reportedly lives nearby and was heading home on his lunch break when he heard gunshots and realized something horrific was happening at his daughters’ school!!

He reportedly ran toward the school, knowing his daughters were inside. I honestly cannot even imagine the fear that must’ve been going through him.

Kayleb deserves an ENORMOUS amount of gratitude for stepping in when those children needed help most. ❤️🙏 he’s a HERO!!

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

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.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene."

It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why.

First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created.

So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?"

And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied.

Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake.

Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation.

Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it.

Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better?

The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians?

A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite.

Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences.

The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions.

The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem."

Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing.

Government is the fourth box. By design.

Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it.

And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money.

The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet.

Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it.

So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear.

China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build.

India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie.

South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines.

Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian.

Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%.

No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build.

And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years.

Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity.

Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek.

A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018.

Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years.

One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world.

Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades.

If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet.

It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week.

And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out.

You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake.

Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little.

The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery.

Choose.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Encore une fois, Elon Musk avait raison. Et les scientifiques vont se prendre une vraie blessure narcissique.

Il y a deux mois, j'ai dîné avec un professeur de physique quantique à Normale Sup, l'une des meilleures écoles de France.

Il se présente avec cette phrase :
"Je suis le seul prof pas gauchiste dans un marécage de profs gauchistes décroissantistes."
Ses collègues sont tous anti-IA. La raison ? Ça consomme de l'eau.

Le mec est passionnant. On part très loin : l'espace, le temps, la conscience. Des discussions complètement perchées.

Et à un moment, il me lâche :
"Tu sais, depuis les années 70, aucun sujet vraiment sérieux en physique n'est financé."

Je lui demande ce qui est financé, alors.
"Des cathédrales théoriques. Magnifiques. Qui ne servent quasiment à rien."
Je lui demande pourquoi.
"Après tout ce qui s'est passé avec le nucléaire, le monde académique s'est imposé un principe de précaution. Il a peur de trouver des choses réellement profondes."

Relisez cette phrase.
La science a peur de trouver.

C'est exactement ce que décrit François Chollet aujourd'hui : la théorie des cordes, c'est ce qui arrive quand une intelligence est coupée du réel. Elle hallucine. Elle construit des cathédrales. Elon a répondu avec un seul emoji : 🎯
Ce n'est pas un accident. C'est une capture.

Je parle souvent de Gramsci. Son idée centrale : on ne prend pas le pouvoir par la force, on prend les institutions. Universités, médias, culture. Et une fois qu'on les tient, on décide de ce qui est pensable.

La recherche n'y a pas échappé. On finance ce qui est publiable, consensuel, sans risque. On ne finance plus ce qui pourrait tout changer.

C'est pour ça que beaucoup de gens en France pleurent en ce moment. Ils sentent que leur monde factice est en train de mourir. Ce monde où un titre suffisait. Où un statut remplaçait un résultat. Où l'on pouvait passer trente ans à écrire des papiers lus par douze personnes sans jamais se confronter au réel.

Elon l'a dit sans filtre : une grande partie des PhD ne servent à rien. Et chez xAI, il a supprimé le titre de "chercheur". Il n'y a que des ingénieurs.

Le message est limpide. On ne te paie pas pour chercher. On te paie pour trouver.

La science va devoir retrouver son vrai but. Pas produire des papiers. Pas décrocher des grants. Pas briller en colloque. Comprendre le réel, et le plier.

Et l'IA va accélérer tout ça brutalement. Quand l'intelligence devient abondante, elle n'est plus le goulot d'étranglement. Ce qui compte, c'est le courage de la confronter au monde physique, encore et encore.

Alors physiciens, mathématiciens : il est temps de vous sortir les doigts du cul et de créer de la vraie valeur pour le monde.

On veut l'antimatière.
On veut l'antigravité.
On veut le warp drive.
On veut comprendre la conscience au niveau de l'infiniment petit.

Les vrais sujets. Ceux qu'on a eu peur de toucher pendant cinquante ans.

La science a été capturée. Elle va être libérée.

Et ça va faire très mal à certains egos.