Search

Les néo-convertis insolents Le converti politique est plus bruyant que le fidèle de toujours. Certainement il a une dette à payer, un passé à faire oublier ou encore une loyauté à démontrer au risque de voir d’autres le dépasser . À coup de posts sur les réseaux ou de diatribes sur les plateaux, ils sont les seuls à attaquer violemment avec une insolence naissante. Rassurez-vous que eux même se découvrent insolents du jour au lendemain, parce que c’est plus l’instinct de survie qui parle au détriment de la raison. Vous et moi savons que vous n’êtes pas partis du camp des PATRIOTES pour une divergence de ligne comme vous le prétendez, mais partis parce que le PARTI ne garantissait plus l’accès aux postes et privilèges après des années de combat et deux ans dans l’exécutif. Encore que, celui que vous prétendez défendre aujourd’hui, vous ne l’aimez pas, vous ne le respectez pas ( avec tout ce que vous disiez sur lui dans un passé très récent ) et vous n’allez pas non plus mourrir pour lui. Ce qui est drôle est que , lui même le sait. Par ailleurs, il faut regarder notre société de face et déceler un fait : pour toute une catégorie très importante , la politique n’a jamais été un engagement mais un ascenseur social. On y monte là où la porte s’ouvre, et la porte s’ouvre là où est le pouvoir. Et une fois dedans, tous les moyens sont bons pour y rester, car hors de question d’abandonner le nouveau train de vie débloqué. Oui c’est vrai qu’il est vraiment doux de passer de la classe prolétaire à la classe dirigeante, sans effort. Faites bien preuve de retenue, Messieurs Dames. J’y reviendrai … D’ici là, Regardez-vous dans la glace et soyez sage. #politique #societe #ascenseurSocial

The Left Didn’t Replace Religion… It Became One Many leaders in the West may reject God, but they often believe with near-religious fervor in something else. The progressive worldview mirrors religion: people still crave meaning, so it gets redirected. Science is treated like scripture interpreted by an expert priesthood; capitalism becomes the fallen world; revolution is purification; climate change is apocalypse with repentance; gender identity is the soul, the “true self” trapped in a betraying body. Without metaphysics, evil must be placed in the material world. For many on the left, Hitler functions as a secular Satan, so anything tied to him can be treated as morally contaminated—nationalism, borders, ethnic identity, masculinity, Europeans, industry, and Western traditions. Jung’s “shadow” is projected onto an enemy, letting adherents feel morally pure while avoiding the harder work of facing their own capacity for evil. Where Christianity locates sin inside every heart (“original sin”), the secular version relocates the flaw into the world—into whiteness, the West, nationalism, borders, or any chosen symbol. This framework makes moral judgment easy and singular: if Hitler is evil, then opponents become “fascists,” “Nazis,” or “Hitler.” Disagreement turns from political to moral and existential. This isn’t a claim that progressives can’t see evil elsewhere—it’s that this framework has become an instinctive moral compass. The ruling class isn’t truly secular: it has its own faith, and increasingly expects you to live by it.

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.

Ese instinto femenino de sonreír cuando nos está llevando la vrga YANET NO MERECÍAS PRECIOSA😭 #LaCasaDeLosFamososMx https://t.co/4WhtnvgVBp #LaCasaDeLosFamosos #famosos #instinctoFemenino

Coucou @rglucks1 Moi, instinctivement, si je voulais que la France reste libre, je la confierais pas à un mec dont des rumeurs disent qu'il est TRES proche de "services secrets étrangers". Et ta vidéo "jeune cadre dynamique et volontaire", c'est pourri. Vire ton chargé de comm. #France #Liberté #Politique

Kijk de kansen van Leonardo eens rustig terug. Ongelofelijk hoeveel mensen een commentator napraten en maar roeptoeteren dat hij kans op kans mist. Jongen is totaal nog niet fit maar je ziet aan zijn instinctieve loopacties dat het wel goed komt. #Ajax #Leonardo #Voetbal #Ajax

Metaphysics of the Solitary Absolute: Philosophical and Legal Analysis of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality ​The Thesis of Solitary Amorality, formulated by Tom Nesky under the banner of the Axiom of Relationality of Law and Being, constitutes a radical challenge to classical and contemporary normative theories. Its central premise—stating that law, morality, and the category of crime are not inherent properties of reality, but artificial products of social relations—requires a rigorous deconstruction at the intersection of legal positivism, phenomenological existentialism, ontological anarchism, and monistic metaphysics. This paper attempts a systematic analysis of the intellectual pillars of this thesis, examining its internal coherence, genealogical roots, and consequences for the understanding of freedom and human subjectivity. ​The Systemic Construction of Crime vs. Pure Theory of Law ​The first pillar of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality, designated as Nullum Crimen Sine Systema, posits that law does not discover pre-legal categories of evil, but brings them into existence through the very act of establishing a boundary of permissibility. This assertion exhibits a profound convergence with 20th-century legal positivism, particularly with Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law (Reine Rechtslehre). Kelsen advocated for a methodological purification of legal science from ethical, sociological, and political elements, defining law as a normative system founded upon a hypothetical basic norm (Grundnorm). ​In the Kelsenian view, the legal system functions as a coercive apparatus devoid of inherent moral value. A crucial point of intersection with Nesky's thesis is the elimination of the traditional dualism between acts that are inherently evil (mala in se) and acts prohibited merely by law (mala prohibita). Kelsen argued that an act becomes unlawful solely when a legal norm attaches state-enforced coercion to it. Unlawfulness is not an ontological property of the act, but the result of a relationship of normative imputation. This implies that the law does not penalize an act because it is intrinsically evil; rather, an act is considered evil solely because it has been subjected to systemic penalization. ​This clash became prominent during the debates surrounding the Nuremberg trials, where positions based on natural law and legal positivism collided. While prosecutors such as Robert Jackson invoked universal moral norms (mala in se) as the basis for punishing criminals despite the previously binding positive law of the Third Reich, Kelsen pointed out the theoretical inconsistency of such an approach. He argued that judging on the basis of retroactive law (ex post facto) constitutes a breach in the systemic coherence of positivism, even if it might be justified by political and historical necessity. ​Nesky's project imparts an existential dimension of oppression to this structure, bringing it close to the critique of the state formulated by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche famously described the state as "the coldest of all cold monsters," which devours the individual's singularity and imposes herd morality upon them. The gaze of the state, mediated through the Other, paralyzes the sovereignty of the individual and forces them to navigate within arbitrarily designated normative boundaries. Every stroke drawn across the chaos of reality establishes a boundary, and every boundary instantly creates the concept of its transgression. ​The Paradox of the Systemic Cage and the Limits of Ontological Anarchism ​The second pillar of the thesis—The Paradox of the Systemic Cage—points to the impossibility of escaping the system through rules alone. Every attempt to negate the existing order, from establishing anarchist structures to escaping into geographical isolation, immediately transforms into a new system whose primary imperative becomes the defense and maintenance of that very absence of rules. This process of structural looping finds its reflection in the current of ontological anarchism formulated by Hakim Bey (pseudonym of Peter Lamborn Wilson). ​Bey, drawing on a synthesis of Nietzscheanism, Situationist theory of the spectacle, and chaos esotericism, recognized that classical revolutions striving to overthrow the state inevitably reproduce structures of domination, becoming new forms of confinement. As an alternative, he proposed the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ). TAZ is a tactic for creating temporary, non-hierarchical spaces that deliberately evade formal structures of state control. The key element of TAZ is its ephemerality: before the system can map, define, and absorb the autonomous zone, it must dissolve itself and relocate to another point in space-time. ​Attempts to transform TAZ into Permanent Autonomous Zones (PAZ) immediately encounter the paradox noted by Nesky. The need to defend and codify freedom within a lasting community gives rise to internal rules, mechanisms of exclusion, and hierarchy. For this reason, Murray Bookchin criticized ontological anarchism (calling it "lifestyle anarchism" or "bourgeois anarchism") for its lack of political realism and its flight from systemic struggle against capital and state in favor of aesthetic rebellion. The convergence of these perspectives demonstrates that freedom defined as reactive resistance to a system remains structurally determined by it. ​The Dissolution of the Relational Mirror: The Existential Gaze and the Collapse of Morality ​The third pillar of the thesis, designated as The Dissolution of the Mirror (L'Autre), posits that good and evil require the presence of an external witness and judge. This assertion represents a direct application of Jean-Paul Sartre's existential phenomenology, particularly his analysis of the Gaze (le look / le regard) and the relation to the Other (l'Autre) presented in Being and Nothingness. ​Sartre illustrates the constitutive role of the Other through an analysis of the voyeur's situation. At the moment of complete absorption in the act of peeping through a keyhole, the subject's consciousness is pre-reflective—the voyeur does not reflect on himself; his consciousness completely merges with the act being performed. Only the sudden sound of footsteps in the hallway shatters this unity. The voyeur realizes that he himself is seen, and is instantly paralyzed by shame. ​For Sartre, shame is not a purely internal emotion; it is shame of oneself before the Other. The Gaze of the Other objectifies the free subject (being-for-itself—pour-soi), freezing them into a specific role and moral evaluation (being-for-others—pour-autrui). As Ellie Anderson points out, Descartes' formula "I think, therefore I am" is replaced in Sartre by "I feel shame, therefore Others exist." The Gaze of the Other marks the birth of social morality, wherein the individual learns to view themselves from a third-person perspective. ​This existential dynamic corresponds to the Nietzschean genealogy of "bad conscience." Nietzsche demonstrates that morality and guilt are products of the forced internalization of human instincts that could no longer be discharged outwardly due to social barriers. Forced into the constraints of society, man turns against himself, creating an internal judge (conscience) modeled on the external tyrant. ​This vision also resonates with the classical theory of Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes explicitly declares that in the state of nature, where there is no common power, there is no law, and where there is no law, no notion of injustice exists. Concepts of good, evil, justice, and property are attributes of man living in society, not in solitude. Removing the social fabric reverts the individual to a state in which theft and injury lose their raison d'être due to the absence of relational reference to the Other. #philosophy # metaphysics # thesis # morality

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.

Zinedine Zidane, évidemment que vous allez appeler Esteban Lepaul en Equipe de France, pour rappel : ✅Meilleur buteur de L1 ⚽️6 buts en 4 matches de prépa avec Rennes, dont un triplé contre Galatasaray 🎯Un instinct de buteur 🔥🔥 ⚠️une cote de malade sur le mercato https://t.co/umfM1uBxJN #ZinedineZidane #EquipeDeFrance #Football

Izdelovalec čipov AMD je napovedal naložbo do pet milijard dolarjev v podjetje za umetno inteligenco Anthropic za razvoj novih čipov, namenjenih umetni inteligenci, pri čemer bo Anthropic kupil napredne čipe Instinct MI450, pri čemer naj bi prva dobava pričela leta 2027. #UmetnaInteligenca #AMD #Anthropic

Bret Weinstein said something that won’t leave my head: For the first time in 300,000 years of human evolution, we removed the cost from the single biggest reward nature ever invented — sex and pair-bonding. Reliable birth control + abortion = you can now cash the evolutionary lottery ticket without paying the 20-year mortgage of pregnancy, diapers, sleepless nights, and college funds. Result? An entire generation of 18–35-year-olds walking around with the energy, libido, hormones, and protective instincts that evolution spent millions of years calibrating for child-rearing… but with zero actual children. That energy didn’t disappear. It got redirected. Heather Heying’s observation is brutal: young women especially began treating ideologies the exact way evolution wired them to treat babies. Climate change, social justice, whatever the cause of the month is — it gets defended with literal mama-bear ferocity, the same neurochemistry that once guarded a toddler from predators now guards an abstract idea from wrong think. And now Elon is promising the second shoe is about to drop: AI-driven abundance will make money as “free” as sex became in the 1970s. Both of evolution’s primary carrots — mating and resource acquisition suddenly cost almost nothing. Weinstein’s ice-cold question: When producing and protecting actual children is no longer the central organizing principle of adult life… and when creating wealth is no longer required for status, security, or attracting a mate…What is left to give a human life direction, meaning, and structure? https://x.com/Bitcoin_Teddy/status/2077512782430486720

"INSTINCT DE TUEUR" "LA DEUXIÈME MI-TEMPS DOIT ÊTRE LONGUE POUR EUX." "LE 2e BUT C’EST POUR NOUS" Les mots des Bleus dans les couloirs à la pause ! 🇫🇷🗣️ 🎙️ via M6 #Football #Bleus #MITemps

My @IrishTimesBooks review of @maggieNYT & @jonathanvswan’s Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. The story of how Trump, with “a feral instinct for power”, has altered “the very nature” of the American Presidency. https://t.co/2z4yfQZnNB #RegimeChange #Trump #AmericanPresidency #US #IE

Nous accueillons ce premier sondage à 36% dès le 1er tour avec humilité et responsabilité. Une force populaire, calme et puissante se lève dans le pays : comme un instinct de survie, nous la savons irrésistible. #Marine2027 https://t.co/6osZYes0PL #Politique #Élections2027 #Mobilisation

Column: De emotieloze bestuursklasse á €141.000 van Den Haag Sommige Kamerleden met een jaarsalaris van meer dan €141.000 kijken alsof ze per ongeluk in de Tweede Kamer zijn beland tijdens een verplichte Teams-vergadering over afvalscheiding. Geen vuur. Geen overtuiging. Geen zichtbaar besef dat achter hun dossiers complete gezinnen schuilgaan. Alleen die typische Haagse technocratische blik: Zwaar geïrriteerd dat burgers emoties blijven houden bij beleid dat hun leven verwoest. Het moderne politieke managementtype is namelijk resultaat gericht opgegroeid in een wereld van modellen, transitietabellen en gedragsdoelen. Boeren zijn uitstootprofielen geworden. Burgers datasets. Grenzen spreadsheets. En samenleving iets dat “gestuurd” moet worden. Je ziet het terug in die bijna verveelde lichaamstaal tijdens debatten over existentiële onderwerpen. Alsof het sluiten van familiebedrijven vergelijkbaar is met een update van een parkeerapp. En ondertussen groeit buiten Den Haag de woede tot het kookpunt. Vanwege, zowel het beleid zelf als de voelbare minachting. Die blik van: u valt me lastig met vragen waar ik geen antwoord op weet. U weet dat en dat doet u expres. Dat is misschien wel het gevaarlijkste wat een politieke klasse kan ontwikkelen: Zowel de arrogantie, Als de emotionele vervreemding van de vragen uit de bevolking die zij zegt te vertegenwoordigen. Want zodra bestuurders gewone mensen alleen nog bekijken via modellen, grafieken en stikstofberekeningen, verdwijnt direct ieder natuurlijk politiek instinct. Dan blijft alleen management over. Koud. Procedureel. En totaal losgezongen van het land waarover men regeert. 📌 Heeft u mijn bundel al? https://t.co/y64gXJ5yrY 📌 Steunt u mij ook? https://t.co/V2P6pFuNy1  #Politiek #DenHaag #Maatschappij