Search

The 'wonderchild of Wall Street', Leopold Aschenbrenner, has lost 30 billion dollars in just a few days with his failing AI investment model, prompting the US stock market watchdog SEC to launch an investigation into the downfall of his hedge fund Situational Awareness. (translated)

Why Therapy Culture Is Making Us Weak Why, despite unprecedented mental-health awareness and therapy language, does mental health seem to worsen? If both “the cure” and “the disease” expand together, we should ask what culture produces them. Modern therapy culture often teaches us to prioritize feelings, explain flaws through trauma, and treat negative emotions as reactions to others. Carl Jung proposed a different order: consciousness—judgment, values, and will—should govern the unconscious, including instincts and emotions. Health means understanding these forces without letting them rule. Today that hierarchy is frequently reversed: emotion outranks reason, and “lived experience” can outrank evidence. Jung warned this resembles “psychological Bolshevism,” where lower impulses overthrow higher faculties in the name of freedom. Nietzsche cautioned that “for every drive wants to be master.” The key question isn’t only where feelings come from, but whether we govern them. Therapy culture can also weaken self-criticism, treating conscience, guilt, and shame as oppressive rather than corrective. With “concept creep” (trauma/harm expanding to cover normal discomfort), personal agency can shrink: if everything is done to us, responsibility becomes harder to exercise. This can spread socially: victim identities bond through grievance, replacing judgment with collective resentment. History shows where that leads. The defense is older than therapy: govern yourself before demanding the world be changed.

Five Warnings Carl Jung Left Us Totalitarianism grows where people stop knowing themselves. In The Undiscovered Self (1957), Jung warned that individuality must be lost before oppression can take hold. Here are five of his clearest warnings. 1) Reason fails when fear takes over. Rational debate works only until emotional intensity passes a threshold—then slogans replace thought. 2) The most dangerous people can look normal. “Latent” destructive tendencies can hide under ordinary appearances, especially when society becomes a mob. 3) You don’t really know yourself. Conscious awareness is only the surface; the unconscious (“shadow”) pushes you to project what you refuse to face onto others. 4) When people lose God, they may make the State their god. The religious impulse can shift into politics, turning leaders into sacred figures. 5) The defense is the formed individual. Resistance to the mass requires someone “organized in his individuality”—disciplined self-knowledge, not crowd identity. Where love stops, power begins—and violence and terror follow.

🚨 Soirées d’intégration : plus d’1 étudiant·e sur 3 témoin de violences — les outils pour agir 📒 Livret d’accompagnement — Ressources de sensibilisation : Bizutage et VSS ✍️ CPED (Conférence Permanente des chargé·es de mission Égalité-Diversité), avec MAKE CHANGE PRODUCTION et la FAGE ; financement partiel MESRE. Capsules Audio de Pratiques en Santé 🎙️🎥 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmFenDSOdi0 🔍💡 Bizutage & VSS à la rentrée : des pistes d’animation prêtes à diffuser avant les soirées d’intégration. 🎯 Un cadre juridique clair et un langage qui parle aux étudiant·es, pour prévenir sans moraliser. Analyse de Pratiques en Santé et lien vers la source ℹ️➕ https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/pratiques-15/livret-d-accompagnement-ressources-de-sensibilisation-bizutage-et-vss-6147 📌 Ce livret met à disposition, prêts à l’emploi, deux vidéos courtes, des affiches personnalisables et des pistes d’animation pour ouvrir la discussion sur le bizutage et les VSS au moment le plus à risque : la rentrée et les soirées d’intégration. Il cadre juridiquement le bizutage — un délit — et documente sa réalité par une enquête nationale récente. Le parti pris est non moralisateur, avec une touche d’humour, pour parler aux étudiant·es sans les culpabiliser. Concrètement, il s’utilise tel quel pour animer un temps de prévention, équiper une association étudiante ou afficher un renvoi vers les dispositifs d’aide. 🇬🇧: Accompanying booklet — Awareness resources: Hazing and Sexual and Gender-Based Violence - https://www.pratiquesensante.com/en/blog/practices-15/accompanying-booklet-awareness-resources-hazing-and-sexual-and-gender-based-violence-6147 #️⃣ #Bizutage #PréventionVSS #ConsentementÉclairé #VieÉtudiante #SantéÉtudiante #RéductionDesRisques #ÉgalitéDiversité #pratiquesensante

🚨 Soirées d’intégration : plus d’1 étudiant·e sur 3 témoin de violences — les outils pour agir 📒 Livret d’accompagnement — Ressources de sensibilisation : Bizutage et VSS ✍️ CPED (Conférence Permanente des chargé·es de mission Égalité-Diversité), avec MAKE CHANGE PRODUCTION et la FAGE ; financement partiel MESRE. Capsules Audio de Pratiques en Santé 🎙️🎥 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmFenDSOdi0 🔍💡 Bizutage & VSS à la rentrée : des pistes d’animation prêtes à diffuser avant les soirées d’intégration. 🎯 Un cadre juridique clair et un langage qui parle aux étudiant·es, pour prévenir sans moraliser. Analyse de Pratiques en Santé et lien vers la source ℹ️➕ https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/pratiques-15/livret-d-accompagnement-ressources-de-sensibilisation-bizutage-et-vss-6147 📌 Ce livret met à disposition, prêts à l’emploi, deux vidéos courtes, des affiches personnalisables et des pistes d’animation pour ouvrir la discussion sur le bizutage et les VSS au moment le plus à risque : la rentrée et les soirées d’intégration. Il cadre juridiquement le bizutage — un délit — et documente sa réalité par une enquête nationale récente. Le parti pris est non moralisateur, avec une touche d’humour, pour parler aux étudiant·es sans les culpabiliser. Concrètement, il s’utilise tel quel pour animer un temps de prévention, équiper une association étudiante ou afficher un renvoi vers les dispositifs d’aide. 🇬🇧: Accompanying booklet — Awareness resources: Hazing and Sexual and Gender-Based Violence - https://www.pratiquesensante.com/en/blog/practices-15/accompanying-booklet-awareness-resources-hazing-and-sexual-and-gender-based-violence-6147 #️⃣ #Bizutage #PréventionVSS #ConsentementÉclairé #VieÉtudiante #SantéÉtudiante #RéductionDesRisques #ÉgalitéDiversité #pratiquesensante

❗️“Russia has also massively scaled up FPV-drone awareness for teenagers, as military drone techniques were introduced as a separate part of the curriculum at schools (grades 8 and 9)—including the purchase of 18,000 drones for 450 schools. By 2030, over 4,500 schools in Russia https://t.co/z5JFbUP9Qj #Russia #Drones #Education #RU

Leopold Aschenbrenner, known as Nostradamus AI, experienced unprecedented success in the artificial intelligence market with his own hedge fund Situational Awareness, but after a dramatic drop in stock prices and due to heavy debt, he suffered a historic loss of 35 billion dollars, leading to a dramatic decrease in the fund's value to approximately 10 billion dollars. (translated)

A Generation That Forgot the Shape of the Square On memory left to die alone By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands In a house near mine, there is a boy of thirteen. Born in 2013 just a few months younger than the July coup itself, younger than the new republic under whose shadow we now live. I asked him once, with no preamble, no test, out of nothing more than passing curiosity: do you know what January was? He answered simply, without hesitation, without any sense that he was missing something: "An old revolution, against Mubarak, right?" Not entirely wrong. But it is everything he knows. The name Tahrir Square means nothing specific to him. The sound of the crowd chanting has no echo in his mind. He does not know that his own family whom he sees every day saying "thank God for stability," who warn him against "chaos" whenever a political headline crosses the screen once, at a moment two years before he was born, went down into the street, betting their entire lives on the possibility that something might change. This article is not about politics. It is about memory, and about who decides what gets told and what is left to die in silence. I. Who Erases the Picture? The first question that comes to mind is the easiest and most deceptive one: who erases this memory? And where do we begin holding them accountable? But the truth is too complex to reduce to a single actor. No one actually erases memory, in the literal sense of the act. There is no ministry called the "Ministry of Forgetting," no presidential decree ordering January struck from the collective consciousness. What happens is simpler than that, and more dangerous at once: the subject is simply never told. School says nothing. The textbook leaps from one period to another without pausing on January for more than two faded lines, composed with deliberate neutrality, devoid of any detail that might make the event feel alive to its young reader. Television no longer has any reason to return to it; the programmes that once hosted witnesses and activists stopped years ago, replaced by an official discourse that mentions January only in passing, as an unfortunate prelude to the "stability" that supposedly followed. And the home the most dangerous link of all has become afraid of the subject. Speech now carries a price, and many families, whether consciously or by sheer survival instinct, have decided that silence is safer than the story. The father who marched fears passing on to his son a curiosity that might one day lead him into trouble the family cannot afford. The mother who lost a friend in the events prefers not to reopen the wound before a child who does not yet grasp the weight of loss. And so, generation after generation, the circle of those who know shrinks, and the circle of those who do not even ask because they do not know there is anything worth asking widens. No one decided to erase the memory through an explicit decision. The memory was simply left to die alone, with no one tending it. And it is precisely this decentralised absence of responsibility that makes this kind of erasure more dangerous than any direct official ban: there is no single decision to challenge, no single body to hold accountable. Responsibility is distributed across thousands of small decisions made by thousands of individuals, each within their own context, each seeming reasonable when viewed in isolation. II. Why This Is More Dangerous Than Direct Repression An objection might be raised: is direct repression arrest, imprisonment, publishing bans not far more lethal than mere gradual forgetting? The answer is complex, and deserves calm unpacking. Direct repression can be seen. It can be documented, and the victim can know they are a victim, can tell their story, and their pain can become a testimony added to the collective memory, even if it never reaches justice. The political prisoner knows he is a political prisoner. The journalist banned from writing knows he is banned, and can tell the world he is banned. Direct repression, for all its cruelty, leaves a trace that can be followed. But a generation that has forgotten something happened at all does not even have a starting point from which to ask. This thirteen-year-old boy will never ask "why were we repressed?" because he does not know there is anything deserving that question in the first place. He feels no absence, because he does not know there is anything absent. He simply lives in a version of reality stripped of an entire chapter of his country’s history, and never for a moment suspects that this void is a void at all. Here lies the essence of the danger: direct repression creates victims who know they are victims. Erasure of memory, when it succeeds, creates a generation that does not even know it has been deprived of anything. And deprivation that is not felt cannot be resisted, because resistance always begins with an awareness of loss. The regime that came after 2013 does not need to convince the new generation that January was a mistake. That would be an arduous, costly task, requiring sustained propaganda and continuous effort to persuade each individual one by one. It is far easier, and strategically far more efficient, simply to ensure they never know it was anything at all. The void requires no defence; it requires only silence, and silence is free and always available. III. The Four Mechanisms of Erasure Four complementary mechanisms can be identified working together to produce this collective void not as an organised conspiracy, but as a system of incentives that pushes each party, consciously or not, to contribute to the same process. The first mechanism: formal education. The curriculum, as currently designed, treats January as a passing footnote rather than a founding event deserving detail and analysis. The student memorises two dates the start of the revolution and its presumed end without understanding why people took to the streets, what they were demanding, or how they felt in that pivotal moment. The second mechanism: broadcast media. The channels that once hosted live discussions on January, featuring varied perspectives, have gradually disappeared, or transformed their discourse entirely. Today’s televised image either ignores the anniversary altogether, or invokes it only to frame it as a prelude to chaos that must be avoided. The third mechanism: the silence of homes. This is the most dangerous of all, precisely because it is the most human and understandable. Parents who lived through the experience protect it with silence, not out of aversion to the story, but out of fear of its price. This silence, however legitimate its motives, achieves exactly the same effect as official censorship: it blocks the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. The fourth mechanism: the absence of alternative spaces. Even those among the new generation who wish to know cannot easily find places to look. Archives are scattered, trustworthy websites are blocked or require effort to reach, and personal testimonies are dispersed across corners of the internet that an ordinary student at an ordinary school will never stumble upon. These four mechanisms require no central coordination to work together. Each naturally serves the others, and all converge on a single result: a growing void in the consciousness of every new generation. IV. Memory as an Act of Resistance If erasure operates without a centre, then resisting it must also be decentralised. No one waits for a government decision to restore January to the curriculum, nor for a television programme to revive the testimonies. Resistance here is necessarily individual, happening in small details, in passing conversations, in the simple decision to tell rather than to stay silent. This is exactly what I try to do, without any claim to heroism, without any grand mission. I try, whenever I can, to tell the thirteen-year-old boy and others like him details that are never written in official reports or in schoolbooks: what the voices in the square sounded like, how someone felt the first time they realised change was possible, what that moment of hope was like before everything changed. The goal is not to bring back the past; the past cannot be brought back. The goal is that this boy, when he grows older and asks again and he will ask, because the questions always return at some point finds someone to tell him the full story, not two faded lines in a schoolbook. That he knows the stability he is told is the fruit of "wisdom" has a prior history, that this history carried other possibilities, and that real people bet their lives on those possibilities. V. Why This Matters Now Talking about the memory of a generation not yet aware might seem an intellectual luxury next to more urgent matters: arrests, a collapsing economy, regional wars. But the truth is that this issue is the foundation on which every other issue is built. A people who do not know they once rose up will not understand why they should ever think of rising again. A generation raised to believe "stability" is the only natural state possible will never ask itself what drove its own parents, shortly before it was born, to risk everything for an alternative that was never guaranteed. Memory is not a luxury; it is the reference point by which every generation measures its present, and through which it determines what is possible and what is not. And whoever understands this understands why erasing memory, not direct repression alone, is among the most important tools of any regime seeking to guarantee its permanence: because a people who have forgotten they were once free will not even know they are missing freedom. Memory, like the word, needs someone to tell it in order to survive. And when the tellers stop, memory does not die suddenly; it withers slowly, generation after generation, until the day comes when a boy asks an innocent question, and finds no one to answer him but two faded lines in a schoolbook.

Leopold Aschenbrenner, a 24-year-old German entrepreneur and founder of the investment fund Situational Awareness, has had to sell $16 billion in shares in a sudden financial crisis, jeopardizing his previous reputation as an ‘AI wonder kid’ and visionary in the technology industry. (translated)

My Name Is on a File On a case I was never summoned to, and a price I do not pay alone By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands | July 2026 In 2024, I learned that my name had been entered into a case. Case number 1282. Listed as a "defendant." I was never summoned, and no one called to tell me the exact charge. I found out the way anyone in my position finds out — from a colleague, from a quick search of my own name, from another journalist who called to ask: "Did you know your name is on file?" I do not want to overdramatise the story. No cinematic manhunt, no car tailing me down a European street. What happened is simpler and crueller than that: a state thousands of kilometres away opened a file bearing my name, without my knowledge, without any way for me to defend myself within it, without even anyone standing before me to answer. The charge is not based on any act I committed. The charge is that I wrote. An article, an opinion, a tweet — it makes no difference. What matters is that the words were read, and someone decided they were dangerous enough to become a case number. I. How Do You Know You Are Accused? This question seems like a technicality, but it is in fact the heart of the whole matter. I received no official letter. No lawyer knocked on my door carrying documents. No one from an embassy or consulate called to inform me. The knowledge itself arrived by accident — a passing search, or a message from a friend asking: "Where did you see your name?" This small detail reveals something far larger than a mere administrative oversight. When you are not formally notified that you are accused, you do not even have a clear starting point from which to act. You do not know exactly when the file was opened. You do not know who decided to include your name. You do not know whether a hearing was held, a decision was made, or even whether an investigation took place at all. You simply discover, one day, that you have become "accused" within a legal system that never gave you the chance to know its rules. This ambiguity is not a flaw in the procedure; it is the procedure itself. A case opened without a clear announcement, with no trial date set, performs its full function even while suspended indefinitely. It does not need a conviction to frighten; it is enough that it simply exists. II. The Charge That Needs No Crime In conventional legal systems, a case begins with an act: theft, assault, fraud — something material that can be proven or disproven. But my case, like many others, began with a word. I stole nothing. I assaulted no one. I incited no violence, called for no chaos. I wrote an opinion. I analysed a policy. I criticised a decision. That is the entirety of it. And yet this simple act — writing — became the basis for a legal file bearing a number and classified under a security heading. The paradox is that this kind of charge requires no fixed standard. What counts as "dangerous" today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa. There is no published list of forbidden words, no clear criterion distinguishing incitement from opinion. This deliberate ambiguity — or perhaps unintentional, but effective regardless — leaves every writer living in a state of permanent unease: will this sentence be the one that opens a file bearing my name? III. The Real Danger Is Not to Me Many ask me: "Can they reach you in the Netherlands?" The honest answer: no, not directly. I am here, in a country governed by the rule of law, physically protected by Dutch police, and no one can arrest me on the basis of a case in another country absent a valid extradition treaty and supporting facts. This is not my first concern. My real concern is that this case does not target me alone. It targets those around me. My family in Egypt. People walking down the street, opening their front door, with no connection to politics whatsoever — and suddenly someone is asking about them because I wrote a word from here. This is not a threat spoken aloud. No one calls to say: "If you continue, we will do such-and-such." The message arrives without anyone saying it — through the kind of questions asked of my family, through their timing, through the silence that meets me when I try to learn the details. Sometimes it is a "routine" phone call from some office, asking about my place of residence, my activities, or people I am in contact with. None of it is an explicit threat, but the timing alone is enough to deliver the message. This is precisely the mechanism by which this kind of pursuit operates: it does not need to touch me physically to affect me. It is enough to make me know that the people I love are exposed to harm because of what I write. IV. I Am Not an Exception It would be easy for an article like this to turn into a personal complaint, and I am careful that it should not. Case 1282 is not an isolated incident, and if I stay silent about it I become complicit — unintentionally — in concealing a pattern that genuinely exists. There are others like me — far more than me — whose names sit in similar files, some of whom have no platform to speak from as I do. Journalists, activists, even ordinary people who never practised journalism but shared a post or left a comment. Case 1282 is not an exception; it is a method of operation. Someone writes from abroad, someone else decides they are "dangerous," and the matter shifts from opinion to legal file, without a real trial, without even a clear official announcement that a charge exists at all. More dangerously, this pattern is not confined to Egyptians alone, nor to any single country. It is a recurring tactic used by several regimes seeking to pursue voices beyond their borders without bearing the burden of actual proof or a transparent legal process. The open, unannounced file serves the same purpose everywhere: it frightens without convicting, and keeps the writer in a permanent state of tension without ever offering him the chance to defend himself. V. What Has Actually Changed in Me I will not say this made me stronger. The phrase is worn out, usually deployed to prettify a painful experience, and I refuse to do that. What actually happened is simpler and more honest: I began writing more slowly. Not less candidly — I still say what I believe, still criticise what deserves criticism. But I have become more aware that every sentence I write from here may carry a price I am not the only one paying. This awareness slows the writing, not because I am censoring myself out of fear for my own safety, but because I am thinking about who might pay the price on my behalf. And this is precisely the point of such a case, whether intended or a by-product of a broader mechanism. Actual arrest is not required for censorship to function. No summons is required, no trial, not even a clear charge. It is enough to know your name is written on a piece of paper somewhere, to make you think twice before writing the next time. VI. Why I Continue Regardless A reader might ask: if the price is this clear, why keep writing? Would silence not be safer, for you and for your family? The answer is not as heroic as it might sound, but it is honest: because silence does not solve the problem, it postpones and expands it. If I stopped, and others like me stopped, the mechanism that produced Case 1282 would keep operating with no voice to expose it. Files would keep opening, names would keep being entered, families would keep being questioned, with no one outside the circle of direct victims ever knowing this was happening at all. Writing about this experience, for all its risks, is the only way I have to make this pattern visible. When an article like this is published, the file no longer remains a secret between a government body and an isolated writer; it becomes part of a public record that other journalists, human rights organisations, and even international institutions can follow and document. Conclusion: A Price Not Paid Once I am still writing. More slowly than before, but still writing. And Case 1282 remains open, suspended, with no set date for a hearing or a verdict, exactly as it began. This very ambiguity is the message. An authority that opens a file and never closes it, never tries its subject, never even clearly states what the charge is — is not pursuing justice. It is pursuing something else entirely: that everyone who thinks of writing knows the price is possible, even if not certain. And that everyone who has already written carries that price with them wherever they go, however far they travel from the source of the case. This is the true price of a single word: not one arrest at one moment, but a continuous state of uncertainty that lives with you every time you open a blank page to write. Adham Hasanin is an Egyptian journalist and political writer based in the Netherlands.

Twenty-five-year-old investor Aschenbrenner, known for his fund Situational Awareness, experienced a dramatic fall when his portfolio, which boasted a gain of 439% at the end of June, significantly weakened and he had to sell most of his publicly traded shares to Citadel due to losses related to the use of financial leverage and the decline of technology stocks. (translated)

Leopold Aschenbrenner, a young hedge fund manager from Germany, has apologized to his investors after dramatic losses of his fund Situational Awareness and plans to invest more wisely in artificial intelligence in the future, after his fund has come under severe pressure due to price declines in the technology sector and excessive leverage. (translated)

The prominent hedge fund manager Leopold Aschenbrenner had to sell almost the entire holdings of his hedge fund Situational Awareness due to significant losses in chip stocks, after the AI boom revealed numerous downsides and rising market uncertainties led to a dramatic decline. (translated)

Leopold Aschenbrenner, the prodigy of investments in artificial intelligence and founder of the hedge fund Situational Awareness, is facing serious difficulties after a sharp decline in the sector's stocks, which forced his fund to liquidate a significant portion of its positions due to high leverage use. (translated)

We are entering an age that will reshape economies, institutions, and daily life. We must not enter the #IntelligentAge sleepwalking. We must enter it with awareness, wisdom, and courage. More in 'Thriving and Leading in the Intelligent Age': ➡️🔗https://t.co/IQtYUm0s3c https://t.co/qaUGszDtfZ #IntelligentAge #Awareness #Leadership #Thetweetdoesnotmentionanyspecificcountries.Therefore #therearenocountrycodestoreturn.