Search

In the face of the heat wave, we don't even have a window shutter plan, we have a "survival cover for the windows" plan. In the face of the fires, firefighters are fighting without protective hoods. Our elites have failed, and for a long time. They no longer protect the French people. (translated)

🚨 Malmö FF och Viking Stavanger är nu överens om en övergång gällande Erik Botheim. Anfallaren är redan på plats i Norge, som TV2 rapporterat. Nu ska klubbarna ha löst allt sinsemellan. Botheim ska läkarundersökas innan återkomsten till norsk fotboll är ett faktum. https://t.co/TAvCJN1aRi #Eliteserien #MalmöFF #ErikBotheim

Vous avez le droit d’aimer vos voitures. Vous avez le droit de vivre votre passion. Et surtout, vous avez le droit d’avoir du plaisir! Ne laissez pas les élites qui se pètent les bretelles en faisant la guerre à l’auto vous regarder de haut et vous dicter comment vivre. On est capables de cohabiter. On est capables de trouver un compromis intelligent pour bâtir une nouvelle école, tout en vous permettant de continuer à vivre pleinement votre passion. C’est ça, le gros bon sens. C’est ça, respecter le monde! #passion #voitures #grosbonsens

September 11 transformed the global perception of America, shifting from an unquestionable moral reference to a focal point of distrust and criticism, culminating in a crisis of credibility for American elites and the emergence of political movements that challenge the traditional establishment. (translated)

Esta imagen es tan vergonzosa! Hoy el presidente del Gobierno ha dado explicaciones con mucha tranquilidad y transparencia. Y los ultras invaden hoy Ceuta para exagerar, alarmar e incendiar a la población. Después se comerán una mariscada y volverán en un helicóptero que pagan las élites. #Política #España #Ceuta

The Victimhood Economy: Why Young People Prefer Socialism Western civilization is increasingly shaped by entitlement and a culture that rewards displays of victimhood. At elite universities, disability claims have risen: 18% of male and 22% of female undergraduates report a disability, and 54% of non-binary students, with higher rates at some wealthy schools than at community colleges. The issue isn’t genuine disability; it’s what happens when accommodations become status and advantage. Extra time, separate housing, and exemptions can turn diagnosis into leverage. When weakness is rewarded, some will learn to perform it. This matters because today’s students become tomorrow’s institutional elites. If grievance produces rewards, the lesson may spread into journalism, government, HR, academia, and business, letting beneficiaries inherit the power to expand the system. Research on victimhood signaling raises uncomfortable questions: people who habitually emphasize victim status, on average, show higher narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—not to say genuinely suffering people are manipulative, but that systems rewarding victimhood create incentives for manipulators to exploit the category. Rob Henderson describes this as a status game: in elite institutions, grievance can become the currency of virtue signaling. For some, the rational strategy is to manufacture grievance and convert it into status. Nietzsche similarly argued that displays of helplessness can become covert power, while pity can create moral superiority for the caregiver. The danger isn’t compassion; it’s a culture that turns suffering into currency and teaches ambitious people that the easiest route to power is to claim they are powerless.

Leftist “Empathy” Is Actually Narcissism Leftist “empathy” is often narcissism, not real compassion. Over the past decade, Western politics has debated whether empathy is the highest value—yet many policies justified in its name have produced serious unintended consequences: safe-supply programs, lenient bail, mass migration, identity-based social policy, and gender medicine for minors. Hannah Arendt helps explain why. In *On Revolution*, she contrasted the American Revolution’s focus on institutions and limits on power with the French Revolution’s “politics of pity,” an effort to eliminate suffering through political action. Robespierre’s compassion for the masses helped justify terror. Pity isn’t compassion: it creates a hierarchy between the person who pities and the person pitied. Once you claim to represent “the oppressed,” you can stop listening to real people. Much progressive “empathy” projects idealized versions of others, erasing cultural differences and treating disagreement as ignorance or prejudice. Adam Smith warned about the “man of system,” who thinks society can be rearranged like chess pieces, ignoring human wills. Dostoevsky argued abstract love is easy; loving real people is hard. Nietzsche described a morality that flatters weakness and condemns what rises above the herd, while Orwell questioned whether some socialist intellectuals truly loved workers or simply used them to vent resentment. Rob Henderson calls these “luxury beliefs”: status-providing ideas for elites that impose costs on those below them. The moral prestige is immediate; the damage unfolds over decades. So “suicidal narcissism” may fit better than “suicidal empathy”: projection, superiority, and power disguised as compassion.

Why Weak Societies Choose Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would be a system that allows politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, an eerily relatable dystopian novel, with this idea at the forefront. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, there is no overt oppression. The state does not have to stamp on human faces with its jackboots or erect an inescapable surveillance state. Rather, the people of Brave New World happily chain themselves with meaningless pleasure and distractions. The authorities do not rule through terror and rage, the central elements of 1984, but instead give the people everything they ever wanted. A pharmaceutical called Soma becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, likens it to Christianity without tears. While religion requires years of moral training, Soma allows citizens to achieve peace simply by swallowing tablets. It is the perfect escape from reality, a holiday from the facts. Lenina, the female counterpart to the protagonist Bernard, cannot comprehend why he refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard states, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina sees this as a sort of pathology and repeatedly encourages him to take the wonder drug. Bernard explains, “I want to know what passion is.” He understands that there is more to life than merely being content, craving genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than being emotionally regulated by the World State. Lenina’s bewilderment stems from her conditioning to regard unhappiness as a technical problem, encapsulated in the society’s common saying that “a gram is better than a damn.” The people of Brave New World are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the scientific state, relieving people of the responsibility of parenthood. This grants them the ability to engage in promiscuity, where everyone belongs to everyone else, while filling their free time with cheap entertainment and endless sporting events—what would be referred to as slop today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through the lens of fear, while Huxley saw it through pleasure. There was no need to ban a book in Brave New Worldbecause there was no one who wanted to read one. An abundance of low-quality information rendered censorship unnecessary because no one could hear the truth through all the noise. Huxley threw shade at civil libertarians who passionately opposed tyranny because they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions. Humanity in its rawest form is portrayed by John the Savage, an outsider free from the World State’s conditioning. Upon coming face-to-face with this spiritually neutered society, he completely rejects it: “I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.” Huxley’s dystopia is not imposed on an unwilling population but instead requested by a hollow one. Which leads us to the question: How do people become so weak that they get on their knees and beg for totalitarianism? Good times make bad times possible. Once a certain level of luxury and safety is achieved, people start to resemble the hobbits from the Shire. They are so far removed from evil that they forget it even exists and become defenseless in the face of it. Andrew Lobaczewski, who studied the psychology of totalitarianism from inside Poland’s communist takeover, wrote: “During good times, people progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection. They lose the capacity to differentiate human nature, and emotion begins to dominate intellect. Once a critical mass starts operating on the pleasure principle, any excess mental effort seems like pointless labor.” Lobaczewski warned that it is not as simple as some people losing the ability to think rationally. It is worse, because those people then shame anyone capable of doing so. A clever, liberal, and merry individual is a good sport. A more far-sighted person predicting dire results becomes a wet blanket, a killjoy. The ability to have uncomfortable conversations without emotion taking over is, in Lobaczewski’s view, an indicator of whether a society’s future will be good or bad. It is easier to think about pleasant things. This leads people to eliminate any data or facts that cause them discomfort. That becomes a habit and eventually a custom accepted by society at large. Once the general populace accepts that inconvenient truths should be left unsaid, it becomes incapable of reaching correct conclusions. After all, how could you ever describe a picture that you refuse to look at? “Catastrophe waits in the wings of the communities that lose the capacity for psychological reason and moral criticism,” Lobaczewski wrote. “It is on the other side of this weakening of thought that the processes of the generation of evil are intensified at every social scale until they give rise to bad times.” It is precisely man’s dreams of happiness that can lead to chaos and suffering. This hedonistic view of happiness contains the seeds of misery, feeding the eternal cycle whereby good times give birth to bad times. Friedrich Nietzsche viewed socialism as demanding comfort for the greatest number of people possible. To question whether it is good for the masses to live in comfort has become a form of heresy. This reveals the spiritual atrophy that so many suffer from. Considering only the weak believe comfort to be a virtue, it is what Carl Jung would describe as the infantile dream state of mass dependency: the desire to gently slip back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise of parental care. Except this lack of friction has consequences. The perfect state destroys the soil in which great intellect grows. Genius, struggle, passion, strength, and wisdom are required to build a safe and abundant society. Yet once a certain level of comfort is achieved, it can destroy the very virtues required to obtain it. Nietzsche observed that it is the warmest heart that aims to alleviate suffering and hardship but fails to realize that it thereby wills the destruction of its own foundation. Comfort breeds mediocrity, which is then called good. Small people want one thing above all: that no one hurt them. We have taken this pathology to such a degree that we now obsess over hurt feelings and call this virtue. Pleasure, in its proper place, is a byproduct of meaningful goals, not a goal in itself. Aristotle saw that pleasure and comfort distort perception and proper judgment. While they do not cause us to misjudge something like geometry or mathematics, they can destroy our ability to decide what is worth pursuing and, therefore, what to do. Consider The Odyssey. Homer depicts Odysseus’ men on the island of the Lotus-Eaters, where they taste the fruit and lose all desire to go home. Much like Huxley’s Brave New World, they are not imprisoned. Rather, they simply stop wanting anything more. Odysseus has to drag his men back to the ships while they weep to stay. This is what comfort can do to men. It empties them of purpose. We intuitively understand this but fail to apply it to our own lives. We must make the same choice as Odysseus when he refuses Calypso’s offer of endless comfort and immortality. He knows she is more beautiful than his wife Penelope waiting at home. He knows that he and Penelope will grow old and die, a fate he could avoid by staying with Calypso. No one who reads these stories wishes he had stayed. We want him to choose the hard way home because if he took the offer, he would stop being admirable. Yet staying is exactly what our modern society asks of us. We are told that the island is the good life. But what happens to the man who caves to this temptation? In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche imagines a risk-averse society taken to its logical endpoint. The elimination of all struggle produces a man so diminished that he fails to possess even self-contempt or higher aspiration. Safety and sameness become the highest goals, creating “no shepherd in one herd.” Anyone who seeks to be anything more than normal becomes an aberration to be dealt with. Or, as Nietzsche puts it, they have “made the wolf a dog in man himself, man’s best domestic animal.”

When the Fog Begins to Lift If you feel as though the world is going crazy, you’re not imagining things. Over the past decade, a media-driven “woke” movement gripped Western societies, creating what Michael Shellenberger calls “mass psychosis.” He argues that Democrats and media figures labeled opponents of DEI, racial quotas, and open borders as far-right—not because those people had changed, but because the political left had moved dramatically further left on cultural issues. Evidence continues to support this view. U.S. General Social Survey data suggests that center- and right-leaning opinions have remained relatively stable since the early 2000s, while left-wing views have shifted substantially. Meanwhile, publications such as *The New York Times* and *The Washington Post* sharply increased their use of terms like “racist” and “white privilege” after 2012. Shellenberger writes: “The media did this. The mass brainwashing came from college-educated elites in control of the most powerful propaganda machine in world history. These elites convinced the public that the West had grown more racist than ever, a blatant contradiction of the evidence. While the public was distracted by manufactured culture wars, governments exploited the chaos to consolidate power. Authoritarianism, spiraling debt, and economic devastation were the crippling costs of this deception.” He describes the political consequences just as bluntly: “By the time we got to 2016, Democrats had become completely unhinged. They made everything political, hunted heretics, and weaponized the government—three core characteristics of totalitarianism.” The fallout has been severe. Institutions lie in ruins, public trust has collapsed, and communities remain deeply divided. This was not simply a political miscalculation. It was ideological warfare, designed to divide and control. As the fog begins to lift, one question remains: Have we learned enough to resist the next wave of fearmongering and manipulation—or will we once again accept the same tactics from new faces?

The Pinnacle of Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would allow politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion—because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World* explores this idea through an eerily relatable dystopian society. Unlike Orwell’s *1984*, Huxley’s world contains no obvious oppression. The state does not need to “stamp on a human face—forever.” Instead, citizens willingly chain themselves to pleasure and distraction. Authorities do not rule through terror, but by giving people everything they think they want. Soma, a government-approved drug, becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustafa Mond, the World Controller, compares it to Christianity without the suffering. By swallowing a few tablets, citizens can escape reality—a temporary holiday from the facts. Lenina cannot understand why Bernard refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard says, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina views his desire for authenticity as a kind of illness. Bernard wants to experience passion and recognizes that life involves more than contentment. He craves genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than emotional regulation by the World State. Lenina’s confusion results from her conditioning, which teaches her to view unhappiness as a technical problem. This belief is captured by the saying, “A gram is better than a dam.” The citizens of *Brave New World* are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the state, relieving people of the responsibilities of parenthood. Their free time is filled with promiscuity, cheap entertainment, and endless sporting events—what might be called “slop” today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through fear, while Huxley imagined a society where oppression would be unnecessary because people would willingly surrender themselves to pleasure. There would be no need to ban books, because no one would want to read them. An abundance of low-quality information would make censorship unnecessary; the truth would be drowned out by noise. Huxley warned that people’s “almost infinite appetite for distractions” could make tyranny not only possible, but welcome.

The Elite Origins of Marxist Revolution Bertrand Russell, a socialist who visited Moscow in 1920, observed that the Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics more than political theorists. Lenin quoted Marx and Engels as a pastor recites Scripture. In his *History of Western Philosophy*, Russell described the parallels: dialectical materialism replaces God, the Communist Party becomes the church, communist revolution the Second Coming, punishment for capitalists hell, and the communist commonwealth heaven. The *Communist Manifesto* declares that its aims can be achieved only through “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Marx sought to destroy the existing world and assumed that an undefined utopia would rise. If Marxism claims to speak for the oppressed, why has it so often been adopted by elites? Marx came from an upper-middle-class family that owned vineyards and employed servants. Friedrich Engels, his chief supporter and financier, inherited wealth from his family’s textile business. Lenin’s family owned property and employed servants, while Mao Zedong’s family was considerably wealthier than ordinary Chinese peasants. Fidel Castro’s family owned a large estate, Che Guevara came from an affluent background, and Pol Pot’s family had connections to Cambodia’s royal court. Pol Pot encountered Marxism while studying in Paris. These men went on to create, support, or lead revolutions that killed millions of the people they claimed to represent. This was no accident. The *Communist Manifesto* states that “a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat,” especially those who understand “the historical movement as a whole.” Marx therefore incorporated an explanation for his own class position into the movement’s founding text. Lenin expanded this idea, arguing that workers left to themselves could achieve only “trade-union consciousness.” Socialist theory, he believed, had to be brought to them by educated elites—the revolutionary vanguard. Although Marxism and communism are commonly portrayed as movements created for the poor, the men who developed and led them were, almost without exception, members of the elite.

🚨 CE QUE LES ÉLITES ENSEIGNENT À LEURS ENFANTS (ET PAS À VOUS) Le milliardaire Tobi Lütke (fondateur de Shopify) utilise des affirmations. Ses mots exacts : « Si vous vous dites ou écrivez quelque chose 100 fois, ça s’inscrit si profondément dans votre cerveau que votre esprit commence à vous réconcilier avec ça. Ça marche. Tout simplement. » Il avait une peur panique de parler en public. Pendant 7 jours, 10 minutes par jour, il a écrit : « J’aime parler en public. » Une semaine plus tard… la peur avait disparu. Les élites connaissent ça depuis des siècles. Ils l’enseignent à leurs enfants. Et ils enterrent cette connaissance sous des couches de fausses informations pour que vous restiez programmés par le système. Votre esprit est la cause. Votre vie est l’effet. Vous programmez votre cerveau… ou le monde le programme pour vous. #Éducation #Connaissance #DéveloppementPersonnel

LA TRAHISON franche du traité de Lisbonne en 2007 a été possible parce que, précisément, elle n’a pas été vécue comme une trahison par ceux qui l’ont accomplie. SANS CULPABILITÉ. C’est peut-être le point le plus troublant. En 2005, le peuple français a rejeté le traité constitutionnel européen à 54,67 %. Puis, en 2007-2008, le traité de Lisbonne a été négocié et ratifié par voie parlementaire. Le Congrès a adopté la révision constitutionnelle préalable, puis l’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat ont autorisé la ratification. Pourquoi cela a-t-il été accepté ? La souveraineté populaire a été juridiquement dissociée de la souveraineté parlementaire. Le raisonnement était : les Français ont refusé un texte précis ; ils n’ont pas interdit au Parlement de ratifier un autre traité. C’est juridiquement défendable. Mais politiquement, c’est précisément ce qui a permis la trahison. Une partie majoritaire des élites considérait alors que le « non » était une erreur. Dès lors, le problème n’était plus : « Comment respecter ce que le peuple vient de décider ? » mais : « Comment poursuivre malgré ce vote l’objectif que nous estimons juste ? » La procédure parlementaire a rendu la chose presque invisible au citoyen. Subsitait encore à cette époque une croyance très profonde dans la légitimité des élites à conduire l’Histoire. La « culture du mépris » dans mon milieu d’origine allait de soi et n’était même questionnée. Ce n’était pas nécessairement du mépris conscient. C’était quelque chose de plus subtil et d’encore pire : la conviction que certaines décisions sont trop importantes, trop techniques ou trop européennes pour être réellement abandonnées aux #gueux - considérés avec un solide mépris comme « de l’humeur populaire ». Comment une démocratie peut-elle en arriver à considérer qu’un vote populaire est « une erreur » qu’il faut corriger ? Le vrai scandale démocratique est là. Quand le peuple vote mal, que fait une démocratie ? Elle change de politique. Ou bien elle change de peuple. En 2007-2008, le système n’a pas explicitement aboli le résultat de 2005. C’est encore pire : dans un entre soi élitaire hallucinant, il a trouvé une autre voie institutionnelle pour poursuivre une orientation que le référendum avait rejetée, barrée. Les débats parlementaires de l’époque montrent que cette question était parfaitement connue et explicitement discutée. C’est beaucoup plus vertigineux que la seule responsabilité de N. Sarkozy. Cela raconte une conception effarante de la démocratie de nos « élites » politico administratives - assez illibérale. Que nous sommes en train de balayer tranquillement. Jadis, le Gaullisme fit de même par deux fois. #gueux @RefCitoyen #Démocratie #Trahison #TraitéDeLisbonne

A recent study has revealed that ten rings from the Minoan and Mycenaean elites of ancient Greece may have been made with iron from meteorites, an exceptional material that reflects their prestige, based on the chemical analysis of 91 objects dated between 3,000 and 4,000 years old. (translated)

Dejando a un lado lo ridículo que es el tuit de por sí, ¿en qué mundo debe vivir esta gente como para creer que el Barça realmente no quiere a Julián y lo hace todo por el ruido mediático? El tema es sencillo: el Barça quiere a Julián, este quiere venir a Barcelona y el Atleti no le deja. No hay más. No existiría ningún ruido si vuestro club de mierda se hubiera comportado decentemente y no desde el rencor y hubiera accedido a negociar por un futbolista que NO quiere estar en su equipo. Yo creo que en la cabeza de esta chusma el Barça es una especie de club masónico creado por las élites con el único objetivo de destruir el universo. No se entiende de otra forma. #Barça #Fútbol #MercadoDeFichajes

Ce jour marque le 100ème anniversaire de l’immense René Goscinny. Il entretenait un lien fort avec Cannes, où une école porte aujourd’hui son nom et où il a habité, avenue Reine Astrid. René Goscinny, c’était évidemment le génie créatif à la française, qui a donné naissance à des œuvres cultissimes, diffusées dans le monde entier depuis des décennies : Astérix bien sûr, mais aussi Lucky Luke ou Le Petit Nicolas. Entre autres. Ses œuvres ont marqué toutes les générations et sont régulièrement adaptées sur nos écrans. Son humour, sa finesse et son intelligence parlent à tous les âges. Car une bande dessinée de Goscinny peut littéralement se lire de 7 à 107 ans : jamais avec la même grille de lecture, mais toujours avec le même plaisir. C’est précisément cela qui en a fait un artiste populaire. À une époque où ce qualificatif est parfois dénigré par certaines élites, il importe au contraire de lui redonner tout son sens. Car c’est aussi la vocation d’une œuvre d’art : être universelle, traverser les époques et les publics, entrer dans l’histoire jusqu’à devenir un patrimoine commun. À Cannes, nous sommes fiers évidemment que René Goscinny appartienne non seulement au patrimoine national, mais aussi au patrimoine local. Celui d’une ville à laquelle sont associés tant de grands noms de la culture française : Guillaume Apollinaire, Prosper Mérimée, Alexis de Tocqueville, Joséphine Baker, Pablo Picasso, Jean-Gabriel Domergue, Gérard Philipe, Jean Marais ou Charles Aznavour. De tout temps, Cannes a attiré les créateurs et inspiré les artistes. Certains y trouvaient un cadre propice à la création, d’autres une poésie. C’est cette identité que nous voulons transmettre : par l’éducation artistique et culturelle dans nos écoles, par des lieux où l’art peut s’exprimer, par les plus grands événements culturels au monde et par la célébration de ceux qui ont façonné l’histoire de notre ville. En 2026, cette démarche a été saluée : Cannes a été élue ville la plus créative de France. J’ai comme rêve et comme ambition collective que la France soit reconnu comme le pays le plus créatif du monde. Il faudra pour cela retrouver l’excellence de l’instruction à concilier avec la liberté de création donc de concrétisation artistique de l’imagination. Vive l’art, vive la culture. Vive la création, vive la transmission. Vive l’esprit français ! #RenéGoscinny #BandeDessinée #Cannes