Avoir une sensibilité de gauche est largement compréhensible voire nécessaire. On ne peut pas laisser crever des personnes de faim. Le social au USA est juste un désastre. Mais aujourd'hui les gens qui se disent de gauche ne sont pas de gauche. C'est un essaim de criquet, des gens corrodés par l'envie qui pense juste qu'ils devraient tout avoir sans fournir le moindre effort. Des totalitaires en puissance qui voudrait tout accaparer pour le détruire dans la joie.

Aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. La déconstruction est le virus mental le plus efficace jamais conçu contre une civilisation. Il a été fabriqué en France entre 1966 et 1980 par trois hommes : Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Il a été exporté aux États-Unis, hybridé avec le puritanisme racial américain, et il est revenu trente ans plus tard sous le nom de wokisme paralyser l'Occident entier. Voici comment il fonctionne, et pourquoi il faut le détruire. La thèse est simple. Toute vérité n'est qu'un rapport de pouvoir déguisé. Tout texte sacré, toute loi, toute science, toute norme, toute hiérarchie, toute identité, toute institution cache en réalité une domination. Déconstruire, c'est montrer le rapport de force sous le vernis du vrai. C'est arracher le masque. C'est "démasquer". Formulé comme ça, ça paraît inoffensif. Voire utile. Qui n'aime pas un peu d'esprit critique ? Le piège est là. La déconstruction se présente comme une méthode. Elle est en réalité une ontologie. Elle ne dit pas seulement "interrogeons les normes", elle dit "il n'y a *que* des rapports de pouvoir". La différence est civilisationnelle. Une société qui interroge ses normes reste debout. Une société qui croit que ses normes ne sont *rien d'autre* que de la domination s'effondre. Parce qu'elle ne peut plus rien défendre. Plus une frontière, plus une loi, plus une science, plus une langue, plus une histoire, plus une biologie, plus une famille. Tout devient suspect. Tout devient négociable. Tout devient "construit donc déconstructible". C'est la première raison pour laquelle c'est un virus. Il s'auto-réplique. Une fois inoculé, il transforme tout ce qu'il touche en cible. La science est patriarcale, donc déconstruisons-la. Le langage est colonial, donc réinventons-le. La méritocratie est raciste, donc abolissons-la. Le sexe est une construction, donc choisissons-le. Il n'y a plus de roc. Tout est sable. Deuxième raison. Le virus est *non-falsifiable*. Si vous défendez une norme, c'est que vous êtes l'oppresseur. Si vous niez être oppresseur, c'est la preuve de votre privilège inconscient. Si vous citez des faits, vos faits sont contaminés par le pouvoir qui les a produits. Si vous citez la raison, la raison elle-même est blanche, masculine, occidentale. Il n'y a aucune sortie possible. Le système est conçu pour rendre toute objection irrecevable par définition. C'est exactement la structure d'une secte. Et c'est exactement ce qui s'est installé dans les universités, les RH, les médias, les administrations, les conseils d'administration depuis vingt ans. Troisième raison. Le virus s'auto-réfute mais ne s'auto-détruit pas. Si toute vérité est pouvoir, alors la phrase "toute vérité est pouvoir" est elle-même du pouvoir, donc sans valeur. Logiquement, la déconstruction se mord la queue dès la première phrase. Mais elle s'en moque. Parce qu'elle n'a jamais cherché la cohérence. Elle cherche l'efficacité politique. Et son efficacité politique est immense. Elle désarme ses ennemis et arme ses militants. Elle paralyse le défenseur et libère l'attaquant. C'est une arme asymétrique parfaite. Quatrième raison. Le virus produit des humains diminués. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Elle sait soupçonner, jamais admirer. Elle voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Elle peut produire mille pages sur le caractère opprimant de Shakespeare et zéro ligne qui vaille la peine d'être lue dans cent ans. Elle a confondu l'intelligence critique avec la pose critique. Elle est stérile par construction. Un esprit nourri à la déconstruction est un esprit qui ne sait plus rien édifier. Cinquième raison, la plus grave. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers. La croyance qu'une vérité est accessible à la raison. La croyance qu'un bien se distingue d'un mal. La croyance qu'un héritage mérite d'être transmis. La déconstruction a méthodiquement dynamité les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui avait nourri ses prophètes. Mais le résultat est là. Une civilisation qui ne croit plus en sa vérité, ni en son bien, ni en son héritage ne se défend pas. Elle s'excuse en attendant la fin. Voilà ce qu'on a fait. Voilà ce qu'il faut nommer. La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'un virus mental ne survit que tant qu'on lui cède l'autorité du discours. Il meurt dès qu'on cesse de jouer son jeu. Dès qu'on réaffirme tranquillement qu'il existe une vérité, un beau, un bien, un héritage. Dès qu'on cesse de demander la permission aux déconstructeurs pour bâtir. Dès qu'on refait. Dès qu'on transmet. Dès qu'on crée. Les bâtisseurs ont toujours le dernier mot sur les commentateurs. Toujours. Parce qu'à la fin il reste ce qui est construit, et rien de ce qui a été déconstruit. Alors aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. Et demain je construis.

Airbnb's CEO just confirmed what we've been saying. 📊 On their Q4 2025 earnings call, Brian Chesky dropped this: "Traffic that comes from chatbots converts at a higher rate than traffic that comes from Google." Not marginally. Meaningfully. Users arriving from ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude aren't browsing. They've already narrowed their options through conversation. By the time they click, they're ready to act. 🔍 Why chatbot traffic converts better: → Users describe exactly what they need in natural language → AI filters options before the user ever visits your site → By the time they reach you, they're pre-qualified → Less volume, but higher intent on every click Google gives you browsers. AI gives you buyers. 📊 The bigger picture: → AI users consider 3.7 businesses per response (Sagapixel study) → 60% decide without ever visiting a website → Reddit discussions cite ChatGPT conversions at ~15.9% vs Google's ~1.76% → Airbnb now sees chatbot platforms as acquisition partners, not threats This isn't one company's opinion. It's a pattern. ⚠️ What this means for home services: Someone asks ChatGPT: "Best emergency plumber in Scottsdale with same-day availability." That person isn't casually browsing. They have a problem right now. They need a solution right now. If AI recommends your business, that's not just a lead — it's practically a booked job. But if you're not in that response, your competitor gets the call. And the customer never even knew you existed. ✅ How to capture AI traffic that converts: → Optimize your GBP with specific services and areas — AI pulls from this → Build content that answers real questions ("How much does drain repair cost in Phoenix?") → Get your business cited on trusted sources — directories, review sites, Reddit, local publications → Make sure the first 30% of every page has your key info — that's where AI looks (Kevin Indig's data) → Focus on being included in AI responses, not just ranking on Google 📌 Bottom line: The game is shifting from volume to intent. Less traffic, better customers. But only if AI knows you exist. At Makarios, we help home services businesses get visible where it matters most — in the AI responses that are already replacing Google for high-intent searches. Is your business showing up when someone asks AI for help? 💬

🚨The EU Censorship Files, Part II For more than a year, the Committee has been warning that European censorship laws threaten U.S. free speech online. Now, we have proof: Big Tech is censoring Americans’ speech in the U.S., including true information, to comply with Europe’s far-reaching Digital Services Act.

Urgent: how to help save a young protester’s life. I cannot believe how many years we’ve had to recycle this dystopian practice. God, when will it end? #ErfanSoltani

Just cancelled my subscription to the WSJ. This paragraph did it. Sent them a scathing email. "Just after Christmas, a viral video made allegations—some quickly debunked by Minnesota news outlets—of fraud involving daycare centers. The video, promoted by Vance and billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, was made by right-wing content creator Nick Shirley, who attended a White House event last fall aimed at countering the so-called antifa movement."

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

bit.ly/TWIHI462DelBigtree An Inconvenient Study Last month, all hell broke loose on this normally tranquil slice of the Internet, when I shared a podcast episode with Gavin de Becker. Gavin is a famous criminologist who published a book called Forbidden Facts, which argued that many of the 72 childhood vaccines on the current schedule were either not necessary, or not worth the risk of taking. The book also claims the government knows all of this and has deliberately suppressed the truth. Along with the typical accusations of “anti-vaxer!” and “conspiracy nut,” most of the comments critical of Gavin, (and me) were posted by people who had neither read Gavin’s book, nor listened to our conversation. So certain were the defenders of “safe and effective,” they couldn’t even take a quick look at what was actually being suggested before proclaiming “the science has been settled!!!” Well, I suspect the same thing will happen again today. Because today, at the request of many listeners, my guest is @delbigtree, CEO of Informed Consent Action Network. His recent film, An Inconvenient Study, is ruffling a lot of feathers. The study in question was conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos, the head of infectious diseases at The Henry Ford Medical Center. In short, this was the first major study to compare the overall health of thousands of people who received all of the recommended vaccines, with the overall health of those who did not. Most importantly, Dr. Zervos, a longtime proponent of vaccines (including all those on the current schedule) assured Del Bigtree that he would publish the results no matter what those results indicated. However, when the study was finally completed, Dr. Zervos changed his mind. Why? Because the results clearly contradicted the claims that the vaccines in question were safe and effective. And Dr. Zervos was afraid that releasing the results would cost him his job, and his reputation. Obviously, Del Bigtree was very disappointed. Here at last was a very robust study conducted by a respected vaccine advocate at a renowned medical institution that cast serious doubt on the efficacy of certain vaccines. And so, Del went to meet with Dr. Zervos in person and pled with him to keep his word and publish the results. But, because he was not optimistic the Dr. Zavros would agree to do so, Del Bigtree surreptitiously filmed and recorded their entire conversation, over lunch. Consequently, Del Bigtree now has Dr. Zervos, (spoiler alert!) admitting - on camera - that even though he believed the results of his study were valid, he was unwilling to publish the results for fear of losing his job and his reputation in the medical community. Obviously, my conversation with Del includes a discussion on the ethics of recording someone without their knowledge. We also discuss the methodology of the study itself, which has been criticized by a number of experts. Those criticisms are clearly stated and rebutted on the website where you can watch the film for free, linked below. But even if some experts question certain aspects of the underlying methodology, the results are impossible to ignore. If nothing else, they suggest an urgent need to conduct further studies with even larger groups and even better controls. The stakes are simply too high to shout down the skeptics with the usual “that’s all been debunked” routine, and the skeptics are now far too numerous to be dismissed as “anti-vaxxers.” To that point, consider that just a few days ago, The Atlantic – arguably the strongest supporter of all recommended vaccines, (including and especially the Covid shots,) and the most consistent critic of anyone who suggested otherwise, finally admitted in a stunning headline that some children “may have died” because of them. bit.ly/4oUJTlP There is no apology in the article, and zero empathy for the parents of the dead children. The author makes more of a “collateral damage” argument and concludes that the decision to deliberately conceal the attendant risk of injecting children with an unproven vaccine was a “strategic blunder” in the fight against “anti-vaxxers,” as opposed to a moral failing. Nevertheless, it’s a remarkable reversal for a publication like The Atlantic, and no doubt gratifying to Gavin de Becker, Del Bigtree, and everyone else who has ever been shouted down for daring to wonder if we were being told the whole truth. Clearly, we weren’t. An Inconvenient Study can be seen for free, here. aninconvenientstudy.com/ Likewise, my conversation with Del is also free, and can be listened to at your convenience. bit.ly/4aeUG6F Both are worth your time. Mike PS. In response to the criticism sure to follow this conversation, I want to say, again, that my ultimate goal in talking to skeptics like Gavin de Becker and Del Bigtree is not to foster distrust in our institutions; it’s to push our institutions to admit when they’re wrong, and then, be accountable for those mistakes. Like most of you, I want to trust the experts. I want to believe our elected officials, our journalists, and most of all, our scientists. I want to believe they will always follow the facts, no matter where they lead. Unfortunately, experts are human beings, just like the rest of us. Some are more virtuous than others, but none are anxious to destroy their livelihoods and their reputations. Personally, I think it’s really important for the public to understand the pressure on experts like Marcus Zavros, and where that pressure comes from. That’s why books like Gavin’s and films like Del’s are important. Even if they are inconvenient... bit.ly/TWIHI462DelBigtree

The @EU_Commission is hitting @X with a $140 million dollar fine for refusing to censor people to the liking of EU tyrants. President Trump should not allow the EU to bully US companies. The EU needs 🇺🇸, not the other way around. Trump should hit the EU with a tsunami of pain.