I posted below about the pro-mask, pro-vaxx views of candidate for @IdahoGOP Chair Mark Fuller. Here's the response from one of his supporters: 👇

A poignant @WIRED profile by @StevenLevy of @stewartbrand, who continues writing and working despite a terminal illness, viewing maintenance as more valuable than disruption. His life and his book Maintenance are a testament to resilience wired.com/story/stewart-bran… @stripepress

As a reminder: The coordinated anti-data center push in the US isn’t organic. It’s fueled by foreign actors from China and Russia via dark money networks flowing into major “charities.” Our AI supremacy is one of America’s greatest strategic weapons—and our adversaries know it.

Pretty gross that a candidate for Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party is in favor of wearing masks, total compliance. That’s weak and his rationale is wrapped up in religiosity. Hard no for me

This AI just exposed the BIGGEST legal insider trading operation in America. A platform called GovGreed built a seven-layer machine learning system that cross-references every stock trade disclosed by every sitting politician against the bills their committees control, the campaign donations they receive, and the companies their votes directly impact. It scored all 540 politicians currently in Congress. And the numbers are crazy: 56% of every stock purchase made by Congress in the last 16 months was on a stock directly affected by a bill the buyer later voted on. That is 6,170 out of 11,016 total purchases. More than HALF of all congressional stock buys are on companies whose fate that same politician is about to decide. 343 of 540 Congress members actively trade stocks while holding access to nonpublic legislative information. That is 63.8% of the entire legislature making market bets with an informational edge that would put any hedge fund manager in prison. The AI identified 752 active "Triple Signals" in the current Congress. A Triple Signal fires when three conditions line up at once: The politician sits on the committee controlling a bill, they traded stock in a company affected by that bill, AND they received campaign contributions from that same industry. Bills carrying these insider indicators pass at 5.4 TIMES the normal rate. Now look at the individual leaderboard: - Nancy Pelosi's estimated portfolio sits at $194 million with a Greediness score of 98.1 out of 100 - Ro Khanna made 13,231 trades across 800 different tickers - Michael McCaul made 32,302 trades and filed 6,670 of them late - Thomas Suozzi filed 86.4% of his trades late with an average delay of 396 days, meaning his disclosures landed over a YEAR after he made the trade And then there is Lisa McClain, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. She has made 1,443 trades in three years, more than 98% of all politicians tracked. She violated the STOCK Act twice in a single year, disclosing up to $900,000 in trades months after the legal deadline. Her husband bought up to $250,000 in Elon Musk's xAI, which quietly converted into SpaceX equity before last Friday's $2 trillion IPO. The penalty for all of this? A $200 fine. The number of Congress members ever prosecuted under the STOCK Act since it passed in 2012? Zero. And the cruelest part is this: A bill to ban congressional stock trading was introduced in January 2026. It has bipartisan support. Over 80% of American voters want it passed. But Congress is sitting on it, because the people who would have to vote yes are the same people making millions from the system staying exactly the way it is. They write the insider trading laws, they exempt themselves from enforcement, they trade on the information those laws generate, and when they get caught, they pay a fine that is basically nothing. The AI didn't discover anything Congress was hiding. It just organized what was already public into a pattern so obvious that nobody can pretend it isn't there anymore.

Typologie des profils de gauche par bandes de QI : • ~80-95 : Les casseurs (Antifa/black bloc) Impulsifs, faible abstraction, chair à canon de la violence de rue. • ~95-115 : Les aigris/envieux de base Profs, militants, journalistes de terrain. Se plaignent, dénoncent, rationalisent leur échec comme « injustice systémique ». • ~105-120 : Le militant doctrinaire Répète des slogans et des schémas idéologiques sans beaucoup de nuance. • 120-135 : Les manipulateurs/menteurs Cadres, essayistes, communicants. Rebaptisent envie = justice sociale, coercition = solidarité, censure = protection. Maîtrisent le langage et le recadrage sémantique pour influencer autrui. • 140 : Les idéologues haineux Intellectuels radicaux, déconstructeurs. Haut QI mis au service du ressentiment et du désir de tout détruire. Les plus dangereux : ils fournissent la légitimation intellectuelle. L’intelligence n’empêche pas le vice. Elle l’amplifie. Les niveaux supérieurs habillent l’envie et le contrôle des autres en « morale supérieure ». Les plus bas exécutent.

My friends, from the globalist perspective you must always accept their #1 priority is information control. It doesn't matter what the tool or technique of the day being discussed it, the #1 issue -for them- is to control information. Look at everything, including and importantly the current AI discussions and debate, through the prism of information control. COVID-19 taught you the lesson. Information control is the objective. Social media restrictions, internet restrictions, the terms 'mis-dis-mal-information' etc., the AI race, election systems they can manage, demonetizing or deboosting, CISA, the payment to "influencers", media bans, all of it, the sum of every effort, tool and technique is about controlling information.

Australia ban on social media for u16s: - exempts Bluesky UK ban on social media for u16s: - exempts Bluesky The establishment wants to control the rapid shift to the right while promoting a far-left platform as its replacement (fortunately, no one is interested).

Throwing more money at public schools, even doubling teacher salaries, has virtually no effect on student outcomes.

I think it’s necessary to ask why the United States got involved overseas with biolabs in 1991. Yes the relevant date is 1991. Well, what happened in 1991? When the USSR dissolved at the end of 1991, it left roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons, an estimated 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, and the world’s largest biological weapons program spread across what became 15 separate countries including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Ukraine alone briefly became the third-largest nuclear power in the world. None of these new governments had the money, institutions, or expertise to secure all of it. So in November 1991, two senators Sam Nunn (a Georgia Democrat) and Richard Lugar (an Indiana Republican) passed the Soviet Threat Reduction Act, creating what became the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The logic wasn’t sinister at all. It was actually pretty damn sound. It’s cheaper and safer to pay to dismantle and secure these weapons at the source than to face them later in the hands of an enemy or a terrorist. The biological component specifically did three things: secured or destroyed the dangerous pathogen stocks left from the Soviet program, converted former weapons labs into public-health and disease-surveillance labs, and employed the scientists in detecting natural outbreaks instead of engineering them. So really we had to clean up the super secret bio labs Russia created and kept in secret. Behind a civilian front called Biopreparat, the Soviet Union ran the largest and most advanced secret bioweapons program in history. It employed 70,000 people, and it was in direct violation of the 1972 treaty it signed not to do that. So instead they created a biolab to test anthrax, plague, smallpox, tularemia, and Marburg, and genetically engineered strains to resist antibiotics and survive missile flights. The weaponized anthrax leaked from a military plant at Sverdlovsk in 1979 and killed dozens (Russia blamed on tainted meat for 13 years); then an open-air smallpox test near the Aral Sea sickened ten and killed three in 1971 (this was also hidden for three decades). Russia also ran the world’s largest chemical-weapons stockpile, including the undeclared Novichok nerve agents later used to poison Sergei Skripal in 2018 and Alexei Navalny in 2020, plus the radioactive polonium-210 assassination of defector Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. Every program was built in secret, denied, and exposed only by accidents, defectors, or forensic trails. Ukraine emerged from the USSR as the world’s third-largest nuclear power, so the entire 1990s went to get Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons left on its soil.  Through that decade, Cooperative Threat Reduction money in Ukraine was spent dismantling warheads, missiles, and silos. Once the nuclear work was winding down and bioterrorism had jumped to the top of the US security agenda (post-9/11 and the 2001 anthrax letters), attention turned to Ukraine’s remaining unsecured Soviet residue: the dangerous pathogen stocks still held in the old anti-plague network. That’s exactly what the new deal targeted the Soviet-era anti-plague network, which still stored dangerous pathogens.  The agreement was signed in Kyiv in August 2005 to secure them and convert them into safe research facilities. So if you wanna talk about the role of the media in the entire Ukraine war and what they said in 2022 and how they were not forthcoming and how the fact checks were so stupid that all of us kept telling them they’re full of it, we can do that. If you wanna talk about how they used every single thing they could as leverage to convince Americans to support Ukraine, we can do that too, but at the end of the day, but we’re not gonna do, at least those of us that are pro the United States of America is repeat Russian talking points. You’re the only country who funded secret bio labs was Russia. And they got caught.

.@BernieSanders , it is a time to celebrate. @elonmusk has created enormous value for society by building @SpaceX, driving down the cost of rocket launches and creating a global satellite communication network that has brought high speed, low-cost internet and communication access to hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people along with critical advantages for our military and our nation’s defense. SpaceX and its technologies will cause an acceleration in the growth of wages and wealth creation globally, including in some of the poorest communities in the U.S. and around the world. Access to low-cost, high speed communications everywhere will allow children around the world to be educated, families to build businesses, and life-saving medical knowledge and care to be available everywhere. SpaceX will materially bring down the cost of compute, advancing AI and humanity. Meanwhile, 4,000 SpaceX employees yesterday became millionaires, including hourly wage employees who you claim you are trying to help. The Elon Musks of the world drive growth, global GDP, and provide access to goods and services at lower cost that would otherwise not exist. Elon’s nominal trillionaire status is due to his ownership of SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, the Boring Company and his other initiatives that have brought new technologies that improve our everyday lives. Elon is not sitting on a trillion dollar pile of cash, jewelry and gold. He is using his controlling stakes in his companies to advance mankind. Elon’s companies don’t pay dividends. They reinvest all of their capital to accelerate innovation and value creation. Elon is working 24/7 for all of us. He deserves respect and appreciation, not smears. Bernie, your socialism would never allow a SpaceX to be built. Socialism has only proven to impoverish mankind and lead to death and destruction. We need to create the conditions for more SpaceXs to be built, not attack the great entrepreneurs who are helping to advance our country.

In a word: ACTION. The other two have the activity level of sludge. Dorothy is the most active, energetic @IdahoGOP Chair in living memory. Her victory over Prop 1 (Ranked Choice Voting) in 2024 is exactly the formula needed to defeat the abortion ballot initiative in 2026.

They spent years screaming that mail-in voting was the single most secure, flawless, ironclad system mankind had ever devised. Questioning it made you a dangerous conspiracy theorist who probably enjoyed fish pizza. Then the Postal Service said, “Okay, let’s add a barcode and check the ballots against actual eligible voter lists.” Suddenly it was the end of democracy, unconstitutional, racist, fascist, and guaranteed to disenfranchise tens of millions. The same people who insisted the system needed zero verification lost their minds the second anyone suggested basic chain of custody. That reaction only makes sense when you look at what they’re actually protecting. Los Angeles has a billion-dollar homeless services bureaucracy that can’t house anyone, can’t account for the money, and gets its funding pulled even by liberal county officials because it’s become a useless, bloated mess. But that same operation maintains detailed instructions for registering “unhoused clients” ... their words for drug-addled or outright crazy people ... and routing their mail-in ballots through shelters and agency offices. Cross streets count as a residence. “Frank’s backyard” is apparently a valid address. The federal government even hosts guides in multiple languages teaching NGOs how to help people who just got here sign up before their citizenship paperwork is sorted. “I help you, you help me.” They can’t find the receipts. They can’t find the homeless. But they never lose a voter registration form. A simple barcode would ruin the whole arrangement. Ballots wouldn’t magically appear from vague intersections anymore. They’d show up in batches from single service centers on the same day. Fiction addresses would get returned to sender. And the people who spent five years calling the system perfect would have to explain why basic tracking feels like an existential threat. (article below)

"On ne gère pas un pays comme une entreprise." C'est la phrase préférée de ceux qui n'ont jamais géré ni l'un ni l'autre. Laissez-moi vous raconter l'histoire d'un document de 125 slides qui détruit cet argument, slide après slide. En 2009, Netflix rend public son deck interne sur la culture d'entreprise. Sheryl Sandberg, alors COO de Facebook, le décrit comme le document le plus important jamais sorti de la Silicon Valley. Elle avait raison. Mais pas pour les raisons qu'elle croyait. Le deck commence par une démolition. Les "valeurs d'entreprise" affichées dans les halls d'accueil ne veulent rien dire. Enron avait "Integrity" gravé dans le marbre de son lobby. Les vraies valeurs d'une organisation, ce sont les comportements qu'elle récompense et ceux qu'elle sanctionne. Rien d'autre. Ensuite vient le cœur du réacteur, deux mots: Freedom and Responsibility. Le pari de Netflix est contre-intuitif. Plus une entreprise grandit, plus elle ajoute des process pour contrôler le chaos. Et plus elle ajoute des process, plus les gens talentueux partent, parce que les gens talentueux détestent être traités comme des suspects. Restent les médiocres, qui adorent les process, parce que les process les protègent. La solution de Netflix: au lieu d'augmenter le contrôle, augmenter la densité de talent. Et donner à ces talents une liberté presque totale. Pas de politique de congés. Pas de politique de notes de frais au-delà de cinq mots: "Agis dans l'intérêt de Netflix." Cinq mots qui remplacent des centaines de pages de règlement intérieur. Le deck va plus loin: la liberté n'est pas une récompense, c'est un mécanisme de sélection. La liberté attire les gens responsables. Les gens responsables prospèrent dans la liberté. Et des gens responsables et libres sont plus heureux, plus créatifs, plus productifs. C'est un cercle vertueux auto-entretenu. Maintenant, relisez tout ce qui précède en remplaçant "entreprise" par "pays" et "employés" par "citoyens". Des règles simples plutôt qu'un code de 4000 pages. La confiance par défaut plutôt que le contrôle a priori. La responsabilité individuelle comme contrepartie de la liberté. La sélection par la liberté plutôt que la rétention par la contrainte. Ce système a un nom. Ça s'appelle le libéralisme. Hayek l'avait théorisé: l'ordre n'a pas besoin d'être imposé d'en haut, il émerge spontanément quand des individus libres et responsables disposent du bon contexte. Netflix appelle ça "context, not control". Hayek appelait ça l'ordre spontané. C'est exactement la même idée. Et chaque principe du deck est une institution libérale miniature. Le courage (dire ce qu'on pense même quand c'est inconfortable), c'est la liberté d'expression comme mécanisme de correction d'erreur. La candeur radicale (le feedback direct, permanent, sans filtre hiérarchique), c'est une presse libre interne. L'information circule sans passer par la censure des middle managers. "Highly aligned, loosely coupled", c'est le fédéralisme: une vision commune, une exécution décentralisée. Et le plus violent: "adequate performance gets a generous severance package". Pas d'emploi à vie, pas de statut, pas de rente de situation. Le marché, à l'intérieur même de l'entreprise. Faites le bilan. Netflix a méthodiquement supprimé tout ce qui constitue un État dans une entreprise: la bureaucratie, le contrôle a priori, les règlements proliférants, les statuts protégés, la rétention d'information par la hiérarchie. Résultat: une boîte de location de DVD par courrier a survécu à trois disruptions technologiques majeures, qu'elle a elle-même initiées, pour devenir un géant mondial du divertissement. La démonstration par A B que la bureaucratie n'est pas le prix de la grande échelle. C'est un choix. Et c'est le mauvais. Mais l'histoire ne s'arrête pas là. Parce que Netflix a ensuite démontré autre chose, malgré elle: comment un système libéral meurt. Vers la fin des années 2010, la flamme s'éteint. Le wokisme s'installe, et il inverse chaque principe du deck un par un. Le courage de dire ce qu'on pense devient la peur d'offenser. La candeur radicale devient la conformité idéologique, le feedback remplacé par la délation. La densité de talent devient les quotas. "Agis dans l'intérêt de Netflix" devient "agis dans l'intérêt de ta tribu". En 2021, des employés font la grève parce qu'un comédien a fait des blagues. Des activistes internes exigent la censure du contenu de leur propre plateforme. Le système immunitaire de la culture, ce fameux "adequate performance gets a generous severance", ne fonctionne plus: on ne pouvait plus virer les militants, seulement les performeurs. Le wokisme est exactement ce que le deck combattait: une bureaucratie. Pas une bureaucratie de process, une bureaucratie morale. Des règles proliférantes sur ce qu'on peut dire, des commissaires (les DEI officers), des statuts protégés, un contrôle a priori de la pensée. Netflix avait supprimé l'État dans sa boîte. L'État est revenu par la fenêtre, déguisé en vertu. Il a fallu attendre 2022 pour que la direction réagisse, en écrivant noir sur blanc dans le nouveau memo culture: si le contenu vous offense, Netflix n'est peut-être pas l'endroit pour vous. Traduction: démissionnez. Quand une entreprise doit écrire ça dans son document fondateur, c'est qu'elle a déjà perdu la flamme. Elle ne l'a jamais complètement retrouvée. Ce qui nous amène au cas Musk, fascinant parce qu'il résout précisément ce problème, par un chemin opposé. Musk aussi extermine la bureaucratie. Son algorithme est connu: questionne chaque exigence, supprime chaque pièce et chaque process que tu peux, simplifie ensuite seulement. SpaceX et Tesla sont des machines de guerre anti-bureaucratiques. Mais l'architecture est différente. Netflix, c'était l'ordre spontané hayekien: des milliers d'agents libres et un contexte partagé. Musk, c'est un génie omnipotent dans la stack, capable de descendre à n'importe quelle couche du système, du design d'une valve à la stratégie corporate, et de trancher. Et face au wokisme, les deux modèles n'ont pas réagi pareil. Netflix a mis des années à répondre, parce qu'un ordre spontané n'a pas de tête, donc pas de système de défense centralisé. Musk a viré les militants de Twitter en une semaine, parce qu'un despote éclairé n'a besoin de la permission de personne. C'est tout le dilemme. Le système Netflix est une institution: il survit à son fondateur, mais il est capturable. Le système Musk est immunisé contre la capture, mais il ne survit que tant que le génie est réel, présent, et qu'il a raison. Le libéralisme tient sur la durée. Mais il a besoin de gardiens qui ont le courage de défendre la flamme. C'est la leçon que Netflix a payée au prix fort, et que les nations occidentales sont en train d'apprendre en ce moment même. Alors la prochaine fois qu'on vous dit "on ne gère pas un pays comme une entreprise", répondez: vous avez raison. Une entreprise qui traite ses gens comme des suspects fait faillite. Un pays qui fait pareil continue, et vous envoie la facture.

This map shows the share of non-citizen and U.S.-born-headed households using one or more traditional welfare programs. The colors represent the size of the difference in traditional welfare use by non-citizens relative to the U.S.-born. x.com/CIS_org/status/2065087…

Depuis, j'ai construit ma grille de lecture. Elle tient en sept principes, et je connecte tout à ça. La liberté individuelle d'abord. Tout part de là. Un système qui sacrifie l'individu au nom du collectif finit toujours par sacrifier les deux. La liberté d'expression totale, alignée sur le 1st Amendment américain. Pas la version française "libre mais". Libre, point. Celui qui veut censurer a toujours quelque chose à cacher. L'intégrité physique des individus est au-dessus de tout. Celui qui y touche doit être puni sévèrement. C'est la seule fonction non négociable de l'État, et c'est précisément celle qu'il n'assure plus. L'État ne sait pas allouer le capital. Il ne le saura jamais. Ce n'est pas une question de compétence des ministres, c'est structurel : il n'a ni le signal des prix, ni la sanction de l'échec. Les humains sont trop limités pour théoriser les systèmes complexes. Hayek l'a démontré : la connaissance est dispersée dans des millions de cerveaux, aucun planificateur ne peut la centraliser. Ceux qui prétendent le contraire ont fait 100 millions de morts. Moins d'État dans l'économie, plus de prospérité. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est une régularité empirique observable sur deux siècles et tous les continents. Et enfin : il existe une vérité dans tout, en économie comme en éducation. Comme une musique qui sonne juste. Le socialisme, c'est la version dissonante. L'école autrichienne, c'est Mozart. J'ai mis dix ans à accorder l'instrument. Je ne compte pas le désaccorder.

Teams are go for launch with a $135 price per share for the SpaceX IPO → spacexipo.com/#priceannounce…

Victor Davis Hanson just dropped the single most definitive explanation for the chaos in Belfast and cities across the West. In two minutes flat, he exposed how DEI, open borders and failure to assimilate have created a powder keg that’s now exploding. HANSON: “It’s a reminder that DEI or racial chauvinism, ethnic chauvinism combined with open borders and mass immigration from illiberal societies is a recipe for disaster.” “And nobody condones the counter-riots but when you bring in people from antithetical cultures and you tell them upon arrival they don’t have to acculturate, integrate or assimilate but they have grudges against their hosts because they feel that they are victimized and you lavish social entitlements upon them and you make them exempt from any consequences of their illiberal behavior, then you get what we’ve seen there.” “We’ve got to remember, both in the United States and in Europe, especially the U.K., we’re 60 years, three generations from the civil rights acts and their versions of them.” “So we’ve got three generations of people in their 40s 50s and 60s that grew up with reverse discrimination and they didn’t know anything about segregation or institutionalized racism.” “All they know is that their job opportunities were curtailed because there was this new idea of equality of result.” “Where people based on their skin color or ethnic origins or whether they were migrants or something, they had preferential treatment and yet they were paying for the sins of prior generations.” “That’s what they felt.” “And then finally there was a class element to it.” “The elites crafted this system to bring in constituents dependent on state largesse but they were never subject to the consequences of our own terrible ideology because they had the money and the zip codes and the resources to protect themselves from that kind of violence that we saw.” “They made it worse by insulting the White working class as if they are illiberal and neanderthal, when they created the conditions and they were immune from them and now they don’t know what to do because they realize it’s blowing up in their face.” “Both there and in the United States.”