PDriftmier

FB Exile / CrossFit Athlete / Photographer / Voice Talent / Vette Driver

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

The company that taught machines to imagine just built a machine to see inside your body.

A full body medical scanner.

You step into a pool of warm water. Half a million sensors pulse ultrasonic waves through your body from every angle.

Sixty seconds. No radiation. No magnets. No claustrophobia.

A 3D map of your organs down to a fraction of a millimeter. A hundred times the speed of an MRI. A few dollars instead of thousands.

They mastered text-to-image. Now they’re doing sound-to-biology.

Midjourney isn’t putting this in a hospital. They’re building a spa.

Saunas. Cold plunges. Rooms of golden light that quietly scan your biology while you relax.

The scan is a side effect of showing up.

First location opens in San Francisco, late 2027. By 2031 they’re targeting 50,000 scanners worldwide. A billion scans per month.

Fewer than twelve of these machines at full speed could outperform every MRI on Earth combined.

Zero investors. Zero venture capital. Just subscription revenue from everyday people paying to generate AI art.

A community funded research lab just walked into the most protected industry on the planet.

We mapped the ocean floor. Photographed black holes. Sequenced the entire human genome.

And the only way to see inside your own body was to be sick enough or rich enough to justify the scan.

This inverts that.

Monthly scans. AI tracking your organs over time. Anomalies flagged years before a single symptom appears.

You stop reacting to disease and start watching for it.

At this scale, preventive imaging could avert 30% of all deaths and cut healthcare spending in half. Debate the numbers. The logic underneath is airtight.

What breaks your brain is who built it. Not a pharmaceutical giant. Not a government lab. Nine people at an AI art company.

The team that spent years teaching machines to generate things that don’t exist just built one that reveals the thing that always did.

You have lived your entire life inside a body you have never truly seen.

You’re about to.

[Imtiaz Mahmood @ImtiazMadmood]

The Dangerous Lie of “Religion of Peace”

How polite apologetics helped blind Europe to the religious system moving against it.

The most destructive phrase in the modern discussion of Islam may be this: “Islam is a religion of peace.”
It sounds tolerant. It sounds civilized. It sounds like something decent people say to keep ordinary Muslims from being treated unfairly. Fine. If the subject is personal conduct, individual Muslims can be judged as individuals.

But this is not the discussion Europe needs to have.
Europe is not facing a problem because one Muslim neighbor is polite, one Muslim doctor is skilled, or one Muslim shopkeeper is friendly. Europe is facing a civilizational problem because Islam, as doctrine, does not present itself as one private faith among many. It presents itself as final revelation, final prophet, final law, and the rightful spiritual order of mankind.
That is the subject.

Not anecdotes. Not exceptions. Not cafeteria believers. Not sentimental stories designed to make the doctrine vanish behind someone’s pleasant manners.

Islam rests on one God, one final prophet, one revealed book, one divine law, and one claim of supremacy over unbelief. The Qur’an is not treated as a suggestion box. Muhammad is not treated as one teacher among many. Islamic law is not presented as morally equal to secular constitutional liberty. The unbeliever is not understood as an equal spiritual authority standing beside Islam with equal legitimacy.
This is what polite Western people keep refusing to say.

Instead, they reach for the softest Muslim they know and use him as a human shield for the hardest parts of the religion. “But my Muslim friend doesn’t believe this.” “Most Muslims just want peace.” “That isn’t the Islam I know.”
Wonderful. Irrelevant.

A man can ignore his doctrine. A culture cannot survive by pretending the doctrine does not exist.
Europe was not built by Islam. Europe was shaped by Christianity, classical inheritance, national memory, law, sacrifice, borders, cathedrals, kings, martyrs, and blood. Islam entered Europe historically as conquest, siege, occupation, raiding, tribute, and pressure.

Spain had to reclaim itself. Vienna had to be defended. The Balkans still remember Ottoman rule in their bones.

Rome is not a casual location in this story. It is a symbol. To Islamists, it is not merely an old city with beautiful stone. It is the heart of the Christian inheritance they intend to surpass.

This is why “religion of peace” is not merely wrong. It is dangerous.

It trains Europeans to misidentify the threat. It tells them to look at personalities instead of doctrine, feelings instead of law, slogans instead of scripture, integration stories instead of institutional power. It turns a hard religious-political system into a customer-service brochure.

And once the public has been trained this way, every serious warning sounds rude.

Mention sharia, and they point to a friendly neighbor. Mention jihad doctrine, and they point to a peaceful coworker. Mention the status of unbelievers under classical Islamic law, and they start reciting diversity pamphlets as if history can be bored into submission.
This is how a civilization teaches itself not to notice the knife.

The discussion Europe needs is not whether every Muslim behaves like an Islamist. That was never the argument. The discussion is whether Islam itself, through its texts, authorities, legal tradition, and modern political movements, is compatible with Europe remaining Europe.

The answer is not comforting.
A tolerant society can absorb private faith. It cannot survive a rival civilization that enters through tolerance, arms itself with grievance, hides behind censorship demands, builds leverage through numbers, and points everything toward religious supremacy.

The individual-Muslim detour has gone on long enough.
We are discussing Islam as Islam.

Doctrine. Authority. History. Power. Consequences.
What, then, is Islam’s blueprint for Europe?

It is not coexistence as Europe understands the word. It is not equal citizenship under secular law. It is not churches, synagogues, unbelievers, homosexuals, apostates, artists, satirists, feminists, and free citizens standing safely under one neutral legal order.
Islam’s blueprint, when taken seriously as doctrine and law, is supremacy.

For Europe, this means the old liberal arrangement dies first. Speech goes under supervision. Blasphemy returns under different names. Criticism of Islam becomes dangerous, then punishable, then culturally unthinkable. Churches survive only on sufferance. Jews live behind more guards. Women’s rights become negotiable wherever Islamic pressure becomes strong enough.

The unbeliever under Islamic rule is not an equal citizen. He is an obstacle to be converted, subordinated, silenced, expelled, fought, or killed according to his classification, his resistance, and Islam’s power to enforce its law.

The unconverted Christian does not remain a free European with different beliefs. He is placed under a coercive religious hierarchy. He must convert, submit under humiliation, pay jizya as a sign of subordination, or become marked for death.

This is not tolerance. Tolerance does not mean being forced to purchase your survival from a conquering religious power. It does not mean living beneath another man’s revelation by permission. It does not mean keeping your church, your family, your speech, and your life only so long as you accept inferiority under threat of capital punishment.

This is domination enforced by the sword, with paperwork for those permitted to survive beneath it.

The Jew is handed the same coercive bargain. The ex-Muslim becomes an apostate, and in the hadith and classical legal tradition, apostasy is a death-penalty offense.

The homosexual does not merely lose approval. Civilized Europe does not require approval. It requires legal tolerance and protection from punishment. Under hard sharia, this tolerance dies. Same-sex conduct becomes a punishable crime against divine order, carrying prison, flogging, execution, or public terror wherever Islamic law is enforced with sufficient force.

The satirist becomes a blasphemer. The woman who insists on Western liberty becomes a rebellion waiting to be disciplined.

This is what Islamic conquest means when the poetry is stripped away.

Not multicultural food festivals. Not “diversity.” Not a friendly neighbor with a prayer rug. A different civilization with a different law, a different hierarchy, a different moral universe, and a different answer to the question: who rules?

Europe’s answer was hard won: law, nation, conscience, citizenship, inherited Christian memory, secular government, free inquiry, and the dignity of the person.

Islam’s answer is submission.
That is why “religion of peace” is such a poisonous lie. It does not merely misdescribe Islam. It disables Europe’s survival instinct. It teaches Europeans to look away from the death penalties, the humiliation system, the blasphemy taboos, the apostasy laws, the sexual punishments, the hatred of unbelief, and the declared ambition to make Islam prevail over all other religions.

The future under Islamic dominance is not Europe with halal restaurants added.
It is Europe with its spine removed.

A continent that cannot insult Muhammad will not remain free. A continent that cannot defend churches will not remain Christian even in memory. A continent that treats sharia as a protected identity rather than a rival legal order will eventually discover that tolerance was only demanded from one side.

The question is not whether every Muslim wants this. That discussion is over.
The question is what Islam demands when it has power.

And the answer is written plainly enough for anyone still brave enough to read it.
And this is where the gaslighting begins.

The moment Islam is discussed as doctrine, someone will drag the conversation sideways into individual Muslims.

“My Muslim friend doesn’t believe this.”
“My neighbor is Muslim and he’s peaceful.”
“Most Muslims just want to live their lives.”
Fine. That may all be true. It also proves nothing.

You do not disprove a doctrine by producing a pleasant acquaintance. You do not refute Islamic law by pointing to a coworker who ignores it. You do not erase Qur’anic supremacy, jihad doctrine, jizya, apostasy penalties, blasphemy enforcement, or the legal humiliation of unbelievers by telling me someone down the street makes good tea and never caused trouble.

That is not argument. That is misdirection.
If someone wants to defend Islam, then defend Islam. Bring the Qur’an. Bring the hadith. Bring the classical jurists. Bring the recognized authorities. Bring the official voices. Bring the doctrine itself and prove the charge false.

But do not insult Europe’s intelligence by hiding the religion behind the nicest individual Muslim you happen to know.

This is the coward’s method of debate: replace doctrine with anecdote, replace law with personality, replace theology with manners, then accuse the person examining Islam honestly of being cruel for refusing to play along.
No.

The subject is Islam as a civilizational doctrine. The subject is Europe under pressure. The subject is what happens when a religious system built on submission gains numbers, institutions, political leverage, and legal confidence inside societies too ashamed to defend themselves.

When someone responds to this with “but not every Muslim,” understand what is happening.
You are being gaslighted.

Tell them to put the doctrine on the table. Tell them to prove the texts do not say what they say. Tell them to show where Islam has formally renounced sharia supremacy, the subordination of unbelievers, the death penalty for apostasy in classical law, and the punishment of blasphemy. Then ask where it renounced the ambition to make Islam prevail.

A friendly Muslim is not a rebuttal.
A peaceful neighbor is not a reformation.
A personal anecdote is not a civilization’s survival plan.
Europe is being asked to confuse kindness with truth, manners with reality, and individual exceptions with doctrinal innocence.
That confusion is how civilizations are walked into the dark.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

Of course capitalism isn't natural, you incomplete set of plastic picnic utensils.

What's natural is theft, robbery, and murder.

What's natural is anarchy, chaos, the rape of the weak by the strong, and nature red in tooth and claw.

The free market, which you call "capitalism", is not called "free" because everyone is free to do whatever they want. Because what a lot of people want to do is steal. You'll know which ones by the hammer and sickle logo they draw on things.

No, the free market is called free because it is freed from coercion and violence.

And of course it was spread by violence, you factory-defective lawn flamingo. Because it was spread by hanging all the bandits and robbers, and if hangings aren't violence I don't know what is.

And of course it's maintained by coercion, you British pub food connoisseur. If you don't coerce thieves not to steal, then they will steal everything you build faster than than you can build it.

You have to use violence to stop the violent, and coerce the coercers not to coerce.

And of course it's maintained by the superficial facade of liberal democracy, you Vogon poetry appreciator. The global average citizen is a mentally retarded third-world savage with less emotional self-control than my cat. If we let them have candidates that truly represented their agenda, then every useful thing humanity has built for the last twelve thousand years would be torn down in a week to buy them more party drugs. Followed by every woman being raped to death, and then uncomprehending starvation as they slowly and painfully learned that grocery stores don't spontaneously spawn food pickups, like in video games.

Jesus Christ, woman, you're talking about a species that evolved to live in hominid tribes of 100 apes, and throw rocks at zebras. In modern civilization, the so-called "average" person is so far out of his depth that the fish have lights on their noses.

And the more complex and sophisticated civilization gets, the more investments in the future that we need to protect, so that the retarded monkeys don't steal them all to buy more vodka and cigarettes.

Yeah, sure, sometimes capitalist systems end up defending property that someone's great-grandfather stole. But so fucking what? You think communism is gonna fix that? You think communism is gonna bring justice?

Communist nations can't afford justice. They can't even manage to feed themselves half the time. Get back to us when you've mastered the agricultural revolution, we've only been waiting since the beginning of recorded time.

The trick is to put the seeds in the dirt, guys.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

They made it in a lab. They KNEW it would kill. And they released it anyway.

On June 18, 2026 — her FINAL day as Director of National Intelligence — Tulsi Gabbard declassified 4.7 million pages. Every email. Every wire transfer. Every internal memo they thought was buried forever.

What the media WON'T show you from those files:

PAGE 2,847 — NIAID Internal Memo, October 3, 2019:

"Phase 3 aerosolization test complete. Mortality projection: 1.8 to 3.2 million within 18 months of release. Recommend immediate halt."

Fauci's handwritten response: "Continue. Funding secured through Geneva."

THAT WAS 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE FIRST "CASE" IN WUHAN.

The money trail — now FULLY visible:

▪️ $47.3 million routed through EcoHealth Alliance to Wuhan between 2014-2019
▪️ $128 million in "preparedness grants" sent to 3 Swiss intermediaries
▪️ $2.1 BILLION in Moderna pre-production contracts signed AUGUST 2019 — 4 months BEFORE the pandemic was announced

They ordered the vaccine BEFORE the virus was public.

A classified briefing — November 14, 2019 — attended by Fauci, Collins, and 7 members of Congress. They were told a novel pathogen would emerge from Wuhan within 60 days.

They didn't warn you. They BOUGHT STOCK. Congressional trading records show $312 million in pharma positions opened between November 15 and December 20, 2019.

THEY BET ON YOUR DEATH. AND WON.

Declassified DOD mortality analysis — completed March 2024, suppressed until now:

▪️ COVID direct deaths: 1.2 million
▪️ Vaccine adverse deaths: 487,000
▪️ Lockdown deaths: 340,000
▪️ TOTAL: 2.03 MILLION AMERICANS

From a virus MANUFACTURED and RELEASED with full knowledge.

THIS IS THE LARGEST MASS MURDER IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

WHAT COMES NEXT:

A sealed federal grand jury — empaneled May 22, 2026 — has reviewed these documents for 27 days. 11 indictments ready. Fauci. Collins. 3 EcoHealth executives. 2 Moderna board members. 4 sitting members of Congress.

Trump's response on June 19: "No deals. No immunity. TRIBUNALS."

You watched them lock you in your homes. Silence your doctors. Inject your children. NOW YOU KNOW WHY.

GAINOF-FUNCTION-1019
MODERNA-PRE-0819
TRIBUNAL-11-SEALED

They created the plague. They sold the cure. They buried the evidence. But the evidence just ROSE FROM THE GRAVE.

https://t.co/xW4uscoaFm

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Fauci committed so many evil crimes

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

Marx just wrote the words which allow the parasitically inclined to justify their resource theft.

[Handre @Handre]

Marx died in 1883 with two volumes of Capital unwritten and one fatal contradiction unanswered. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk noticed.

In 1884 he published the first volume of Capital and Interest, a history of every interest theory ever floated, and he treated the exploitation theory the way a pathologist treats a corpse: methodically, and without sentiment. Marx claimed that labor alone creates value, that the capitalist pockets "surplus value" by paying workers less than their product is worth. Sounds tidy. Then Böhm-Bawerk asked the question that collapses the whole structure. Why does a worker accept $90 today instead of waiting a year for the $100 his labor will eventually fetch in the finished good?

Present goods are worth more than future goods. That is interest. Not theft, not a parasite skimming off the top, but the price of time itself. The capitalist who advances wages today for output that sells next year performs a service, and he earns the spread for bearing the wait and the risk. Böhm-Bawerk laid this out in 1889 in The Positive Theory of Capital, and the exploitation story had no reply.

But the real execution came in 1896. Engels had finally dragged Volume III of Capital into print in 1894, and there Marx quietly admitted that commodities do not actually sell at their labor values: they sell at "prices of production" governed by an average rate of profit. Böhm-Bawerk pounced in Karl Marx and the Close of His System. Volume I said value comes from labor. Volume III said prices systematically deviate from labor. Marx had spent twenty years building a cathedral on a foundation he himself dynamited in the back pages. You cannot assert that labor determines value on Monday and that competition overrides it on Thursday and call the result science.

A century of central planners ignored this and proceeded to starve Ukraine, wall off Berlin, and empty the shelves of Caracas. The theory was dead in 1896, but the bodies just kept arriving anyway, because nobody reads the footnotes before they reach for the gun.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Piketty refait surface pour proposer de confisquer la fortune des milliardaires et la mettre dans un "fonds public".

Toute son œuvre repose sur une seule formule : r > g. Le rendement du capital dépasserait la croissance, donc les riches deviendraient mécaniquement toujours plus riches, donc il faut confisquer.

Laissez-moi vous expliquer pourquoi cette prémisse est fausse, au niveau d'un enfant de 8 ans, puisque c'est apparemment le niveau requis pour la croire.

Imagine que Kevin a un coffre magique. Piketty te dit : le coffre de Kevin grossit de 5% par an tout seul, la boulangerie de papa grandit de 2% par an, donc dans 100 ans Kevin possédera toute la ville. C'est ça, r > g. Tout son livre de 970 pages, c'est ça.

Le petit problème : le coffre magique n'existe pas.

Dans la vraie vie, le capital ne se reproduit pas tout seul. Il faut l'allouer. Chaque année, il faut redécider où va chaque euro, et la plupart des gens décident mal. Le "r" de Piketty est une moyenne qui cache un champ de ruines : pour un Bernard Arnault, des milliers d'héritiers qui dilapident, des fonds qui sous-performent, des empires qui s'évaporent.

Vérifions avec le test le plus simple du monde. Si r > g était une loi mécanique, les fortunes de 1900 domineraient toujours. Où sont les Vanderbilt ? Les Carnegie ? En 1987, le Top 10 mondial était dominé par des héritiers et des propriétaires fonciers japonais. Aujourd'hui : Musk, Bezos, Page, Huang. Des gars qui codaient dans leur chambre. La liste Forbes est une machine à laver, pas une dynastie.

L'homme qui est devenu trillionnaire ce matin n'a pas hérité d'un coffre. Il a failli faire faillite deux fois en 2008. Son "r" est passé par -100% avant de passer par l'hyperespace. Voilà ce que la formule de Piketty ne peut pas voir : le rendement du capital est la rémunération du risque et du génie d'allocation, pas un loyer automatique.

Et le plus drôle : quand le capital reste vraiment passif, comme dans le modèle de Piketty, il fond. Inflation, frais, impôts, érosion concurrentielle. Le capital qui dort meurt. La seule façon d'obtenir du "r", c'est de créer de la valeur pour quelqu'un. La formule décrit un monde qui n'existe nulle part, sauf dans les amphis de l'École d'économie de Paris.

D'ailleurs même ses données ont craqué. Le Financial Times a relevé des erreurs de calcul dans ses séries dès 2014. Et les travaux de Piketty-Saez-Zucman sur l'explosion des inégalités américaines ont été méthodiquement démontés par Auten et Splinter dans le Journal of Political Economy : une fois les transferts et impôts correctement comptés, l'inégalité après redistribution n'a presque pas bougé en 60 ans. Toute la panique repose sur des choix méthodologiques militants.

Ce qui m'amène à Zucman. L'ironie est délicieuse : l'homme qui a passé sa vie à dénoncer l'héritage a produit un héritier. Même méthode, même biais, mêmes données contestées, ambition fiscale en plus. Sa fameuse taxe sur le patrimoine des "ultra-riches" taxerait des plus-values qui n'existent que sur le papier.

Concrètement, la taxe Zucman forcerait chaque fondateur français à vendre des morceaux de sa boîte chaque année pour payer l'impôt sur une valorisation qu'il n'a jamais encaissée. Vendre à qui ? Des fonds étrangers. Résultat garanti : les dernières entreprises françaises passent sous pavillon américain ou qatari, au nom de la justice sociale. Du génie.

Et la proposition finale de Piketty est la meilleure partie : prendre l'argent investi dans des entreprises qui produisent, emploient et innovent, pour le confier à un "fonds public" géré par l'entité qui a accumulé 3 400 milliards de dette et qui perd de l'argent sur à peu près tout ce qu'elle touche depuis 50 ans. C'est demander au cancre de la classe de corriger les copies.

Récapitulons. La formule est fausse empiriquement, les données sont contestées dans les meilleures revues du monde, la prescription détruirait les seuls acteurs qui créent, et le gestionnaire proposé est en faillite technique. Dans n'importe quelle science, on appellerait ça une théorie réfutée. En économie française, on appelle ça un best-seller.

r > g n'a jamais été une loi économique. C'est un alibi mathématique pour le plus vieux programme politique du monde : prendre l'argent des autres.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Breaking news for anyone who hasn't worked this out yet:

Cows are vegan.

Stay with me.

The cow eats the grass. The clover. The herbs. The wildflowers. The diverse, mineral-rich, organically grown plant matter you've been told to base your diet around.

The cow then, and this is the interesting bit, converts all of that plant material into complete protein, bioavailable haem iron, zinc, B12, the fat-soluble vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, creatine, and carnosine.

She does this with four stomachs. Which are considerably better at the job than yours.

The most efficient way to eat a plant-based diet, biologically speaking, is to let a cow do it first.

The cow is the blender.

The cow is performing the processing you cannot perform yourself, on a scale you could not approximate with the entire contents of a Whole Foods salad bar.

When you eat beef, you are eating a hyperconcentrated, grass-powered superfood that a committed vegan has spent eighteen months in a field assembling for you.

You're welcome.

[Teddy - PolyBackTest.com @Bitcoin_Teddy]

Larry Ellison asked the one question no journalist on Earth can answer.

A Wall Street Journal writer told Ellison to his face that Elon Musk doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Ellison didn’t argue. Didn’t get emotional. He just asked a question.

Ellison: “This guy is landing rockets on robot drone rafts in the ocean, and you’re saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing. You ever land a rocket?”

One question. No recovery.

Ellison: “Who are you? Why should I believe you as opposed to my friend Elon?”

This is the question the entire media class has been dodging for a decade. Who are you to judge? What have you built? What have you shipped? What problem have you solved that didn’t involve a keyboard and a deadline?

Ellison: “You’re there in front of your Apple Macintosh typing up an article saying Elon’s an idiot.”

They sit behind a laptop they did not engineer. Using a network they did not build. Running on silicon they cannot explain. To tell the world that the man sending humans to space doesn’t know what he’s doing.

They have never built anything heavier than a Word document.

And they publish it with absolute certainty.

That’s the part that should disturb you. Not the criticism. The confidence behind it. The total absence of self-awareness it takes to judge disciplines you wouldn’t last a single semester in.

Musk does not operate in opinion. He operates in the physical layer of the universe where the math closes or the rocket does not come home.

His critics operate in a text editor.

He built the vehicle that carries NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. The satellite constellation delivering internet to active war zones. The EV that forced every automaker on Earth to abandon their combustion roadmap.

His loudest critics built a byline.

So why the coordinated hatred?

Because they lost the leash.

The attacks didn’t escalate because Musk got worse at engineering. They escalated because he bought X. He cracked open the algorithm. He handed the public square back to the people. And he shattered their ability to control what you’re allowed to think.

They don’t hate the engineer.

They hate that the engineer took their monopoly.

You cannot cancel a rocket. You cannot publish a hit piece on gravity. You cannot edit the laws of physics.

They own the syntax.

He owns the physics.

One of them is going to Mars.

[Handre @Handre]

Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United States in 1836, delivering the single greatest blow to financial tyranny in American history. You won't hear this story told correctly in any economics textbook, because it reveals how central banking works: as a government-sponsored cartel that redistributes wealth from productive citizens to politically connected bankers.

The Second Bank held a 20-year federal charter starting in 1816. It controlled the money supply, issued currency, and held government deposits. Sound familiar? Nicholas Biddle, the bank's president, wielded more economic power than any elected official. He could trigger financial panics at will by restricting credit. He bought newspapers and bribed congressmen. When Jackson opposed recharter in 1832, Biddle deliberately crashed the economy to punish him.

Jackson called it "a hydra of corruption" and he was right. The bank created artificial booms through credit expansion, then triggered busts when politically convenient. Biddle openly bragged about manipulating markets. Free market economists and Jackson both recognized the core insight: this was legalized counterfeiting with government backing, not free market banking.

The political establishment united against Jackson. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and the entire Whig Party defended the bank. Biddle spent millions buying influence. The press attacked Jackson as an economic ignoramus. Every "respectable" voice supported recharter. Jackson stood alone with the American people.

After Jackson killed the bank, the country experienced the strongest economic growth in its history. From 1837 to 1862, America operated without a central bank. Industry flourished. Wages rose. Innovation exploded. This wasn't coincidence. When you stop subsidizing financial speculation and let productive capital find its natural home, prosperity follows.

Central banks don't stabilize economies: they destabilize them for private gain.

[Laurent @scion_x_]

Ça fait un moment que je me pose des questions sur le bilan (provisoire) de Milei en Argentine. On lit tout et son contraire. Alors j'ai arrêté de lire les commentaires et j'ai regardé les chiffres bruts.

L'Argentine, c'est l'expérience grandeur nature que les économistes attendaient depuis 50 ans. Même pays. Même peuple. Même culture. On change UNE variable : la méthode économique.

Avant : des décennies de gestion étatiste et péroniste, "redistributive". Le résultat concret ? 211% d'inflation, 42% de pauvreté, un État en déficit permanent qui finance son train de vie en faisant tourner la planche à billets.

Puis arrive Milei. Méthode inverse, brutale, assumée : on coupe, on déréglemente, on arrête d'imprimer.

Deux ans plus tard (photo à son arrivée (fin 2023) vs aujourd'hui) :

Inflation annuelle : 211% → 31%
Inflation mensuelle : 25% → ~2%
Déficit public : −5% du PIB → +1,8% (excédent)
Croissance : −1,6% → +4,4%
Pauvreté : 42% → 28%

Sans débat. Jugez par vous-mêmes.

Et le point essentiel : ces gains ne vont pas "aux riches" ou "aux marchés". Ils vont d'abord aux plus pauvres.

L'inflation est l'impôt le plus injuste qui existe — elle frappe ceux qui n'ont aucun actif pour se protéger. La diviser par 7, c'est rendre du pouvoir d'achat à ceux d'en bas. Et 14 points de pauvreté en moins, ce sont des millions de gens, pas une ligne Excel.

Pendant un siècle, on a expliqué aux Argentins que l'État les protégerait en dépensant toujours plus. Résultat : un des pays les plus riches du monde en 1910, ruiné. On vient d'inverser la méthode. Regardez le résultat.

À un moment, il faut accepter ce que les faits racontent : sur le terrain économique, la méthode libérale a livré en deux ans ce que des décennies de socialisme avaient promis sans jamais tenir. Et ça profite d'abord aux plus modestes.

On peut détester le style de Milei — la tronçonneuse, l'outrance, les sorties improbables, il n'a rien d'un homme d'État classique. Mais on ne juge pas une politique économique au style de celui qui la mène. On la juge à ce qu'elle fait à la vie des gens.

Et les chiffres ont parlé.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐙𝐄𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐒 $𝟐𝐁 𝐀𝐁𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐒-𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐆𝐎 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐓 — “$𝟏𝟎𝟑 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓. 𝐁𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐔𝐌𝐏𝐄𝐃 $𝟐𝐁 𝐈𝐍 𝐁𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐍𝐆”

Trump in the Cabinet Room today, walking through one of the cleanest examples of last-minute Biden-era grant fraud: the $2 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund award to Power Forward Communities, the climate-NGO coalition whose senior counsel through 2024 was Stacey Abrams.

“𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘺 𝘈𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 $2 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 $103 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵 — 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘥, 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 $103 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘵 $2 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵. $2 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯.”

𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐬. 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐆𝐎 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 $𝟏𝟎𝟑 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐝-𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐄𝐏𝐀 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚 $𝟐,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐰𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, on the disposition, in his own words: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘔𝘳. 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 $2 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 $29 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘌𝘗𝘈. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯.”

$𝟐𝟗 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐏𝐀 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎. The cases are working their way through the D.C. Circuit, and as of September the Circuit Court vacated the injunction that had been blocking the cancellations. The money stays frozen pending final adjudication, which is now expected to go in EPA’s favor on the merits.

𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬’ 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐭 $𝟏𝟎𝟑 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 $𝟐 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞.

[Handre @Handre]

Venice built the greatest commercial empire in European history without a central bank, without industrial policy, and without a single economic development agency. While Byzantine bureaucrats strangled Constantinople with regulations and Frankish kings debased their currencies, Venetian merchants created wealth through voluntary exchange and sound money.

The lagoon dwellers who fled Attila's hordes in 452 AD had nothing but salt marshes and fish. No natural resources. No agricultural surplus. No inherited infrastructure. What they possessed was something far more valuable: distance from the coercive apparatus of mainland states. This geographic accident forced them to survive through trade rather than taxation, commerce rather than conquest.

Venice's constitution deliberately fragmented power to prevent any single authority from controlling trade. The Doge held ceremonial functions while competing merchant families checked each other's ambitions. No guild could monopolize an industry without rivals organizing alternative trading networks. When the state tried to restrict private commerce in 1297 with the Serrata del Maggior Consiglio, it marked the beginning of Venice's decline, not its peak.

The Venetian ducat maintained its gold content for over 500 years while every other European currency suffered debasement. Merchants could calculate profits across decades, plan investments across generations, and accumulate capital without worrying about monetary manipulation. Compare this to England, where Henry VIII cut silver content by 83% in just 20 years.

Voluntary association and sound money create abundance. Coercion creates poverty. Venice proved this. The same economic laws that enriched Venetian merchants still operate today, waiting for governments brave enough to get out of the way.

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

@elbromasdotcom @CubaOrtografia True - if human beings are just points on a graph to be best exploited in the long-term.
But we are not.

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

The proper analogy is not geese-alaying on a farm under some nurturing farmer’s care. No. It’s more like a parasitic wasp that implants its larvae in an unsuspecting caterpillar which then directs the host to keep eating, keep searching out food, keep acting normal while its literally being consumed from the inside-out.

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

68 year old American citizen here, taxed and taxed and taxed again since I was twelve gottdam years old, taxed by expropriating Democrat pols and taxed by expropriating Republican pols. I have been treated like a goose laying eggs on a farm until the plucking time comes and then I have to read how Laffer, scribbling on a napkin for more expropriating fools (did they somehow make it politically without knowing the curve??) in their napkin-deep intellects, that they (parasites or farmers?) can, “manage to sustain high revenue levels without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The rest just pile up ruins and excuses.”
My ancestors agreed that their public servants and the government that they organized would earn their keep by simply defending our individual sovereignty, our natural rights to our lives, our liberties and our property. We pay for a night watchman with a big stick and a sharp eye, not an overseer to keep the geese laying golden eggs.

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

68 year old American citizen here, taxed and taxed and taxed again since I was twelve gottdam years old, taxed by expropriating Democrat pols and taxed by expropriating Republican pols. I have been treated like a goose laying eggs on a farm until the plucking time comes and then I have to read how Laffer, scribbling on a napkin for more expropriating fools (did they somehow make it politically without knowing the curve??) in their napkin-deep intellects, that they (parasites or farmers?) can, “manage to sustain high revenue levels without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The rest just pile up ruins and excuses.”
My ancestors agreed that their public servants and the government that they organized would earn their keep by simply defending our individual sovereignty, our natural rights to our lives, our liberties and our property. We pay for a night watchman with a big stick and a sharp eye, not an overseer to keep the geese laying golden eggs.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

💯

[PDriftmier @PhatShutter]

I always knew spinach had no good reason to exist.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Spinach. The superfood. The leafy green that built a sailor. The bag of pre-washed leaves in your fridge you paid £2.50 for because the packet said "powerhouse of nutrition" and showed a cartoon arm with a cartoon bicep on the back.

Let's have a look at what's actually in there.

Spinach is famously high in iron. The iron in spinach is non-heme iron, which the human body absorbs at a rate of around 1.7%, compared to the 15-35% absorption rate for heme iron from a piece of beef. The number on the nutrition label is the iron that went into the leaf. The number that reaches your bloodstream is a fraction so small it would embarrass a calculator.

Spinach is also famously high in calcium. The calcium in spinach is bound to oxalates, which are the plant's natural pesticide, evolved to discourage things like you from eating it. A half-cup of cooked spinach contains roughly 755mg of oxalate, one of the highest concentrations in any food humans consume. The oxalates lock onto the calcium in the leaf and most of the other calcium in your meal, dragging it out of your digestive tract bound up in indigestible crystals. The calcium you absorb from spinach is around 5%. The calcium you absorb from a glass of full-fat milk is around 30%.

The oxalates also bind to iron. So the iron that was already barely absorbable is made even less so by the spinach's own chemistry. The plant is, in a meaningful sense, fighting your stomach.

The oxalates not bound up by minerals are excreted through your kidneys, where they form sharp crystals of calcium oxalate. These are kidney stones. Calcium oxalate stones account for around 80% of all kidney stones, and spinach is one of the foods most consistently recommended for elimination in patients prone to them. A juice cleanse featuring two cups of spinach a day has, in the medical literature, put a woman into acute kidney failure.

The Popeye cartoon was based on a clerical error from 1870 that overstated spinach's iron content by a factor of ten. The error was corrected in 1937. The cartoon was not.

You have been eating a leaf that fights its own nutrition, costs your kidneys, and built its entire reputation on a decimal point that wasn't actually there.

Eat the steak. The iron in it is real, and it doesn't come with the legal disclaimer.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Something is deeply wrong