Laura Henning

Views my own. Freedom above safety.

[Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump]

BREAKING NEWS: I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States! At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America. Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval. For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation. This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end! We are very honored and proud of what has just taken place, and everything agreed to today will be cherished by the American People. We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction. This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland, and all of our Allies. We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

[Mia Hughes @_CryMiaRiver]

Imagine a group of powerful, well-connected anorexics gather and formulate a plot to reject the psychiatric framing of anorexia and turn their illness into a healthy identity.

They make it discrimination and bigotry to call anorexia a mental disorder and frame access to liposuction and Ozempic as medically necessary and a human right.

The whole world goes along with this.

In the field of anorexia-affirming care, an anorexic receives immediate affirmation of her anorexic identity and unfettered access to the weight-loss medical treatments that her disorder demands.

No psychotherapeutic attempt is made to loosen the grip of the belief.

Then, instead of measuring success by objective outcomes such as physical health and quality of life, researchers in the field opt for self-report: in other words, after giving the anorexic the very treatments that her disorder compels her to seek, the researchers ask her if she is happy.

When she says yes, this confirms that Ozempic and liposuction are beneficial and appropriate treatments for anorexia.

That is the medical world’s current approach to managing the trans phenomenon.

Read how this madness happened in my first essay of @Genspect’s REPATH series

[Kurt Mahlburg @k_mahlburg]

A landmark Finnish study has found a sharp rise in psychiatric illness among adolescents following sex-alteration procedures.

The peer-reviewed study, published in Acta Paediatrica, tracked every young person under 23 who contacted Finland's gender clinics between 1996 and 2019.

A total 2,083 individuals were studied, with 16,643 matched controls. They were followed for up to 25 years.

Finland's health registers are mandatory, which means no one opts out — this is the complete national picture.

The numbers: psychiatric morbidity rose from 9.8% to 60.7% in adolescents who underwent feminising reassignment, and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinising reassignment.

Even after adjusting for prior psychiatric history, gender-referred adolescents faced five times the risk of male population controls, and three times the risk of female controls.

"Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment," the authors concluded.

Referrals after 2010 arrived sicker. 47.9% had already needed psychiatric treatment before their first clinic visit, against 15.3% among controls.

The authors' read: for some adolescents, gender distress may be secondary to other mental health challenges.

The evidence keeps mounting. The silencing continues anyway.

How many more adolescents will be told this is "care"?

[Jaco Kleynhans @JacoKleynhans]

Reflections after a 25th visit to the Netherlands

I was in the Netherlands again last week, my twenty-fifth visit in twenty years. It remains one of my most beloved countries. I adore the Dutch people and the historical ties between my country and the Netherlands.

Each time, I observe the vast cultural differences between the Dutch and Afrikaners, and the extent to which Africa, along with our German, French, English, and other DNA, has shaped us. Indigenous tribes and Malay slaves helped mold our language Afrikaans. Long, dry, scorching summers and the African landscape forged us into tough, resilient people. Isolation spared us from excessive refinement, exaggerated enlightenment and overzealous political correctness.

Yet, I perceive something beautiful, albeit almost painfully precious, in the Netherlands: a highly advanced society with wonderful people, but one lacking any plan for the future, any long-term dreams or any remaining sense of close-knit cohesion.

Over twenty years of regular visits, I have watched the Netherlands wither due to its own actions (oikophobia, secularization, the loss of identity and culture, etc.) as well as external factors. These include mass immigration and the emergence of parallel societies formed by assertive, aggressive, and dominant cultures from the Arab world and Africa, alongside the paralyzing effects of European integration and the unwitting surrender of national sovereignty to a bureaucracy of unelected "deep state" officials in Brussels.

During my most recent visit last week, I concluded that the final tipping point has been reached. Friends speak of rapidly shifting demographics in schools, no longer confined to cities but now evident in rural areas as well. The Islamization of the country is visible everywhere. Churches close; mosques open.

More and more Dutch people are considering leaving their country. The coalition of immigrants and left-wing urban globalists has come to dominate every political sphere, the media, and academia. Ordinary citizens, entrepreneurs, farmers and workers have to work ever harder and pay ever more, only to receive less and less while watching their country slip away before their eyes.

Over the years, I have read a great deal about the Netherlands. The initial settlement of small tribes over the centuries transformed a marshy, windswept river delta, a landscape of sand, peat, floods and a true hostile environment, into a land of forests, dikes and historic villages and magnificent art, but above all, a land of close-knit communities, exceptional talents, international traders, great thinkers and innovators who helped shape an extraordinary civilization.

Now, we are witnessing a great decline. While prosperity remains, there is also a massive loss of continuity. It is every man for himself; who cares about future generations? Historical guilt and a left-wing, self-imposed self-loathing have allowed an influx of migrants with incompatible cultures, leading them to take over street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, and city by city.

On the street, you hear a strange new Dutch -impoverished in depth and grammar and riddled with English and lazy slang. Culture is now relegated to history and museums. The "good life" is defined by daily pleasures rather than the creation of enduring things.

I see the end of the Netherlands approaching, or at least the end of the Netherlands as it has existed for the past few centuries. With every visit, I observe increasing affectation, paralysis, loss, and a transformation that effectively amounts to an occupation by cultures that harbor an aversion to Western culture, Christianity, and, by extension, the Netherlands itself.

The future of the Netherlands looks uncertain, even perilous. It points to either an urgent course correction or a dramatic escalation of tension, conflict and revolution. This is not merely the story of the Netherlands, but also of other European countries and regions close to my heart, such as Flanders, Germany, Austria, South Tyrol, and so on. These are issues concerning the survival of a civilization playing out right before our eyes. Each of us surely has a part to play, something we can and must do, to protect our Western civilization from destruction, and this is precisely what I urge my Dutch friends to do with great urgency.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Elon vient d’écrire : « She is a traitor to France. »

Pour ceux qui me lisent depuis les États-Unis, voilà de qui on parle.

Sandrine Rousseau. Députée écologiste. Hier, à la Fête de l’Humanité, elle traitait Elon de « connard de suprémaciste » et intimait à la salle l’ordre de quitter X.

Ce n’est pas un coup de sang. C’est une cohérence.

Elle a dit, mot pour mot :
« Le monde crève de trop de rationalité, de décisions prises par les ingénieurs. Je préfère des femmes qui jettent des sorts plutôt que des hommes qui construisent des EPR. »

Elle a dit que la question n’était plus comment produire de l’électricité, mais « comment on diminue la quantité d’électricité que l’on produit ».

Elle a dit que le nucléaire était « l’énergie de l’illusion de la maîtrise de l’homme sur la nature ».

Elle a voulu que l’entrecôte au barbecue cesse d’être un « symbole de virilité ».

Ce n’est pas un florilège. C’est un logiciel.

Le logiciel dit : la technique est coupable, l’ingénieur est le problème, la puissance est une faute, un pays civilisé doit apprendre à se faire plus petit.

Ce logiciel a déjà été testé grandeur nature. L’Allemagne a fermé ses centrales, s’est offert l’électricité la plus chère d’Europe, a rallumé le charbon et a regardé son industrie partir. On a appelé ça l’Energiewende. Vingt ans de chiffons enflammés agités sur une promesse qui n’est jamais arrivée.

La France avait l’inverse. Un parc nucléaire. Des ingénieurs. Une électricité bas carbone, dense, abondante. On l’a reportée, moralisée, honteuse, jusqu’à ce que l’avantage stratégique devienne un péché.

Si la situation française est catastrophique aujourd’hui, notamment sur l’énergie, ce n’est pas un orage. C’est le résultat d’idées qui ont gagné les plateaux, les ministères et les têtes.

Ces gens ne sont pas des visionnaires incompris. Ce sont des woke qui ont transformé l’écologie en thérapie, la France en coupable et l’ingénieur en ennemi de classe.

Sandrine Rousseau n’est pas « clivante ». C’est une folle à qui on a donné un micro. Elle préfère les sorts aux EPR. Elle veut produire moins d’électricité dans un pays qui en manque. Elle traite de suprémaciste l’un des seuls types qui construit encore des usines, des fusées et des réseaux. Et elle a encore une audience.

La décroissance n’est pas une théorie. C’est une industrie de la peur. Elle vend du désespoir aux jeunes et de la vertu aux adultes. Elle a ruiné l’Allemagne. Elle a sabré l’avantage nucléaire français. Elle a agité des chiffons enflammés sur un mensonge : que se faire plus petit rendrait le pays plus moral.

Si la France est dans le mur sur l’énergie, ce n’est pas un orage. C’est le bilan de ce logiciel. Elon a le mot juste. Traître. Pas à un camp. À la capacité du pays de se nourrir, de s’éclairer, de produire.

Le XXIe siècle n’attendra pas qu’elle finisse sa phrase.
On construit. Ou on disparaît.

[Diego Angulo @AmoaHamlet]

PREGUNTA PARA LOS ENEMIGOS DEL CAPITALISMO:

Si los individuos somos demasiado ignorantes, irracionales e incapaces de discernir qué es lo mejor para nuestras propias vidas como para dejarnos decidir libremente, y por eso necesitamos del Estado ¿en qué momento exacto un político, salido de esa misma masa de individuos ignorantes, irracionales e incapaces adquiere el conocimiento necesario para decidir por todos?

¿Qué clase de transformación epistémica ocurre al cruzar la puerta del Estado? ¿En qué momento el político deja de ser un ignorante que necesita ser dirigido y pasa a convertirse en un oráculo capaz de conocer millones de las preferencias, circunstancias y necesidades contextuales de cada ser humano que gobierna?

¿Qué proceso lógico nos lleva de “el individuo no sabe qué le conviene” a “el político sí sabe qué les conviene a todos”?

[Pascal Beuvelet @Pascal_Beuvelet]

La formidable lucidité de J.K. Rowling.
🔹Si vous pensez que la liberté d’expression est pour vous mais pas pour vos adversaires politiques, vous êtes illibéral.
🔹Si aucune preuve contraire ne peut changer vos croyances, vous êtes un fondamentaliste.
🔹Si vous pensez que l’État doit punir ceux qui ont des opinions contraires, vous êtes un totalitaire.
🔹Si vous pensez que les opposants politiques doivent être punis par la violence ou la mort, vous êtes un terroriste.

[Antonio C Martinez II -USA/Latin America @USLatAmEnvoy]

@Handre Thank you @Handre 🙏

[Handre @Handre]

Learn Austrian Economics in one X post:

1. Humans act. Every choice a person makes traces back to an incentive, a trade-off, a cost weighed against a benefit. Remove the incentive and the action stops. Distort the incentive and the action warps.

Tax income at 90% and watch producers stop producing. Subsidize failure and watch failure multiply. The behavior follows the reward structure, always.

2. Value exists only in the mind of the person choosing. A glass of water is worth nothing to a drowning man and everything to a man dying of thirst. No central authority can calculate this, because it changes with every individual and every circumstance.

Nothing has value in itself, only the degree to which humans choose to value it. Diamonds and even gold only carry value because humans decided they do.

3. Money does not come from a government decree. It emerged spontaneously when traders needed something durable, divisible, and widely accepted to escape the limitations of direct barter. Gold won that competition across centuries and across dozens of independent civilizations because the market, not a ministry, chose it.

Fiat currency is the state hijacking that evolved institution and replacing it with paper backed by nothing but a legal threat. Every central bank on earth operates on this model right now.

4. Wealth does not fall from the sky. A farmer who eats his entire harvest produces nothing next season. The farmer who saves seed, plants it, and specializes in what he grows best accumulates a surplus. That surplus is capital. Capital funds everything that comes after.

Consumption without prior production is just burning down the furniture for warmth. Every welfare state eventually reaches this point.

5. Strip private property rights and production collapses. A farmer will work his own land until midnight. That same farmer, working collective land, stops at noon. The Soviet Union ran this experiment across seventy years and killed tens of millions, proving the point.

When you cannot own the outcome, you do not produce the outcome.

6. Voluntary trade generates wealth from nothing but mutual preference. When you pay twelve dollars for a meal, you value the meal above twelve dollars; the restaurant values twelve dollars above the meal. Both parties walk away wealthier in real terms. No politician, no regulator, no bureaucrat added anything.

Protectionism destroys this. The 2018 US steel tariffs raised steel prices for American manufacturers, killed more jobs in steel-consuming industries than existed in steel production itself, and transferred wealth from productive firms to a protected few.

7. Ludwig von Mises identified inflation as a tax. Every dollar the Federal Reserve creates without corresponding production dilutes every dollar you already hold. The new money flows first to the government and its contractors, who spend it at current prices. By the time it reaches you, prices have already risen.

The US M2 money supply grew from roughly 15 trillion dollars in January 2020 to over 21 trillion by early 2022. Consumer prices followed. Your savings took the loss.

8. Prices carry information. A price spike tells producers to produce more and tells consumers to use less. It coordinates millions of strangers without a single central command. Interfere with that signal and the coordination breaks.

Rent control in New York City is the cleanest example. Cap rents below market and landlords stop maintaining buildings, stop building new ones, and convert units to other uses. The people rent control was supposed to help pay the price through collapsing supply.

9. Interest rates are the price of capital over time. When the Federal Reserve pushed rates to near zero between 2008 and 2022, it told every investor that capital was nearly free. Businesses built projects that only made sense at zero percent. When rates normalized, the projects failed. The 2022 collapse of the US tech sector and the crypto market were not random events. They were the correction of a decade of artificially cheap capital.

The business cycle is not a mystery of capitalism. Central banks manufacture it.

10. Bureaucrats face no profit and loss. A businessman who misallocates capital goes bankrupt. A bureaucrat who misallocates capital writes a report requesting more funding. The feedback loop that disciplines markets simply does not exist inside a government agency.

The US Department of Education has spent over a trillion dollars since 1980. Literacy rates have not improved. No one at the department has been bankrupted by this outcome.

11. Every producer inside a local market holds knowledge that no bureaucrat in a capital city can replicate. A wheat farmer in Kansas tracks soil moisture, futures prices, local equipment costs, his specific buyer relationships, and a hundred other variables simultaneously. That knowledge lives in the price he sets.

Friedrich Hayek called this tacit knowledge in 1945. The Soviet central planners ignored him and spent fifty years proving him correct, producing chronic shortages of goods that private markets coordinate effortlessly. No model, no algorithm, and no committee can compress what millions of independent actors know into a single plan.

12. Every government intervention produces effects you see and effects you don't. You see the road the state builds. You don't see the factory the tax dollars never funded, the job that never existed, the innovation that never happened because capital was extracted at gunpoint and redirected by bureaucrats with no skin in the game.

Take the 2009 Cash for Clunkers program. Congress destroyed 690,000 working cars, handed dealers a short-term spike, and you saw the sales numbers. The used car market was stripped of affordable inventory, pricing working-class buyers out for years afterward.

13. Prices, supply chains, and language itself coordinate millions of strangers without any central planner issuing a single command. That coordination is spontaneous order: complex, functional patterns that emerge from individuals pursuing their own goals under rules they did not collectively design. No committee holds the dispersed local knowledge required to replicate what voluntary exchange produces every second.

Watch how English evolved. No king designed its grammar. Millions of speakers across centuries adopted words and structures that worked, dropped ones that didn't, and produced a language richer than any bureaucrat could have engineered. Central planners who believe they can replicate that process with price controls or production quotas destroy the feedback mechanism that generates the order in the first place.

Thanks for reading this long post! What would you add to this list?

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Mao – The Bloodiest Idiot Who Ever Lived

Between 45 and 80 million dead. Not in war. Not in camps, mostly. In peacetime, in a country at peace with itself, killed by a series of decisions so stupid that a competent farmer could have refuted every one of them in an afternoon. This is what happens when a warlord with no education in anything runs a billion people – and is applauded from Paris while he does it.

1. The sparrows. In 1958 he decided the birds were eating the grain. So the entire country was mobilized to kill them: villagers banging pots and drums for days so the sparrows could not land, until they dropped dead from exhaustion. Hundreds of millions killed. Then came the locusts, which the sparrows had been eating. The harvest was devoured. The country had to import sparrows from the Soviet Union. A single conversation with an ornithologist – or a farmer – would have prevented it. There was no such conversation, because by then nobody told Mao anything he had not already decided.

2. The backyard furnaces. He wanted to overtake British steel production, so ordinary people were ordered to smelt steel in their yards. Millions of households melted down their own pots, tools, door handles and farm implements in mud furnaces, burning their furniture and their doors for fuel. What came out was unusable pig iron, immediately discarded. They had destroyed working tools to produce slag. And they had done it during harvest season, so the crops rotted in the fields while the peasantry played at metallurgy.

3. The planting theories. Close planting: crowd the seeds together, because plants of the same class do not compete. Deep ploughing: turn the soil to two metres, because deeper roots mean bigger yields. Both were nonsense, both were imposed nationwide on the authority of a man who had never farmed, and both destroyed the harvest wherever they were applied. The agronomists who knew better had learned what happened to agronomists who knew better.

4. Then the lie ate the country. Local officials, facing quotas and terror, reported harvests that did not exist. The state requisitioned grain proportional to the fake numbers. So the villages that had reported the biggest imaginary surpluses had the most real grain taken away. People starved beside empty granaries while China exported food to prove the Leap was working. This is the systemic lie in its purest form: a country that had made truth a crime, then starved on the arithmetic.

5. Between 45 and 80 million dead. The range is that wide because nobody counted – counting would have been a political act. And when Mao was informed, at the Lushan conference in 1959, that the policy was killing people, the man who told him was denounced and purged, and the campaign was intensified. There is no version of this where he did not know. There is only a version where knowing did not matter.

6. Then he did it again to the mind. The Cultural Revolution: students beating teachers, children denouncing parents, temples and libraries and instruments burned, a decade spent severing a four-thousand-year-old civilization from its own memory. Not a side effect – the objective. Destroy the transmission and the new man appears. The new man did not appear. Only the wreckage did.

7. And all the while, Paris applauded. The French intelligentsia – professors, editors, philosophers, entire journals – declared Maoism the future, made the Little Red Book fashionable, and treated any report of the famine as reactionary propaganda. They were not deceived; the reports were available. They simply preferred the theory to the peasants. Sartre and his circle backed the Cultural Revolution while it was burning the libraries. They paid nothing. They were never asked to.

The lesson is not that Mao was evil, though he was. It is that he was stupid – and that stupidity at the top is only lethal when nothing below can correct it. Kill the price signal, kill the free press, kill the expert who contradicts you, and there is no mechanism left to stop a bad idea about sparrows before it becomes forty-five million funerals.

Every system that abolishes correction eventually kills at the scale of its own ignorance. Mao’s ignorance was enormous, and so was his population.

And his portrait still hangs over Tiananmen Square.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Pol Pot – What Happens When a True Believer Takes Power.

He learned it in Paris. And he thought it was for real – not just the moral posturing of irresponsible French intellectuals in their Parisian cafés.

That was the difference. And the difference was two million dead.

Most communist leaders were opportunists. They used the ideology to seize power, and once they had it, the ideology bent to serve the power. Stalin was a gangster with a philosophy. Mao was a warlord with a manifesto. They killed millions – but in the service of control, not conviction.

Pol Pot was a true believer. And that made him the most dangerous kind.

In the early 1950s, as a scholarship student in Paris, he encountered the French Communist Party, the Marxist study circles, the cafés of the Latin Quarter where the ideas circulated among students who would never face the consequences of taking them seriously. The French intellectuals produced these ideas from comfortable apartments – moral posturing, civilizational performance, the gesture of opposition without the risk of implementation. They never intended it to be taken literally.

Pol Pot took it literally.

He returned to Cambodia with the complete theory in his head and the absolute conviction that it was correct. And when he took power in April 1975, he did not wait. Within days – within days – he ordered the complete evacuation of Phnom Penh. Two million people expelled from the capital on foot, at gunpoint, regardless of age or condition. Hospitals emptied. Patients wheeled out on their beds into the street. Because the city was the problem – the center of capitalism, corruption, bourgeois contamination. An honest communist works in the fields. So everyone would work in the fields.

Then he abolished money. Completely. Overnight. The most total implementation of Marxist economics ever attempted – no currency, no markets, no private property, no trade. The economy would be organized by the Angkar – the Organization, which knew what people needed and would provide it. This is what the theory says. He did what it said.

Year Zero. The past abolished. The educated eliminated – they carried the old consciousness in their heads. The family destroyed – it created loyalties that competed with the collective. Glasses confiscated – wearing them suggested literacy, which suggested education, which suggested bourgeois contamination. The killing fields were not a deviation from the theory. They were its conclusion, applied by a man who had read the texts carefully and believed them completely.

Between 1975 and 1979, approximately two million Cambodians died – a quarter of the entire population. Executed, starved, worked to death.

The French intellectuals who produced the ideas that formed him were never held responsible. Sartre continued to write. The cafés continued to operate. In the universities of Paris and Berkeley and Columbia, professors explained that Cambodia was a deviation, an excess, a misapplication.

It was not a deviation. It was the experiment. The answer to the question: what happens when you take the theory seriously and have the power to implement it without constraint?

The intellectuals who taught him went home for dinner. He went home to Cambodia.

That is the difference between posturing and belief. And it is why ideas have consequences – especially the ones that are never meant to be taken seriously.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Antonio Gramsci – The Most Dangerous Intellectual of the Twentieth Century.

Not the most famous. Not the most read. The most dangerous and the most consequential – because he was the one who figured out why the revolution kept failing, and what to do instead. The man who invented the long march through the institutions.
Everything that followed — the Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society’s operational model, the WEF formation pipeline, the captured university, the HR department enforcing approved speech — is downstream of what he wrote in a prison cell in Mussolini’s Italy, in code, between 1929 and 1935.

1. His central question: why hasn’t it happened? The working class was supposed to rise. The contradictions of capitalism were supposed to produce the revolution. They hadn’t – not in the West. Gramsci’s answer was precise and devastating: because the ruling class does not maintain power through force alone. It maintains power through cultural hegemony – the control of the ideas, values, and frameworks through which people understand the world. The worker who accepts that the existing order is simply how things are will not revolt, regardless of his material conditions. The revolution requires cultural change first.

2. The instrument was the long march through the institutions. Not the barricade. The school, the university, the media, the judiciary, the civil service, the cultural establishment – every institution through which a civilization transmits its values to the next generation. Capture these, fill them with people who share the counter-hegemonic project, and the cultural assumptions that maintain the existing order gradually dissolve. No barricades. No visible moment of rupture. Just the slow replacement of one cultural hegemony with another.

3. The educational capture was the masterpiece. Control the curriculum and you control the categories of thought available to the next generation. Not by telling them what to conclude – by shaping what questions they think to ask, what they consider obvious and what they consider unthinkable. The generation educated after the long march does not need to be told what to think. It thinks what it was formed to think – and experiences that thinking as its own.

4. He also theorized the organic intellectual – the person who translates the theoretical framework into stories and assumptions that circulate through the culture without appearing ideological. The film that makes the existing order seem absurd. The journalist who frames every story within the approved assumptions. Gramsci understood that culture is politics by other means – and that the side that controls the culture wins, regardless of who wins the elections.

5. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a published, documented, widely taught strategy that the left implemented consciously across the entire Western world. The 1968 generation put it into practice in the universities. They became the professors, the journalists, the civil servants, the judges, the HR directors of the decades that followed. The march took fifty years. It worked.

6. Mussolini’s prosecutor said at his trial: "We must stop this brain from functioning for twenty years." The brain did not stop. It produced thirty-three notebooks – smuggled out, published, and became the most widely read Marxist text in the Western academy after Marx himself. Gramsci died in 1937, six days after his release, at forty-six. He did not see the march he theorized. He did not need to.

7. Every captured institution, every transformed curriculum, every HR department enforcing approved speech, every content moderation policy suppressing the unauthorized voice – all running the program Antonio Gramsci designed in a prison cell, by a brain that was supposed to have been stopped. It wasn’t. And neither was the march.
Until now – because the distribution monopoly that made its outcomes enforceable is cracking. The counter-march has begun. It just doesn’t have a name yet.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Regularnie repostują mnie tu Elon Musk i Javier Milei. Tym razem obydwaj naraz👇🏻

Najpotężniejszy obecnie człowiek naszej cywilizacji i wolnościowy prezydent Argentyny – a oprócz nich kompletnie nikt znaczący. W Europie i w Polsce cisza.

Dziesiątki tysięcy anonimowych ludzi, uznanie przez zaprzyjaźnionych wolnościowców (Brivael już inaczej niż poniżej się do mnie nie odnosi:), miliony odsłon – ale z Europy żaden "przywódca" się nie zająknie. W Polsce wszyscy udają że nie widzą…

Zastanówmy się o czym to świadczy – co to nam o nich mówi…

Musk i Milei repostują, bo rozpoznają argument. Bo sami myślą w tych kategoriach, bo te idee są dla nich żywe, realne i ważne. Repostują bo prawda ich przyciąga – to ich naturalny odruch.

Oni dwaj i nikt inny – to nie przypadek – po prostu nie ma nikogo innego…

Europejscy i polscy "przywódcy" milczą z dokładnie tego samego powodu. Rozpoznają argument. I wiedzą, że jest niebezpieczny – dla nich.

Bo to nie jest kwestia tego, że nie widzą. Widzą doskonale. Ci ludzie mają zespoły od monitoringu mediów, a znaczący ideowy repost od Muska to nie jest coś, co umyka. O nie…
Gramsci, Spinelli, długi marsz przez instytucje, systemowe kłamstwo – to nie są dla nich abstrakcje. To jest powietrze, którym oddychają. Woda, w której pływają. System, który ich wyprodukował, który ich wybrał, który im dał ich pozycje.

Nie milczą z ignorancji. Milczą z interesu.

To jest właśnie to, o czym piszę od miesięcy. Rotacja elit jeszcze się w Europie nie dokonała. Stare elity trzymają się mocno – instytucje, media, nagrody, finansowanie, cały aparat Gramsciego pracuje pełną parą. Musk i Milei wyrwali się z tego systemu lub nigdy do niego nie należeli. Europejscy politycy są jego produktem.

Dlatego cisza w Europie nie jest zaskakująca. Jest informacją.

Mówi nam dokładnie to, co powinniśmy wiedzieć o tych ludziach: że rozumieją co piszemy, że wiedzą iż mamy rację – i że właśnie dlatego nie powiedzą o tym ani słowa.

Zakłamanie nie jest brakiem wiedzy. Jest wiedzą połączoną z wyborem milczenia.

I to świadczy o czymś bardzo brzydkim: o kalkulacji. Zgodzić się publicznie z tekstem o Gramscim nic nie daje, a kosztować może wszystko – zaproszenia, stanowiska, przychylność redakcji, spokój. Milczenie jest darmowe. To dokładnie ta premia za obłudę, którą opisuję od miesięcy – tylko tym razem widoczna na naszym własnym przykładzie.

I to jest właśnie test, o którym pisałem przy okazji nawigatorów. Musk i Milei mają jedną wspólną cechę: nie muszą pytać salonu o zdanie. Reszta musi – i dlatego reszta milczy. Nie brakuje im inteligencji. Brakuje im niezależności, a bez niej odwaga jest technicznie niemożliwa.

Co nam to jeszcze mówi o europejskich elitach?
Klasa, która nie potrafi publicznie przyznać racji tekstowi, z którym prywatnie pewnie się zgadza, nie jest elitą – jest układem. Elita mówi. Układ czeka, aż będzie bezpiecznie.

A w Polsce? W Polsce to jeszcze prostsze. Uznanie z zagranicy dla kogoś spoza układu jest problemem, nie powodem do dumy – bo podważa hierarchię, w której to oni rozdają uznanie.

Ale jest w tym dobra wiadomość, i to poważna. Dziesiątki tysięcy anonimowych ludzi i dwóch najbardziej wpływowych wolnościowców świata – to jest właśnie drugi obieg. Tak on zawsze wyglądał: bez oficjalnych nazwisk, bez błogosławieństwa salonu, za to z czytelnikami, których nikt nie musiał zapraszać.

Kiedyś przyjdą i oni. Zawsze przychodzą – dokładnie w momencie, w którym zgoda przestaje kosztować…

I wtedy będziemy pamiętać, kto był wcześniej.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Le travail qui a été fait aux USA par Jordan Peterson sur les jeunes doit être fait en France.

Gros marché là-dessus.

Il faut massivement ré-masculiniser les jeunes.

Il faut dé-construire massivement la dé-construction et réveiller l’instinct des jeunes hommes.

La civilisation ne va pas se sauver via la féminisation de la société, mais l’inverse.

[Handre @Handre]

No AI on earth solves the socialist calculation problem. Not GPT-5, not some hypothetical quantum supercomputer in 2035, not whatever Beijing is building right now. The problem was never about processing speed, and anyone selling you that story is either confused or selling something.

Mises already made the core argument in 1920. Prices in a market don't just report information, they generate it. When you buy copper instead of aluminum for your factory, you're not consulting a database. You're responding to a signal that itself emerged from millions of other decisions, each made by someone with local knowledge no central body will ever possess. A bureaucrat in Washington or Brussels cannot replicate that signal by feeding GDP data into a model. The signal only exists because private actors own the resources and bid against each other. Strip out private ownership and genuine competition, and the price system stops working. You don't get bad prices. You get no prices.

Now add AI. The central planner's fantasy becomes: feed the machine enough data, let it optimize production coefficients, and watch the economy run like a Swiss watch. This reasoning confuses a snapshot with a process. Markets don't produce a static dataset waiting to be crunched. They produce a continuous, real-time discovery process driven by human expectation, error, and correction. Venezuela had GDP figures. The Soviet Union had Gosplan feeding numbers into mainframes by the 1960s. Cuba has modern software. None of them produced a functioning price signal, because the underlying ownership structure that generates genuine prices was absent.

On top of that sits the issue of tacit knowledge. Friedrich Hayek spelled this out in 1945 in "The Use of Knowledge in Society." The welder in Youngstown, Ohio knows his local supplier is slow in February. The corner shopkeeper in Lagos knows her customers buy on credit at month-end. That knowledge never enters any database, because people act on it without articulating it, often without consciously knowing it themselves. No training dataset captures what was never recorded. No model predicts what an entrepreneur hasn't imagined yet.

Giving a central planner AI is like giving a blind man a faster pair of legs.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

The UK Met Office has again been caught publishing temperatures from weather stations that don't exist.

An FOI revealed Lowestoft closed in 2010, yet the Met Office kept issuing official temperatures for it.

The office said they were using "well-correlated" neighboring stations, but the FOI revealed that this was a lie.

The numbers were actually coming from a model that was inventing data from 'phantom' neighboring stations.

When exposed, they quietly deleted years of readings for Lowestoft, as well as a number of other stations, and added a disclaimer saying their data is "for general interest only."

FOIs also show over one third of Met Office stations never existed, and that real high-quality sites like Colwood are ignored.

Also, more than 80% of the network is low-grade class 4 or 5, by WMO standards giving 2-5C uncertainty.

This is the foundation of the UK's climate record – closed stations, imaginary stations and synthetic temperatures. The Met Office isn't credible.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Ce qui m’effraie vraiment dans les projets de Bill Gates.

C’est la logique.

Le collectivisme, c’est l’idée qu’un petit groupe de gens « éclairés » peut designer parfaitement un système complexe à la place de millions d’individus qui s’adaptent en temps réel.

Ils croient pouvoir remplacer le signal du marché par un plan.

Ce que Gates pousse avec la viande synthétique, les « solutions non-agricoles » et la refonte globale de l’alimentation, c’est exactement ça.

Il veut remplacer des millions de fermiers décentralisés — qui s’adaptent au climat, aux prix, aux sols, aux erreurs — par un système centralisé, piloté par des modèles et des laboratoires.

Sauf que la machine agricole décentralisée n’est pas « archaïque ».

C’est un système resilient qui apprend en permanence du marché. Qui absorbe les chocs. Qui corrige ses erreurs localement.

Quand tu détruis ça pour imposer un design central, tu ne « modernises » pas.

Tu casses le seul mécanisme qui a prouvé qu’il savait nourrir des milliards d’humains sans planificateur omniscient.

Et comme tous les systèmes collectivistes avant lui, ça ne peut pas marcher.
Parce qu’aucun humain, même ultra-riche, même ultra-intelligent, ne peut parfaitement designer un système aussi complexe.

Le résultat historique est toujours le même : pénuries, distorsions, puis famine… ou, dans ce cas précis, des effets de santé encore inconnus à grande échelle parce qu’on a décidé de faire manger à l’humanité un produit de laboratoire sous prétexte climatique.

Gates n’est pas un méchant de film.

C’est juste un homme qui gère l’humanité comme il gère son potager : d’en haut, avec la conviction que son plan est supérieur au chaos productif de millions de gens libres.

Sauf que l’humanité n’est pas un potager.

Et les systèmes qui ont le mieux nourri le monde n’ont jamais été ceux qu’on a « designés ».

Ce sont ceux qu’on a laissés s’adapter.

Les bâtisseurs de demain ne seront pas ceux qui veulent contrôler la nourriture.

Ce seront ceux qui multiplient les options, les fermes, les technologies et la résilience réelle.

À nous de choisir.

[Herenya Capital Advisors @HerenyaCapital]

Not all change is progress.

At Herenya, we still believe in personal service, real conversations and having an experienced broker at the other end of the phone.

Real brokers. Real people. Real support.

Ready to invest?

Make the move to Herenya.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

It's useless to warn people about something if no one can have a conversation about why it's happening and what must be done to stop it.

And that conversation is something that the tech elite are totally unprepared to have, because the solution will hit them directly in the pocketbook.

I can tell you how to fix the fertility crisis in three words.

But I can't actually fix the fertility crisis with those words, because y'all are not ready to do what's necessary. You think you are, but you're not. And you'll understand why I say you're not when I tell you the three words:

Stop. Hiring. Women.

Now do you get it?

A moment ago, you thought you were willing to do anything to fix this existential threat to every part of the world that matters.

Now, you want to ask me if there isn't, possibly, some gentler way that doesn't involve any nasty shocks to our nice, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive liberal way of life.

Or you're just calling me a big meanie.

Doesn't matter. When you argue with the point I am making here, you are arguing with Mother Nature, and I promise that Mother Nature cannot hear you, and she does not care.

Women already have a job, a job they evolved for. A job that is so demanding that they have to 100% specialized for it.

Women's job is making humans.

And there's only 15 years between the age when it's a felony to make a human with them, and the age when the stuff they need to make humans starts to not work so well.

If they are filling the role of men during that time period, they cannot do their own full-time, maximum effort job, and you get no new humans.

This is precisely why Mother Nature designed women to only mate with men who are wealthier and more powerful than they are. Because a woman, who is working full time at making humans, needs to be supported.

A baby human is an investment in the future. You can't make investments in the future without someone else supporting you in the present.

If men cannot do this, women won't have babies with those men.

This is why every single high-tech civilization has the fertility crisis.

Because every time a civilization gets high-tech, the elites, who buy labor, have a bright idea. Let's start educating the women, they say. That way, we can hire them and double the supply of labor. Which is totally good for society, and the fact that we, personally, will benefit most from this is a total coincidence, and not in any way the whole reason that Wall Street loves feminism.

Everyone knows that there's a near-perfect correlation between female education and the fertility crisis.

But very few people have truly understood why. It's not the education. It's what the women are being educated for.

If you just wanted to teach them matters animal, vegetable, and mineral, along with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse, there would be no problem at all.

But women are not being educated so they can be interesting conversationalists, or well-rounded human beings. They are being educated so they can sit in a cubicle eight hours a day between the ages of 20 and 35, and answer emails or design marketing campaigns.

That leaves them neither the time nor the resources nor the inclination to make humans, because men aren't any more powerful than they are. Which gives them the ick.

And, of course, they're miserable, because they are genetically programmed to be happy when they do their real job, which is making and refining little humans. Not emails or spreadsheets or marketing campaigns.

But no one is ready for this conversation, because it would involve admitting that every change in Western values after WW2 was a huge mistake.

@elonmusk isn't going to stop hiring women. Hell, it's not even legal to stop hiring women. You can get sued into oblivion for that.

But woman can't make little humans unless the other responsibilities of life are somebody else's problem.

And she doesn't want to make little humans with any man who cannot shield her from all those extra duties.

The bar for being able to do that used to be "reasonably successful tradesman". Now it's actual serious wealth.

We can't IVF our way out of this problem. And we can't just sit around posting "have more babies" on twitter. We have to address the real obstacles that prevent women from having kids.

And the biggest of those is that we have, in effect, demanded that they share every single adult male responsibility from career-building to voting to military service.

All of these responsibilities and burdens were sold to women as opportunities. But nothing is an opportunity if you can't opt out. Just try being 18 years old and finding a man who will 100 percent support and take care of you while you bear his children and do a little light housework.

It's possible, but you had better be exceptionally beautiful, with a sunny personality to match, and social access to the right set of men.

Because the average man can't offer you that deal anymore.

Not won't. Can't.

And there aren't enough rich men to go around.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Fossil fuels did not cause the CO2 rise. PERIOD.

Here is why we know, without wiggle room:

Every carbon source has an isotope fingerprint.
Fossil carbon: -28‰.
Ocean outgassing: -8‰. Standard values. Undisputed. In every carbon-cycle textbook. Used by the IPCC itself.

The Keeling plot reads the fingerprint of whatever is actually being added to the atmosphere. Pure mass balance. No models. No parameterizations. No assumptions.

Scripps measured it at four stations, Barrow to the South Pole, from 1978 to now.

Answer: -13.2‰.

Not -28.
Not close to -28.
Not fossil fuel.

Caribbean sclerosponges preserve that same fingerprint back to 1500 AD.
Same value.
About -13‰.
For five centuries.

Across those five centuries fossil emissions rose from essentially zero to roughly 10 billion tons of carbon per year. A ten thousand fold increase.

The isotope needle did not move.

If fossil combustion were driving atmospheric CO2, that needle would have swung hard toward -28‰.
It did not budge.

The two endmember mixing equation is arithmetic a middle schooler can do. Plug in -13.2 for the observed signature, -28 for fossil, -8 for ocean outgassing.
The fossil share of the net atmospheric addition cannot exceed 26%.

Then apply the five century constancy. In 1500 AD fossil emissions were essentially zero, so the observed -13‰ signature had to be the natural signature itself. That fixes the natural mix at -13‰. Plug that in with the modern -13.2‰.
Fossil share of the net addition: 1.3%.
Within noise of zero.

To escape the conclusion you must reject one of:

1. Elementary algebra applied to mass conservation
2. The isotope endmember values the entire carbon-cycle literature has used for sixty years
3. The Scripps and sclerosponge datasets the IPCC itself relies on

Nobody rejects any of them.

The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not the residue of your gas tank.
The isotopes rule it out.
Full stop.