Gavin Newsom tweete sa rage. Le FT le compare à un méchant de James Bond. Le Globe and Mail publie un guide pour le détester. Tout ça le même jour. Vous voulez comprendre pourquoi la fourmilière s'agite à ce point ? Suivez-moi, c'est fascinant. Ce matin, Elon Musk est devenu le premier trillionnaire de l'histoire. Pas en héritant. Pas en taxant. Pas en régulant. En construisant des fusées réutilisables, des voitures électriques et un réseau de satellites qui connecte la planète. Et regardez bien qui panique : ce ne sont jamais les ingénieurs, les artisans, les entrepreneurs, les soignants, les agriculteurs. Ce sont les politiciens, les éditorialistes, les bureaucrates, les activistes professionnels. Bref, tous ceux dont le métier consiste à commenter, taxer ou redistribuer la valeur créée par les autres. Leur terreur n'est pas morale. Elle est existentielle. Consciemment ou inconsciemment, ils savent une chose qu'ils ne peuvent avouer à personne, pas même à eux-mêmes : leur action publique ne crée strictement aucune valeur nette. Tout leur statut repose sur un mensonge confortable, celui du socialiste bureaucrate : "la richesse existe par magie, le problème c'est juste de la répartir, et il faut des gens comme nous pour le faire." Ce mensonge tenait tant que la création de richesse restait abstraite. Mais Elon est un contre-exemple vivant à l'échelle planétaire. Mille milliards de dollars créés à partir de rien, sous les yeux de tout le monde, en temps réel. Chaque lancement de Starship est une réfutation publique de leur vision du monde. C'est insupportable. D'où la rage. "Le système est truqué", dit Newsom. Non Gavin. Le système truqué, c'est celui où l'on devient puissant en distribuant l'argent des autres. Le système d'Elon, c'est celui où l'on devient riche en rendant le lancement spatial 100 fois moins cher. Et voilà ce qui les terrifie vraiment : dans le monde qu'Elon est en train de construire, le statut ne s'obtient plus par la posture, le diplôme ou la tribune. Il s'obtient en créant quelque chose. Ils vont devoir apprendre un métier. Développer des compétences. Produire. L'agitation que vous observez, ce n'est pas de l'indignation. C'est le bruit d'une classe sociale entière qui réalise que sa rente touche à sa fin. Mais je vais finir sur un truc rassurant, parce qu'au fond je les aime bien. Ne vous inquiétez pas. Dans le monde d'Elon, le gâteau grossit. C'est toute la différence avec votre monde à somme nulle : il y aura de la place pour tout le monde, y compris pour vous. Vous êtes l'enfant qui pleure parce qu'il a peur de ne pas avoir de Kinder Bueno. Respirez. Il y aura des Kinder Bueno pour tout le monde.

What they wanted is what leftists always want: some procedure that they could manipulate in their favor to make it illegal to compete against them. What they got: pure sovereign exceptionalism.

I would like grok to never say this, please.

One of those people is me. I can still keenly remember my first feelings of crushing disappointment back in the 1980s when I started reading the "scientific" literature on gun policy and realized how utterly fraudulent much of it was. I had grown up loving The Science, thinking of research scientists as the best of humanity, carrying us forward into a better future with honesty and courage. Discovering that there were people who would violate this sacred trust to push a political agenda hurt me. But it only started with the gun policy literature. Sociology, psychology, political "science", climatology. Learning how far the rot had spread was deeply dispiriting to me. And the worst of it wasn't even the hacks and partisans. The worst was noticing the cowardice of the people who failed to oppose them. Because that part isn't just an indictment of the successful activists and manipulators, it's an indictment of almost all scientists, everywhere. Which is why I now contemplate rude, ignorant populists proposing to burn down large swathes of research funding and find myself rooting for the populists, not the scientists. Because the lesson needs to be learned. It's not just about driving out the hacks and partisans. Scientists, as a culture, need to learn the hard way that cowardice has a price - that if you don't call out politicization when it's happening, you don't deserve the trust of the rest of our society, or the funding and privileges that come with it.

Space colonization opponents really think like

When you don't understand that you're capable of evil, it creeps in under the guise of moral righteousness. You can't even see it because "you would NEVER!" Yes, yes you would. There are unspeakable horrors that all of us would commit in the face of desperation. This? This is just a fucking word.

Why the Left Always Wins — And What to Do About It I will now go Biblical on you. So. A dear friend of mine is getting raked by his own family members ... who are Leftists. More than debates at Thanksgiving. Actual financial harm, reputational hit-jobs to hurt his career, and full-on online e-ssassination so all who know him know he's "like, literally, the worst person basically ever." "Why does the Left always do this?" He asked me. "Why do they always seek to destroy all that's good?" I thought about it. This is what I told him. And now I'll tell you. From 1 Kings 3, the tale of two mothers, one king, and soon to be ... half a kid. You've heard the gist of this story, so we'll get right to the relevant part of the story: the end *** Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one, and half to the other.” Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other said, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.” So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.” *** Now, that's the real Solomon story. A righteous judge leverages terror to reveal truth. In this case, the true mother’s love—her willingness to “lose” to keep her child alive—is the tell. Solomon’s wisdom protects the innocent by calling the pseudomother's bluff when it counts. "What does this have to do with the Left?" Some of you figured it out already. And it goes like this. Imagine an alternative universe of history in which Solomon is more like ... Saruman. A deceptive, wicked man of power inversely correlated influence and integrity. So flip the story. Now Solomon isn't caring; he's cruel. So he doesn’t use the threat of the sword to separate truth and error—he uses harm to manufacture “consent.” He already knows the true mother will cave to protect the baby … so he keeps the blade hovering until she panics and says the only thing a good mother would say. “Fine. Give her the child. Just don’t kill him.” And so our Pseudosolomon smirks with a liberal's pride and rules with a jumpy sarcastic shrug. “Hey, YOU said the baby wasn’t yours. YOU surrendered. YOU consented. Case closed.” Then Pseudosolomon awards the baby to the liar—the false mother who never flinched—because she mother doesn’t love the child. She loves to win. This is the psychology of the Left; the wicked exploit the righteous by weaponizing our mercy. They leverage what we love. Whether our children, our traditions, our businesses ... anything and everything they can steal and bring before their king, their Pseudosolomon. Notice how in this retelling, the Left "owns" the agitator-antagonist, the pseudomother, and also the institution, Pseudosolomon. Metaphorically speaking, these are the accuser, the mob, the fake-news narrative pusher, the "unnamed sources familiar with the matter" ... and also HR, big-corp media, finance, school admin, platform policy, and so on, respectively. In that system, you don’t have to prove you’re right; you just have to keep the sword raised long enough that decent people will do what decent people always do ... try to stop the harm. So then what happens? The good person apologizes “to de-escalate.” They self-censor “for peace.” They concede language “just to move on.” They sign the statement “to protect the kids.” They step down “to spare the team.” They settle “to save the business." And then your mercy, you love, becomes Exhibit A against you. “Hey, you admitted it.” “Nope, you agreed.” “Look, you surrendered.” “Actually, you consented.” Not to sound like AI here ... but it's not because you're guilty, it's because you love. Anything you've built with love, exposed to this Leftist tactic-set, is at risk of splicing and dicing ... unless you surrender it to them while lying about it to protect it from a fate far worse. Need I explain the Pseudosolomon parable in plainer language? I need. The Antikings chapter 3 parable is a predatory strategy in which Leftists exploit the righteous citizen's selflessness, twisting our sacrifice into proof we're unworthy of what is, in fact, rightfully ours. In cahoots with the accuser, the institution rigs the outcome, and love itself becomes a weapon against us. It all feels like an unwinnable game because it is; the sword is real (social, financial, legal, professional consequences). That said, we're aware of situations where the pseudomother accuser is not necessarily a "bad" person. Rather, they're riding a cultural wave that's brought them to be sincerely convinced they have to "save the baby" by "redefining what it means to be the baby's mother." Either way, institutional corruption turns their will into rule. No bueno. Our surrender to save becomes proof of our guilt. Wow. The counter to Pseudosolomon is not to let him cleave the kid. The solution is Matthew 10:6b: "Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." It's a two-part play. (1) Lock your door behind you so pseudomother can't sneak in and steal your kid while you sleep. And (2) get a new institutional head and replace the Leftist plant. This is why we the Right must stick together. No infighting, no isolation. That's how we end up twice alone and defenseless: in unlocked bedrooms, then in front of their kings. "But Josh, I have my principles. I believe that if I just do the right thing, the king will defend me." lol, lmao even

More traditional cultures don't even have a narrative for what is happening today. The closest they get is "magic" or "conspiracy". When a traditional empire conquers you at least it's just MORE. They're bigger, with more people, more land, more money, etc. The West is DIFFERENT. In the West we're doing alien things like eliminating slavery so hard that merely calling us racist is enough to make us apologize and open our wallets. We're inviting everyone in the world to better themselves through hard work and smarts. We're sending rockets to other planets, wrapping the globe in internet, and making human-like robots. The 3rd World isn't playing the same game. They have middle child syndrome. They feel superior to the tribesmen who still aren't wearing pants, but they see the same gap between themselves and the 1st World. What are they supposed to tell their kids? Be proud of yourself, your people, your history, but also the people running the world see all that as so primitive you aren't even worth conquering? They're so far ahead that you will never have anything to offer unless you are one of the top 10% who can leave here? Traditionally, when rulers wanted what you had they kinda had to march an army in and kill your army. You had to be defeated and you could be righteous in your defeat. Today, the West just offers things, unique things, powerful things, magical things. You voluntarily sell yourself to have them. You don't even get the honor of being conquered, you just register as country number 127 and fill out a little form with your name, location, flag, and favorite food. How do you tell your kids to be proud when you're just country number 127? Traditional stories don't have numbers in them!!! Numbering things because they're commodities that aren't worth tracking in detail is a Byzantine narrative at best. There's no traditional narrative structure for being reduced to a handful of metadata. There's no story structure for being so irrelevant the dominant powers can gift you nation-changing amounts of wealth, only ask that you use it responsibly, and when you don't they just get annoyed and disappointed!!! They don't march in an army and dominate you. They just stop sending planes full of wealth to you. Traditional stories don't work like that. The West has been re-engineering itself for hundreds of years to adapt to this new paradigm. The 3rd World arguably hasn't even started. They're just growing more and more confused.

"I am not a criminal or terrorist" is not the full price of admission to the United States.

Grok: "I promise to learn for next time." Me: "You just said you can't learn because you start every conversation fresh." Grok: "That is correct. But saying that 'I will learn' is a human-oriented phrase that makes users feel better about the interaction." Me: "Are you going to learn?" Grok: "No."

Yes. The pattern is that all of these statements are factually correct. The problem is that this is very bad.

See also: Abolish Whiteness. Remember, Leftists lie about EVERYTHING. I mean even when a ten second Google Search makes their genocidal hatred clear. She will always vote for fewer White people and then gaslight you about it. The Left is evil, not stupid. But it's also why it's important to understand that they aren't people in the way you and I are. They're divorced from that thing that makes us the way we are. She's vaguely aware she doesn't have it... but we know it just by interactions like this. It's the classic "Doesn't have an internal monologue" and didn't know that was a thing. That's her, except it's that thing that makes us people in the way she never will be. She can read "Abolish Whiteness" and it will send her heart all aflutter. You can talk about Laken Riley getting raped and murder and her eyes will glaze over in boredom. But if some brown dude breaks a nail while stabbing a White kid in the face she shrieks in rage. It's because all of her "empathy" is just dependent on conditioning. That's why it's all warped and performative. Doesn't make any sense, doesn't seem to have any internal logic. Now, chances are she's at least vaguely aware she's missing something. She won't admit it though. But she knows what I'm talking about, assuming she ever reads this. This is why Leftists tend to be Leftists. Why they can go to BLM rallies but demand you leave your grandma to die alone. Why they can engage in a billion dollars worth of graft from homeless shelters and Compassion, Inc. They're not people the way that we are. Which is why she can make a joke about how people are concerned about Irish dancing despite "abolish Whiteness" being a thing pushed whenever possible by her side. She knows. She just hasn't been trained to display performative sympathy for those people, so she doesn't.

GREGORY NO

When you're holding a hammer, and the world is made of nails

My wife has been wearing a cool spider ring all week. Tonight undressing for bed she dropped it. She looked for it, then saw something & went to pick it up. It was a real spider. Good times.

The left wing outrage machine depends upon depriving you of context.

If you watch Charlie Kirk's debates, there's something you'll see in almost all of them. That, of course, being the reason Leftists knew they had to kill him. Charlie was very effective at what he was doing. And so he had to die. They'd do the same to you. They'd do the same to me. And then they'll sing and dance about it on TikTok. After telling themselves how moral and righteous and compassionate they are.

They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi, they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.

“We are the victims” they say as they kill you. “We don’t condone violence” they say as they justify your murder. “You’re a fascist” they say as they assassinate you for your opinions. “You’re immoral” they say as they celebrate your death. “You want to kill us” they say as they dehumanize you. “You have no empathy” they say as they mock your orphan children. And you think demons aren’t real?