Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Here a friend told me: "The UK, it's over."
People often tell me the same thing about France. "France, it's over."
I understand where that feeling comes from. The immigration figures, the debt, the streets of London and Paris, the captured institutions. The diagnosis is largely accurate.
But the conclusion is a mistake. And not a small analytical error. A fatal error.
Here's why.
Saying "the UK is over" or "France is over" isn't a local diagnosis. It's a global capitulation you haven't yet admitted. Because the UK and France aren't just any countries. They're two of the three matrices of the West. Common law, habeas corpus, the Westminster Parliament. The Enlightenment, human rights, the Civil Code. If these two fall for good, you don't lose two countries. You lose the proof that the model works.
And the mechanism is relentless: if wokism, which is just communism after its 1970s mutation, wins in Europe, it doesn't stop in Europe. An ideology that survived the fall of its own empire doesn't stop at a border. It already crossed the Atlantic once, in 1966, via Johns Hopkins. It will cross back the other way. The West holds together or falls together.
Look at the map of what's at stake. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, Switzerland, Austria. The Nordic countries. Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, all that Central Europe that's already paid to know. And the outposts: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. This isn't a list of countries. It's one civilization distributed across four continents. Abandon one node, and you weaken the entire network.
Now, the point everyone forgets when they despair.
The greatest among us have despaired too.
Peter Thiel recounted the scene in his New York Times interview. A dinner with Elon, during the 2024 campaign. Thiel tells him: if Trump loses, I'm leaving the country. And Elon replies: "There's nowhere to go. There's nowhere to go." There's nowhere to go. Thiel goes home and two hours later realizes what he's just heard: Elon no longer believed in Mars. No longer as a political project. Because he'd understood that the socialist government and woke AI would follow him to Mars.
The man building rockets to escape Earth had concluded that escape was impossible.
And what did he do with that despair? He didn't emigrate. He didn't abdicate. He realized that since there's nowhere to flee, there's only one option: turn around and fight. Here. Now.
That's exactly the right reasoning, and it applies to the UK and to France: there's no exit, so there's only reconquest.
And reconquest has already begun. Open your eyes to what's happened in three years.
The ideology that seemed invincible in 2020 is dying everywhere. DEI programs dismantled one after another in America's biggest companies. Universities forced to be accountable for the first time in fifty years. The censorship that ruled social networks, shattered. Western electorates, election after election, rejecting the software. What sold itself as the meaning of History is revealed for what it was: a fashion carried by fear, and the fear has switched sides.
And at the center of this turnaround, an unprecedented fact: the richest man in the history of humanity, on track to become the first trillionaire, has decided to devote his fortune, his platforms, and his machines to destroying this ideology. Not to accommodate it. Not to buy peace. To destroy it. Never, in the entire history of the Cold War, did the free world have an asset like this. Soviet dissidents wrote samizdats on typewriters. We have the rockets, the AI models, and the global information distribution network in the hands of people who've chosen our side.
So no, the UK isn't over. France isn't over. A nation is only over the day its builders declare it so, and declaring it is precisely the enemy's war aim. Declinism isn't lucidity. It's the enemy ideology spinning in your own head, making you do its work for free.
There's never been as much hope for the free world. The real one. Not the 1989 mirage, when we celebrated victory over an empty address. This time, we know where the enemy is, we know how it works, and the most capable men on the planet have finally entered the battle.
Pessimism is a spectator's luxury. We're not spectators.
To work. Rate this translation: 9:39 PM · Jun 10, 2026
2)
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French The biggest blow ever dealt to globalism?
COVID.
I'm serious. And it's even pretty funny when you think about it.
Everyone knows the story of the frog in the pot. You raise the temperature by one degree at a time, the frog gets used to it, gets used to it, gets used to it, and ends up cooked without ever jumping out.
The globalist project was exactly that. A perfectly managed pot. One degree per year. A transfer of sovereignty here, a supranational agency there, a little rollback of freedom of expression, nothing alarming, sleep tight. In 2019, we were at 30 degrees and the frog found the water rather pleasant.
The problem was that the project wasn't locked in yet. Still in the construction phase. It needed another twenty years of gentle simmering.
And then COVID arrives. And the cooks, drunk on their own power, do the one thing you should never do: they jump from 30 to 100 degrees in one go.
Lockdowns. Permits to go out and buy bread. Passes to exist socially. Live censorship of dissenting doctors. Schools closed, borders closed, grandmothers dying alone, and all of it coordinated globally with the same talking points in twenty languages.
The frog felt the water boiling. And it jumped.
Hundreds of millions of perfectly apolitical people, who had never questioned a TV news broadcast in their lives, saw the mechanism at work. In fast-forward. Without the scenery. You can't show the thirty-year plan ahead of time and expect people to forget it. COVID was the trailer for the movie, and the entire audience demanded a refund.
It's the mechanical law the cooks forgot: a control system only survives as long as it's invisible. COVID made it visible. Peak of the globalist project and the start of its death, in the same year.
But a frog that jumps isn't enough. The lid still has to be open.
And that's when one man spent 44 billion dollars to buy the lid.
Everyone laughed. Worst deal in history, they said. Except that without Twitter freed up, every frog that jumped fell back alone, in silence, shadowbanned. With X, the frogs saw each other. Millions of them. And a frog that discovers there are millions of them never climbs back into the pot.
The cooks had thirty years of patience and squandered it in two years of panic. Elon had two years of boldness and locked in thirty years of the future.
The pot is empty, the water is cooling, and the frogs are building rockets.
Back to work. 9:57 PM · Jun 10, 2026
3)
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French The globalist project died with COVID. I wrote it.
So they respond to me: "Dead? Look at Europe. They've never legislated so much to control us." And that's true.
But that's precisely the proof of death, not the proof of life.
In finance, it has a name: the dead cat bounce. An asset collapses, and just before hitting bottom, it bounces one last time. Not because it's alive. Because it fell from very high up. Globalism died in 2021, and Europe is its bounce.
Look at the dates. The entire European control arsenal was designed at the peak of the boiling pot, between 2020 and 2022, when the frog was still sleeping.
European digital identity: announced by von der Leyen on September 16, 2020, right in the middle of COVID. Proposal on June 3, 2021. eIDAS 2.0 regulation in force on May 20, 2024, mandatory wallet in every state by end of 2026, official goal of 80% of Europeans equipped by 2030.
Digital euro: first ECB report in October 2020. Legal framework presented in June 2023. Green light on October 30, 2025, pilot in 2027, issuance in 2029, with "holding limits" coded right into the currency itself. And Lagarde, trapped by a fake Zelensky in March 2023: "There will be control, you're right."
DSA: proposed in December 2020, adopted on October 19, 2022. On the day of Twitter's buyout, Breton tweets: "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules." July 2023, during the riots, he promises platforms "the instant obligation to delete them" for content calling for revolt.
Chat Control: proposed in May 2022. Scan all messaging apps, including encrypted ones, right on your phone, before encryption. Complemented in June 2025 by the ProtectEU roadmap: decryption capabilities for authorities by 2030 horizon.
And the prototype of all that: the pass, regulation from June 2021. A QR code between you and your social life.
Identity, currency, speech, private messages. The full social credit stack, piece by piece, dated, signed, published in the Official Journal. The plan isn't hidden; it's out there for anyone to see.
Now the interesting question: why does this machine keep delivering when the whole world has jumped out of the pot?
Because a bureaucracy has no nervous system.
It doesn't feel the death of the project that programmed it. A European regulation is a five-to-ten-year cycle: proposal, trilogue, adoption, transposition, application.
Everything coming out of Brussels's pipelines today was injected between 2020 and 2022, at the exact peak of COVID delirium.
The pilot jumped off the train in 2021. The train, though, keeps barreling along on momentum. That's the dead cat bounce: inertia masquerading as vitality.
And every delivery blows up in their faces.
The pass was supposed to normalize control: it woke the frog, it's the birth certificate of all today's dissidence.
The DSA was supposed to tame the platforms: it turned Breton into a global meme and put Europe in head-on collision with America.
The digital euro is advancing toward a market that doesn't want it, to the point where the ECB has to promise an offline anonymous mode just to calm the backlash.
And Chat Control, the crown jewel of the stack: rejected by the European Parliament on March 26, 2026, after four years of arm-twisting and three Council presidencies.
On April 4, message scanning lost all legal basis in Europe, killed by hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens who wrote to their deputies.
Four years earlier, this text passed without a single press headline. Today it dies in plenary. That's the difference between 2021 and 2026: the machine is the same, the people are not.
It's a mechanical law: a control project needs two things, infrastructure and consent. The infrastructure, they have it, budgeted through 2030. The consent, they burned it in two years of COVID panic, and you don't revote that in Brussels.
So yes, Europe will keep delivering the roadmap of a dead world.
Wallets no one will install voluntarily, a currency no one asked for, regulations that churn out a dissident per paragraph.
Every text is one more hammer blow on the lid of an already empty pot.
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·14hTranslated from French First, the symbol. This IPO is a referendum. On one side, 20 years of talk about degrowth, sobriety, redistribution, the end of history managed by committees. On the other, a man who said "I'm going to make humanity multiplanetary," whom everyone treated as a clown, and who just created the largest publicly traded company in history starting from a warehouse in El Segundo. The market has voted. Wokism had HR departments, SpaceX had rockets. The rockets won.
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French SpaceX closed its first day of trading at $2.1 trillion, +19%. Everyone’s looking at the number. No one’s looking at what it’s actually pricing.
Let me tell you what the market just bought, and why I think this company will be worth 30 to 50 trillion in 5 years.
First, the symbolism. This IPO is a referendum. On one side, 20 years of talk about degrowth, sobriety, redistribution, the end of history managed by committees. On the other, a man who said “I’m going to make humanity multiplanetary,” whom everyone treated like a clown, and who just created the largest publicly traded company in history starting from a warehouse in El Segundo. The market voted. Wokism had HR departments, SpaceX had rockets. The rockets won.
Next, the economic mechanics, because that’s where everyone’s getting it wrong. Analysts value SpaceX as a launch company plus Starlink. It’s like valuing the internet in 1995 based on the fax market. Starship doesn’t reduce the cost per kilo in orbit by 20%, it divides it by 100. And every time in history that an infrastructure cost has been divided by 100, it’s not the existing market that grows, it’s entire industries that are born. The cost of computation divided by 100 gave us the internet, the smartphone, AI. The cost of orbit divided by 100 will give us a complete space economy.
Let’s list what becomes profitable when the kilo in orbit costs the price of an airplane ticket. Orbital data centers, with continuous solar power and free cooling, right at the exact moment when AI is exploding terrestrial energy demand. Microgravity manufacturing of semiconductors, optical fibers, printed organs impossible to produce under gravity. Mass orbital tourism, then lunar hotels, which will go from fantasy to business plan exactly like luxury cruises in the 20th century. Point-to-point terrestrial transport, Paris to Tokyo in 40 minutes. The asteroid mining industry, where a single M-class body contains more metals than all humanity has extracted since the Neolithic. And Mars in sight, not as a tourist destination, but as the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken, with all that implies in demand for energy, materials, robotics, AI.
SpaceX won’t participate in these markets. SpaceX owns the entry toll to all these markets. It’s AWS, but for civilization. Apple is worth $3.5 trillion selling glass rectangles on a single planet. The first monopoly of access to an infinite frontier at 30 or 50 trillion in 5 years isn’t exuberance, it’s just simple arithmetic on the expansion of the addressable market.
And now, the part I like best. This future doesn’t need bureaucrats. There’s no advisory committee in orbit. No Théodule commission on Mars. Every dollar of this new economy will be created by engineers, technicians, welders, pilots, entrepreneurs. The norm-management graduates will have to learn a useful trade, and frankly, that’s excellent news for them too: building is infinitely more fun than controlling.
Because that’s the real signal today. For 50 years they’ve sold us a shrunken future: less energy, fewer children, less ambition, managing the decline cleanly. And then, all of a sudden, the world’s biggest financial asset is a bet on abundance, expansion, and adventure. Pessimism just went short on itself.
The future will be mega fun. There’ll be hotels with views of Earth, honeymoons in orbit, kids who’ll say “Dad, what was it like before reusable rockets” the way we say “what was it like before the internet.” And somewhere in the 2030s, a human will walk on Mars in a livestream in front of 5 billion people, and on that day no one will remember the name of a single one of its detractors.
Buy optimism. It’s still undervalued. Rate this translation: 2:17 AM · Jun 13, 2026
https://x.com/brivael/status/2065589299815514474
PS.
Zitat
Zitat Zack Polanski@ZackPolanski·22h The world's first trillionaire is backing the far right mobs and their politician backers. Don't think for a second that these men have ordinary people's interests at heart. x.com/PolitlcsGlobal…
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael There is no "far right" on the political chessboard today. It's a ghost, a scarecrow built by the left to avoid debating ideas.
Look at the facts.
The parties you call "far right" are pro-NATO (Meloni), economically statist (the RN's program includes more welfare spending, not less), and win free elections with tens of millions of votes. Meloni governs Italy as a conventional conservative. Milei quotes Hayek and Mises, the most anti-authoritarian thinkers of the 20th century. Historical fascism was about state control of the economy. Every figure you label "far right" wants less state, not more.
When a third of France, half of Italy and half of America are "far right mobs", the word has lost all meaning. You're not describing extremists. You're describing ordinary voters who stopped listening to you.
And everyone knows it. That's why the label doesn't work anymore. People hear "far right" and they understand "someone the establishment failed to refute."
As for "these men don't have ordinary people's interests at heart" : the man you're attacking made electric cars mainstream, gave internet access to people in war zones and rural areas, and cut the cost of reaching space by 100x. What have you built?
Here's some free advice. Drop the narrative. Learn a skill. Create value for someone. That's how you actually help ordinary people. Not by inventing monsters. 11:50 PM · Jun 12, 2026
PPS.
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·20h Translated from French When a world record falls, it almost always falls again within the following 12 to 24 months.
This simple statistical fact explains why Elon Musk, by becoming a trillionaire, is creating an antibody to the ambient bullshit and the empire of lies. Let me explain.
The 100-meter record stagnated for years, then Bob Hayes breaks under 10 seconds in 1964, and suddenly everyone does it. The sub-4-minute mile was considered physiologically impossible. Bannister does it in 1954. Two months later, Landy beats it. Today, high schoolers do it.
Why? Because records aren't physical limits. They're mental limits. The record doesn't say "this is what's possible," it says "this is what someone dared to believe was possible." And once someone has done it, desire becomes mimetic. Thousands of minds instantly reorganize around the new benchmark.
Elon Musk has just become the first trillionaire in history.
And everyone is looking at the number. No one is looking at what that number has just done in the head of every billionaire on the planet.
Yesterday, "billionaire" was the summit of the game. Today, it's the base camp. There are about 3000 billionaires on Earth who have just woken up with a single question in mind: how do I become a trillionaire?
And that's where it gets magnificent. Because the answer to that question has nothing to do with the methods that built the fortunes of the 20th century.
You don't become a trillionaire with financial engineering. You don't become a trillionaire by capturing a regulator. You don't become a trillionaire by funding NGOs that manufacture the problems you claim to solve. Those methods hit a ceiling. They extract value from a fixed pie, and a fixed pie doesn't produce a trillion.
To become a trillionaire, there's only one path, and Elon has just charted it:
Be pro-human. The trillion comes from products that billions of people really want. No subsidies, no rents, no capture. Real demand, at the scale of the species.
Be anti-control. Every layer of control is a tax on execution speed. Crony empires are slow by design, because they depend on permission. The trillion belongs to those who build faster than bureaucracy can forbid.
Be expansionist. The trillion doesn't exist in a zero-sum world. It requires creating markets that didn't exist: orbit, abundant energy, artificial intelligence, general robotics. You have to expand the playing field, not redistribute the crumbs.
And here's the detail almost no one has seen: to follow this path, most will have to build on top of Elon's infrastructure. Starlink, the launchers, the compute, the energy. He didn't just break the record. He privatized the track and is selling entry tickets to everyone who wants to run.
The systemic consequence is enormous: Elon is detoxifying wealth.
For decades, crony capitalism and corruption capitalism were the royal roads to extreme fortune. Lobbying, regulatory capture, strategic philanthropy that buys silence. Becoming ultra-rich had become suspect, because it often was. The empire of lies thrived precisely because lying was more profitable than building.
The trillionaire standard makes those methods obsolete. Not by morality, but by mathematics. Corruption yields billions. Only creation yields trillions. The most powerful incentive in the history of capitalism has just swung to the side of the builders.
That's the antibody. It requires no law, no regulator, no revolution. Just one man who ran faster and showed the time on the clock.
Bannister didn't just break a record. He freed all the runners who came after him.
In the next 24 months, watch the billionaires of the planet reallocate their capital toward space, energy, AI, robotics. Not out of virtue. Out of mimicry. The desire of the world's richest man becomes the desire of all those who want to become it.
I've never been so optimistic in my entire life. 11:35 PM · Jun 12, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·2h Translated from French I've got the ultimate, infallible, instant IQ test.
If a guy hits me with that Elon Musk emerald mine line, it's over. NPC confirmed. The brain shut down somewhere in 2019 and nobody's come to flip the lights back on since.
Because look at what the actual file says. Not the meme, the file. In 1986, Errol trades a small plane (a Cessna) for a share of emeralds produced by three little mines owned by a guy in Zambia. No company, no contract, no deed, nothing. An informal, off-the-books deal that collapses in 1989. The same year Elon lands in Canada with $2,500 in his pocket and ends up with $100,000 in student debt.
And they want me to believe that funded Tesla and SpaceX nearly twenty years later. Emeralds traded in the bush in the '80s that magically turn into reusable rockets in 2008. The real seed capital? Zip2 then PayPal. Documented, public, verifiable in thirty seconds.
So when someone repeats the emerald mine bit, they're not talking about Elon. They're talking about themselves.
Go read his bio, and the hoax jumps right out at you. You've got exactly four possibilities. Either it's a moron who's never checked a source in their life. Or it's a corrupt type who knows and lies anyway. Or it's a lazy ass who copy-pasted a meme without lifting a finger. Or it's just a guy who just rolled a fat joint and is regurgitating whatever's floating on his TL.
In every case, it's not an argument. It's a confession.
Zitat vérole humaine@AlfbTek·4h Replying to @grm_off Translated from French Starting from nothing, the poor guy 😆 The Musk family was wealthy during Elon’s youth. Although both Elon and Errol have stated in the past that Errol was a co-owner of an emerald mine in Zambia
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #3 Zitat:Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·2h Translated from French
When one can no longer win a debate on the merits, there remains one option: disqualify the opponent before they’ve even opened their mouth. The word “extreme” serves exactly for that. It doesn’t describe a position; it forbids examining it.
Look at what is called “far right” today.
Being for freedom of expression, including the kind that disturbs.
Being for economic freedom, that is, the right to undertake, to create, and to keep the fruits of one’s labor.
Being for a justice system that truly protects victims, instead of excusing those who assault them.
Being for the protection of minorities, of individuals, against all forms of oppression.
And being against tyranny, whether it comes from an overwhelming majority or from a minority that arrogates to itself the right to speak on behalf of everyone.
Reread this list. These are not extreme positions. This is the program of classical liberalism. This is Tocqueville, this is Mill, this is Bastiat. This is the very foundation of Western democracies.
If defending freedom of expression and the right to undertake has become “extreme,” then the word no longer means anything. And a word that designates everyone designates no one anymore.
The mechanism is as old as the world, though. When a group needs to pull itself back together, it requires a culprit. Designating “the extremist” is a way to give itself a convenient enemy against which to unite, without ever having to respond to what they’re really saying. It’s Girard applied to politics: the scapegoat isn’t there to understand; it’s there to soothe the group.
So let’s pose the real question. Where is the extremism today? On the side of those who want to cancel someone for a single phrase. Of those who prefer to censor rather than respond. To confiscate rather than produce. To judge an individual based on their group affiliation and not on their actions. That’s extremism. But it advances masked, draped in the vocabulary of virtue.
The permanent insult is not an accident; it’s a survival strategy. When there are neither arguments nor results left, there remains the anathema. Calling the entire world extreme isn’t a position of strength; it’s the admission that one has lost the battle of ideas.
The truth is that the center has shifted without anyone having moved. These are the same liberal ideas as yesterday, now labeled extreme today. It’s not you who moved. It’s the label that was shifted, to be able to put you outside.
Refuse the label. Demand the debate. That’s precisely the one thing they cannot grant you. June 5 2026
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French The Nazi Party manifesto in 2026:
Freedom of expression. Individual liberty. The right to enterprise. Personal responsibility. Reducing the weight of the State. The radical simplification of bureaucracy. The idea that a free individual creates more value than a committee. The idea that no bureaucrat in Brussels, Paris, or elsewhere knows better than millions of citizens what is good for them.
The sound of boots, the return of the loathsome beast 😂 7:36 PM · Jun 14, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·28m Translated from French I’m receiving more and more private messages from people very close to the Parisian elites.
The observation is simple:
I’ve become radioactive.
Why?
Because I defend ideas that have become almost forbidden in certain circles:
Freedom of expression. Individual liberty. The right to enterprise. Personal responsibility. Reducing the weight of the State. The radical simplification of bureaucracy. The idea that a free individual creates more value than a committee. The idea that no bureaucrat in Brussels, Paris, or elsewhere knows better than millions of citizens what’s good for them.
I believe that entrepreneurs create more prosperity than administrations.
I believe that innovation solves more problems than regulation.
I believe that technology is the most powerful engine of progress humanity has ever known.
And yes, I admire Elon Musk.
Not because he’s perfect.
But because, with a fraction of the resources of States, he has:
Revolutionized space travel. Accelerated the transition to electric vehicles. Deployed a global Internet network. Advanced brain-machine interfaces. Contributed to democratizing AI.
While armies of bureaucrats produce thousands of pages of regulations, some people are building.
And I prefer the builders.
As Victor Hugo said:
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something in your life.”
And to be honest, it’s even worse than that.
From the moment defending these ideas creates enemies, I tend to double down on my efforts.
Opposition isn’t a stop sign.
It’s often a sign that you’re touching on something important.
So to those who want to clash with me on these topics: go ahead.
Debate, the clash of ideas, and intellectual combat are fuel.
I don’t seek out enemies.
But I certainly don’t fear them.
Builders have never asked for permission to build the future.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French The savings of the French must go into SpaceX.
Alert all your friends. Your tenant. Your cousin. Your neighbor who smokes weed on the landing. Your bitter ex.
SpaceX isn't an investment. It's a vote.
A vote against the globalist control project. Against the agencies that regulate what they've never known how to build. Against sadness erected into public policy.
We must make Elon Musk as rich as possible.
Because the richer Elon Musk is, the more the bullshit disappears. The more rockets launch. The more the future becomes a place we want to go.
(This is obviously not investment advice. It's a civilizational one.)
LFG!!!!! Rate this translation: 8:03 PM · Jun 15, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Ask yourself just one question, and the entire edifice collapses.
Why do causes that, on the surface, have absolutely nothing to do with one another always end up saying exactly the same thing, with the same words, against the same people?
Gay rights have nothing to do with the climate. The climate has nothing to do with the racial question. The racial question has nothing to do with gender theory. Four distinct subjects, four stories, four audiences, four separate fields of expertise.
And yet. Take the most visible spokesperson for each of these fights. Put the four of them in a room. You get four people who vote the same way, who despise the same people, who use the same lexicon (systemic, deconstruct, privilege, inclusive), and who never contradict each other. Never.
It's not a coincidence. It's a law. It operates in three stages, and each one can be verified with numbers.
First stage. In any group, it's never the majority that speaks. It's the most militant fringe.
The masses live their lives. The small, most ideologized core seizes the microphone, because it's the only one with the time, the money, and the fanaticism to hold it. This isn't a hunch. The Hidden Tribes study (8,000 Americans surveyed) puts a number on this fringe, the Progressive Activists, at 8% of the population. One American in twelve. Opposite them, an exhausted majority of two-thirds who never asked for the microphone and never voted for the spokesperson.
Robert Conquest had formulated the mechanics as early as the 1960s: any organization that is not explicitly right-wing ends up, over time, becoming left-wing. Not by conspiracy. By natural selection. The fanatic stays when the moderate goes home.
Second stage. This fringe bears no resemblance whatsoever to those it claims to represent, and it is more radical than they are.
Here's the figure that should settle the debate. America's most left-wing militant bloc, the one that speaks on behalf of minorities all day long, is composed of 67% Whites. Seven percent Blacks (Pew, June 2026). The most educated, most affluent, most connected group in the country. Those who shout the loudest on behalf of the oppressed are, statistically, the most privileged ones on the board.
And they are more extreme than those affected themselves. 71% of progressive Whites want to cut the police budget. American Blacks, on the other hand, are split (53% for, 44% against), and only 28% supported the slogan "defund the police." Hispanics were mostly opposed (57%). So the self-proclaimed spokesperson was more radical than the community on whose behalf he claimed to speak. A study (ANES) pushes it to the brink of vertigo: progressive Whites are the only group in the country that rates other races higher than their own.
Translation. An affluent graduate has decided to speak on behalf of the oppressed. And the oppressed disagrees.
And these fringes all come from the same mold. The same academic apparatus (Foucault, Derrida, the Frankfurt School, whose genealogy I've recounted). The same ecosystem of foundations, which openly fund, via public catalogs, the militant associational work of every cause. The same seminars, the same lexicon, the same training sessions. You don't produce twenty ideologies. You produce twenty antennas for a single transmitter.
Third stage. Once entrenched, the fringe speaks on behalf of everyone and crushes those who, within the group, refuse to follow.
The discreet homosexual who doesn't recognize himself in the megaphone. The conservative Black. The woman who refuses to have the word "woman" erased. All treated as traitors. Because the militant’s first enemy is never the opponent across the way. It's the moderate in his own camp. The moderate is the absolute danger: by his mere existence, he proves that the megaphone is lying when it claims to speak for everyone.
Result. You think you see a mosaic of fights for rights. What you really see is a single software, installed on different machines.
The cause is never the cause. The cause is the costume.
And the one wearing the costume always serves the same owner: the idea that everything, absolutely everything (the family, the nation, merit, the norm, the border, truth itself) is a structure of oppression to be dismantled. It's the Marxist matrix, which has simply left the factory for identity. The class struggle no longer worked (the workers were getting bourgeois), so we multiplied the classes: one per minority, one per cause, ad infinitum. A replacement proletariat, indefinitely renewable.
And here is the test that never fails, the only one that matters. A sincere cause accepts contradiction within itself. An ideological costume does not. The day you see the spokesperson for one of these causes publicly defending a dissident from his own camp, against his own camp, you'll know it was a real cause. You'll wait a long time.
The good news is that what holds by a single thread falls by a single thread. A fringe of 8% only governs as long as the 92% stay silent. The day the silent majority of each group takes back its microphone, the transmitter finds itself without antennas. It broadcasts only into the void.
This microphone—no one forbids you from taking it back.
Get to work. Rate this translation: 7:23 PM · Jun 15, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Europe is a headless chicken.
The body is the globalist project. The Davos project that peaked during Covid. The woke project: control, regulate, ban.
Boring to death, and proud of it.
The head was the American Democratic Party. The brain, the funding, the doctrine, the moral legitimacy—all came from there.
The head was cut off in Trump's last election.
And that's where it gets fascinating: the body keeps running.
Because a system doesn't die when you cut off its head. It dies when its reflexes stop. And the reflexes, they take time. The chicken is still running. It's twitching. It's laying laws. It wants to ban social media for under-16s "to protect children." It still has the agenda but no direction anymore.
The agenda is still there. But nothing sticks.
They have the people against them. They have reality against them: insecurity, the grooming gangs we covered up for fear of being called racists, the economy that's tanking, justice that's melting away. They have everything against them.
And yet they keep selling us exactly the same slop.
That isn't strategy. That's pure inertia. It's the noise of a world collapsing in slow motion, mistaking its spasms for life.
That's what the end of a world looks like. Not an explosion. A headless chicken running a few more meters before realizing it's already dead.
Meanwhile, the other world has already begun.
Elon Musk embodies it.
Not through his ideas, but through facts. The market has voted. With its money, its engineers, its talent, its attention. And the market never stays wrong for long.
That's the real verdict. Not an election. A flow of capital, brains, and energy leaving one model for another.
It's time for the peoples to reclaim their sovereignty.
It was fair game.
You played your part.
You lost it.
You can keep fighting. But you're fighting arithmetic, reality, the tide of history.
And that, no one has ever beaten. Rate this translation: 1:03 AM · Jun 16, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French The Emperor Has No Clothes
Wokism and cultural leftism, that's the naked emperor from Andersen's tale.
Remember the story? A king parades around stark naked, convinced he's wearing a magnificent suit. Two swindlers sold it to him, swearing the fabric is "magic": invisible to fools. As a result, no one dares say they see nothing, for fear of looking like an idiot. Everyone sees a man in the buff. And everyone compliments his outfit.
That's exactly France and Europe today.
The invisible suit is the idea that everyone agrees with this ideology. And the swindlers' trick has just changed names: today, anyone who says what they really think gets labeled a "racist."
That's their real masterstroke. They didn't win the debate. They just made the debate too costly. You criticize? You become suspect. You ask a question? They slap a label on you. So you shut up. Like the courtiers before the naked emperor.
And there, the trap snaps shut on its own.
Everyone clams up in their corner. And everyone thinks they're the only one thinking what they think. The more people stay silent, the more the loudmouths seem like the majority. Except it's not true.
I know a lot of people—from multi-billion-dollar company bosses in France to the United States. In private, they all say almost the same thing. In public, almost none say it. Not because they're cowards. Because the punishment drops instantly, and they have a lot to lose.
The problem is, after not daring to say anything for so long, you end up not daring to defend anything. Samuel Paty was killed for doing his job: explaining to his students what freedom of expression is. And instead of a backlash, there were awkward silences, "yes, buts." When defending a murdered teacher becomes complicated, that's when fear has already won.
But there's good news.
In the story, all it takes is one child. Just one. He shouts: "But he's buck naked!" And suddenly, the whole crowd dares say it too. Because everyone had already seen it from the start.
And that's not just a fairy tale. In 1989, the Eastern dictatorships collapsed in a few weeks. Not with weapons. Just with people who stopped being afraid, one after another. Each one who spoke gave courage to the next.
That's the simple truth: their power doesn't hold because people agree. It holds because people stay silent.
The emperor's suit is made of your silence. It vanishes the second you point at it.
If tomorrow enough people said, calmly and out loud, what they already think quietly, their story would collapse overnight. No need for violence. Just words. Spoken without fear.
Be the child. Say the emperor has no clothes.
Take off the leash. Speak. Rate this translation: Last edited 2:23 AM · Jun 17, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French For weeks now, I've been dissecting the same body under three different names.
Wokism in one thread, degrowth in another, French Theory in a third.
I already knew it: these weren't three diseases, but three symptoms of the same illness—I wrote it every time, the well-intentioned impulse that gives birth to the exact opposite of its goal, the compassion without results that is nothing but vanity.
What was missing wasn't the diagnosis.
It was the name of the pathogen beneath the symptoms.
An evolutionist has just laid it on the table: suicidal empathy.
And everything I'd been dismantling piece by piece now forms a single mechanism, perfectly legible.
Let's start over from the beginning, calmly, like a doctor rereading his file. I described San Francisco eliminating advanced math classes to "reduce inequalities," and getting the exact opposite result: wealthy families pay for private tutoring, the poor get buried, the gap explodes.
I described thirty years of free rice dumped on Africa, and local agricultural sectors collapsing under the generosity, an institutionalized dependency where they claimed to be feeding people. I described affirmative action meant to uplift, and producing nothing but imposture, dropout rates, and resentment on both sides. Every time, I pointed to the same mechanism: the well-intentioned impulse gives birth to the exact opposite of its goal. I called it equalitarian results. I called it compassion without results, which is nothing but vanity.
It was right. But as long as we don't know why goodness produces misery, we exhaust ourselves denouncing a series of accidents where a law is at work. And that law, I didn't have it yet.
Here it is. Empathy isn't a vice, and that's the whole stakes: it's an adaptation, one of the most beautiful that nature has produced.
It evolved to make us protect our own—the tribe, the children, the clan—with fierce precision, always integrating, without our even thinking about it, the cost and the benefit. It's what made cooperation possible, thus civilization possible.
But a faculty shaped by millions of years for a hundred and fifty known faces, we've suddenly plugged it into eight billion strangers and, worse still, into pure ideological signals broadcast on loop by screens. The result isn't greater empathy.
It's dysregulated empathy. A precision instrument that's been miscalibrated and now systematically misses the target. That's the right image: an immune system that, having lost the memory of the self, starts devouring the body it was meant to defend.
And once this dysregulation is understood, the moral inversion that obsessed me stops being a mystery and becomes a logical consequence.
If empathy no longer knows how to distinguish friend from foe, then it triggers in reverse, mechanically: for the criminal against the victim, for the squatter against the owner who built, for the delinquent against the police officer, for the distant and flattering abstraction against the ungrateful reality that's within reach.
We end up in a world where the strong creator is suspect and the destroyer excused, where the one who succeeds must apologize for existing and the one who demolishes gets a platform. It's not perversity. It's a sacred instinct that's turned against itself, and that continues to be lived as a virtue while it saws off the branch it's sitting on.
The missing question remained: how does a perverted instinct become a policy, a law, a norm imposed on entire nations? And that's where wokism takes its true place in my narrative—not as the disease anymore, but as its armed wing. Suicidal empathy provides the impulse; wokism provides the weapon that industrializes it.
Remember my genealogy: French Theory had delivered the software—there is no truth, there is only power, so every hierarchy is suspect, every norm a violence, every dominant a guilty party. That software, on its own, killed no one; it gnawed away at philosophy departments.
But grafted onto a dysregulated empathic instinct, it becomes a complete operating system. The deranged empathy says: I must protect the victim. French Theory replies: every dominant is guilty, so every victim is right.
And wokism, finally, deploys the battalions that carry out the sentence: HR departments, universities, newsrooms, commissions, parliaments. Biology gives the impulse. Ideology gives it a doctrine. Institutions give it force. The perfect crime, committed in the name of good.
That's why the ultimate cruelty of all this—and the very heart of the book—is that the system first harms those it claims to save. The poor student deprived of rigorous math. The African farmer deprived of a market.
The student promoted beyond his level and abandoned to his failure. The woman ordered to cede her spaces in the name of a compassion that no longer sees her.
Every time, the protected one is the first victim, and the protector walks away enlarged by his own goodness. For that's the intimate spring: suicidal empathy was never truly meant to save the other. Its function is to signal the virtue of the one who displays it. Compassion as ornament, others' misfortune as flattering mirror.
Vanity, still and always vanity, but this time I know where it comes from.
That's finally why this book is an antidote, and not just another denunciation to toss on the pile. Saad doesn't ask us to become less human, less sensitive, harder. He asks the opposite: that we stop being empathetic against ourselves. That we recalibrate the instrument instead of breaking it.
True compassion integrates the long term and judges itself by its results, never by its stated intentions: helping someone isn't giving him a fish for thirty years, it's teaching him to fish even if it frustrates him one morning. An empathy incapable of saying no isn't goodness—it's a slow abdication, a slow-motion suicide draped in virtue, and it took an evolutionist to dare say it out loud.
A civilization is rebuilt by those who build, never by those who content themselves with loudly pitying. And you only heal what you've first managed to name. It's done now: the disease has a name, the mechanism is on the table, the weapon is unmasked.
Suicidal Empathy, Gad Saad. Read it.
And to work. Rate this translation: 4:22 AM · Jun 18, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Many left-wing figures, in the US as in Europe, label Musk as far-right. Some even go so far as the word "Nazi."
I did the opposite of the accusation: read before judging. Two biographies. Dozens of hours of interviews and documentaries. Zero ounces of racism detected.
What I found was a constant obsession with freedom: buying Twitter in the name of free speech, reinstating banned accounts, publishing the Twitter Files, opening up the algorithm's code, open-sourcing Grok, freeing Tesla's patents in 2014, reactivating Starlink for Iranians cut off from the net during the protests and for Ukraine, repeatedly refusing state censorship requests.
Now, let's do the thought experiment that his accusers never do. Imagine Musk really is evil.
This man owns a satellite network that covers the planet, meaning near-total surveillance capability. He owns the world's most influential digital public square. He owns the first fortune in history to reach 1,000 billion, since SpaceX's IPO on June 12. No individual has ever concentrated so many levers of power.
A truly malevolent Musk, with all that in his hands, wouldn't tolerate for a second being called a Nazi 24/7 on his own platform. He would ban. He would surveil. He would crush. We'd already be living in 1984.
But look at reality: the accounts that accuse him of Nazism still tweet. Every day. Without hindrance. On his network. With his algorithm. The totalitarian dystopia they're attributing to him is disproved by the absence of the gulag.
That's the turnaround. 1984—the control of speech, mass surveillance, the public designation of heretics—that's not his project. It's the fantasy of those who accuse him. The accusation always describes the accuser.
This is Girard in its pure form: we designate a scapegoat to avoid seeing the mechanism we ourselves carry. The one who screams "Nazi" often quietly dreams, in silence, of the power to ban, to file, to silence.
The man who would have all the means to build 1984 is precisely the one who lets his worst detractors speak. Ask yourself who, in this story, really dreams of the telescreen. Rate this translation: 1:57 AM · Jun 19, 2026
Bei "Girard" (#11 und #4) handelt es sich um René Girard (1923-2015) und dessen "mimetische Theorie," der die kollektive Funktionsleistung von Religionen in der Kanalisierung von Aggression und institutionalisierter Gewalt ausmacht und dem Christentum - unbeachtet seiner transzendenten "Wahrheit" - die zivilisierendste Wirkung aller Religionen zuerkennt, weil hier eine neue Dimension in der Sinngebung des Lebens und der Stellung des Menschen erreicht wird: Girard grenzt das gegen die "Mythen" ab, die andere Religionen als Rahmen anbieten, während das Christentum aus seiner Konzeption der Erbsünde und der Erlösung davon durch das Selbstopfer Gottes in Gestalt Christi eine (durchaus dialektische zu sehende) Überwidung und Hebung auf eine neue Stufe errreicht wird.
Ganz offenbar funktionieren menschliche Gemeinschaften nach der Orientierung an solchen Konzepten; es läßt sich leicht sehen, wenn man sieht, daß selbst Gemeinschaften, die sich dezidiert von allen religiösen Dimensionen abkehren und die traditionellen bekämpfen, sich, sobald sie eine Macht- und Deutungshoheit erreicht haben, genau nach diesen Mustern organisieren. Das gilt sowohl für den Kommunismus/Sozialismus, den Ökologismus wie den Wokismus/Refugee-Kult. Das ist der Grund, warum Aufklärung und Erfassen der geistigen Dimensionen des kollektiven menschlichen Verhaltens unabdingbar sind.
Die anderen Entwürfe/Theorien/Konzepte, die diesen Komplex in Begriffe bringen und anylsieren, sind:
- Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), Das Heilige (1917) - Walter Burkert (1931-2015), Homo necans (1972) - Igor Schafarewitsch (1923-2017), Der Todestrieb in der Geschichte (1980)
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Elon repeats it endlessly: the only thing that really matters is seeking the truth.
Here's mine.
Every system tends toward harmony. And harmony isn't an opinion—it's physical.
When a note rings false, no one debates it. The ear knows. Dissonance is objective.
A body that violates its own balance degrades, and eventually produces its own tumors.
The problem is that the more complex a system is, the less visible the dissonance becomes.
In music, a wrong note is heard in a second. In economics, politics, culture, it takes decades to reveal itself. So we ignore it. We call it "tradition," "consensus," "that's how we've always done it."
But the dissonance doesn't disappear. It accumulates.
Humanity is an organism.
Inject it with false ideas—communism, wokism, collectivism—all built on the same impulse: to control the other, to deprive them of their freedom in the name of a "higher good."
At first, it doesn't show. Then it metastasizes.
And here's the real mechanism, the one no one names:
These ideologies aren't dangerous because they're "evil." They're dangerous because they disconnect the signal.
The market is a signal. Price is information. The freedom to leave, to say no, to build elsewhere— that's the system's error feedback.
Centralized control cuts off that feedback. It makes dissonance invisible. And a system that can no longer feel its own pain accumulates debt in silence.
That's why cancer is tough, but it always ends up being purged.
Correction always comes. The only question is: gradual, by design? Or catastrophic, through neglect?
And the real danger isn't people. It's a position.
It's the powers that have placed themselves beyond correction. The laws we never purge. The institutions we can no longer unplug. Everything that survives not because it's true, but because it's entrenched.
In software, we've known this problem for 50 years.
Dead memory doesn't free itself. So we invented the garbage collector: a process that runs in the background, spots what's no longer useful, and frees it. By design.
Humanity, though, doesn't have one yet.
Our zombie laws, our dead institutions, our entrenched powers loop endlessly and eat up civilization's RAM.
The true civilizational project isn't purging after the fact, in pain.
It's building systems that stay connected to the truth at all times. That feel their own dissonance. That free what's dead before it becomes a tumor.
Decentralization. Exit rights. Transparency. Institutional garbage collection, by design. Rate this translation: 10:24 PM · Jun 18, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French USAID has been dismantled in the United States. Meanwhile, in Europe, we've built the same machine—bigger, more discreet. And no one is talking about it.
Scale first: the EU and its member states, that's about €96 billion per year in development aid (OECD, 2023). More than the United States at the height of USAID. Europe is, by far, the world's top "donor." With what democratic mandate?
The main vehicle has a name no one knows: NDICI, "Europe in the World." €79.5 billion from 2021-2027. An acronym no one remembers, for a budget no one oversees. Inside it, €6.36 billion earmarked for "thematic" programs: Human Rights and Democracy, Civil Society Organizations, Peace and Stability. Translation: NGOs, "civil societies," governance programs funded abroad. Exactly the core of what we criticized USAID for.
And the logic is clear in the rules: 85% of actions must carry a "gender marker," 30% of spending must go to climate. These are no longer development projects; it's an ideology turned into a budget line. Above that still, the Global Gateway: €300 billion in ambition by 2027, Europe's response to China's Silk Roads—except we lack China's industry, its resources, its coherence.
Now, turn the camera back home. EU, January 2026: 13 million unemployed. Youth unemployment at 14.7% in the EU, 18% in France, 23% in Spain and Sweden. Nearly 2.9 million young people sidelined. A generation on the bench. A middle class slipping away, insecurity taking hold, public services overwhelmed. And at the same time, we're signing checks to the "civil society" of countries that, most often, didn't ask us for them.
The problem isn't generosity. It's arrogance. The idea that an administration in Brussels knows better than the people—here as elsewhere—where their money should go. Hayek called it the fatal conceit.
USAID has fallen. The European apparatus, meanwhile, remains intact. Bigger, more opaque, more ideological. The real question isn't "should we help?"
It's: who decided, and with whose money? Rate this translation:
Zitat Mostly Peaceful Memes@MostlyPeaceful·10h Left wing governments haven’t won a single election in Latin America since USAID was defunded
Next is cleaning European social-communist garbage.
I will help for a simple reason.
I want France, my country, back.
Our potential is so fucking crazy, especially building on top of @SpaceX primitives.
Already have a stack of high-IQ geniuses stacked ( @Kristof_Poland ( valedictorian X 1994 ) )
LFG!!!!
Earth is healing.
Bullshit and corruption are over.
Zitat Andrew Wong 🇺🇸@ayankeeoriginal·8h Shutting down USAID is one of the greatest accomplishments that Trump, with a yuuge assist from @elonmusk and @DOGE , in stopping the spread of the woke mind virus.
Of course, this means that the midterms and '28 elections are more critical than ever in stopping the Democrats x.com/brivael/status…
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French You remember Greta.
A child, braids, perfectly framed tears, hoisted onto the United Nations podium like a flag being raised. “You have stolen my dreams.” And the entire world, on its feet, applauding its own image—tender, moved, certain at last of being on the right side of History.
No one was fooled. Not for a second. Everyone recognized the staging, the child-banner, the moral conscience fabricated in a studio and then delivered turnkey to a West that only wanted to weep over itself.
Tonight, I don’t want to talk to you about that.
I don’t want to talk to you about the right. I don’t want to talk to you about the left. Above all, I don’t want to talk to you about that word—“racism”—that you draw like a harrow the moment a fact gets a little too close to you. That word that no longer serves to name a fault, but to extinguish a question. To look away. To never, ever have to look.
So let’s look. Once. Together. Without the filter.
Here is Europe.
The continent that invented the university and the cathedral, perspective and counterpoint, habeas corpus and the free press. The continent of Dante and Bach, Newton and Pasteur, Bologna and Coimbra and the Sorbonne. The continent that, first, dared to write that a man is born free.
And here is what we’ve made of it.
Economies at a standstill, that create nothing anymore, that live off the memory of their wealth like an old man lives off his photographs. Cities where you no longer walk at night, where you lower your head on the way home, where you teach your daughters to hug the walls. An entire youth on anxiolytics, nursed on emptiness, to whom everything has been given except a reason to get up in the morning. A continent that has stopped having children because it has stopped believing in tomorrow.
And in Rotherham—remember that name—one thousand four hundred children. One thousand four hundred. Raped, sold, broken, for years on end. And the official report, the Jay report, writes it in black and white, in the State’s own hand: the authorities knew, and they looked away. Out of fear of being accused of racism.
Read that sentence to the end. Your magic word, your harrow, your extinguisher—it has a price. And that price is little girls. Sacrificed not by monsters lurking in the shadows, but by upstanding civil servants who preferred their moral comfort to their duty.
And Samuel Paty. A teacher. Decapitated. In France. In broad daylight. For showing a drawing to students. Don’t talk to me about a looming threat, a fantasy, an irrational fear stirred up by some extreme something-or-other. It happened. It happened here. A man lost his head on a French sidewalk for doing his job: teaching children to think for themselves.
And meanwhile, on the other side of the world, a country that ten years ago was called the murder capital of the world.
El Salvador.
A man there decided that was enough. And today, they film families strolling in the evening, full terraces, children outside, a gentleness you’d swear was stolen from Lisbon or Vienna. “This isn’t Europe, it’s El Salvador.”
Let that sentence pass through you. Let it be El Salvador from now on that gives Europe lessons in security, and not the other way around—there is no more perfect humiliation, nor a clearer diagnosis.
Your project, you sold it to us as History’s very horizon. Open. Globalized. “Inclusive.” The end of nations, the end of borders, the great reconciliation of humankind. It was beautiful. It was generous. It was a cathedral’s promise.
And it doesn’t work.
The results are there, under your windows, in those statistics you no longer dare publish, in the eyes of your own children. It doesn’t work. And the worst part—what makes all this unforgivable—is that you know it. You know it, and you keep going. You see the harm being done, and you look away, again, always, because admitting it would mean dying a little.
But I’m not writing to you to weep. We’ve wept enough.
Because Europe, the real one, is not its managers. It is not this tired caste that liquidates it like settling an encumbering inheritance. Europe is something else—older, deeper, more stubborn. Something that survived the Huns, the Black Death, the Thirty Years’ War, two world suicides last century, and each time rose from the ashes, because at its core burns an ember that nothing has ever been able to extinguish: the refusal to resign itself.
This continent hasn’t had its last word. It won’t. As long as one man remains to love what he has received, to want to pass it on intact, to prefer a hard truth to a comfortable lie—Europe will live.
And you who have managed it like a bankruptcy, you will end up where all those who were ashamed of what they were end up: on the margins. Forgotten. Ridiculed by your own grandchildren. That, too, you know.
So tonight, just one question. Ask it of yourself honestly, in front of the mirror, with no witness, no communicator, no talking point.
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French We're witnessing live the final death throes of May '68. Of progressivism. Of globalism. Of communism and the ambient leftism.
Grooming gangs, skyrocketing insecurity, hatred of the elites. The decay of a system collapsing under its own weight.
Enjoy these last moments of communism. We're returning very soon to the natural order. To the relationship with the machine. To efficiency. To reality.
We'll remember this period as the most decadent in our history. And we'll mock it with wild talent.
There are going to be so many series, so many films to make about this.
It's going to be too much fun. Rate this translation: 8:55 AM · Jun 29, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French In the USA, we're starting to talk about banning socialist and communist ideas.
A lot of people will scream fascism, the return of the darkest hours of our history, forbidden thought.
Except I'm going to prove to you A+B that in 2026, defending Marxist or socialist ideas—socialism being just a foretaste of communism—is as moonshot as defending slavery or the right to burn witches.
Let's start with the scorecard.
USSR: about 20 million dead. Mao's China: between 45 and 65 million, including an engineered famine that remains the deadliest in human history. Cambodia: a quarter of the population exterminated in four years. North Korea, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Venezuela. In total, around 100 million dead in the 20th century.
Not war victims. Deaths from the system itself. From famine, camps, executions, in peacetime.
And the script is always the same.
They promise equality. They confiscate property. Production collapses, because no one busts their ass for the neighbor who's doing nothing. The shelves empty out. And then, two options: admit it doesn't work, or find scapegoats.
They always choose the scapegoats.
The kulaks. The bourgeois. The intellectuals. The counter-revolutionaries. Those who wear glasses in Cambodia. Anyone who disagrees becomes a saboteur, a traitor, an enemy of the people. They're deported. They're starved. They're shot.
The system doesn't kill by accident when it goes off the rails. It kills because that's the only way to hold on when the economy crumbles: through terror.
It's not a bug. It's the design.
Now compare.
Liberalism has never needed gulags. No reeducation camps to enforce the freedom to trade, to enterprise, to think. No society has ever had to starve its people to apply economic freedom. You don't need barbed wire to stop people from fleeing a free country. The barbed wire is always the other way around.
That's the real asymmetry. One ideology needs walls to keep its citizens in. The other needs walls to manage those who want to get in.
So no, banning Marxism in 2026 isn't fascism.
It's just that we no longer allow, in chemistry class, teaching that lead turns into gold. 5:10 PM · Jun 30, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French Most people are right-wing. They just don’t know it yet.
They’ve been made to believe that wanting normal things makes them monsters.
That demanding order makes them authoritarian.
That defending merit means despising the weak.
That wanting to live quietly makes them heartless.
So they fell silent.
They bowed their heads.
They took the “good camp” card for some peace, and ended up hostages to people who don’t look like them.
Look at everything you’ve accepted without even realizing it.
You’ve accepted them probing your thoughts before your actions. Asking for your opinions before your work. Judging a man by his color, his sex, his origin, all while swearing it was to fight exactly that.
You’ve applauded your own guardianship. You’ve ended up feeling guilty for existing, for succeeding, for loving your country, for wanting to pass something on to your children.
And so you wouldn’t notice a thing, they flipped the words.
Progressivism no longer advances; it forbids.
It’s become anti-progressivism.
Antiracism only looks at race now.
It’s become racism.
Social justice punishes those who produce and rewards those who accuse.
It’s social injustice.
Tolerance no longer tolerates anything that bothers it. It’s intolerance.
Diversity imposes a single thought under a thousand faces.
It’s conformity. Inclusion sorts people into boxes to better pit them against each other. It’s exclusion.
Benevolence is used to censor with a smile. It’s contempt. Emancipation treats you like a victim incapable of standing on your own. It’s infantilization.
Deconstruction builds nothing. It’s destruction. “Living together” has manufactured separate lives. The “good camp” has manufactured an inquisition.
Now strip away the labels and ask yourself what you really want. You want order, not fear. You want a peaceful life, not surveillance. You want merit, not favoritism or pity.
You want fair systems, not systems that cheat in your name.
None of that is left or right. It’s common sense. But they sold you that this common sense was a crime, and you paid the high price. Your silence.
You didn’t radicalize. You got played. They rented you a moral costume in exchange for your freedom to think. The day you take back the words, you take back your camp. And your camp isn’t theirs. 2:29 PM · Jul 1, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French I was talking yesterday with a friend who’s completely desperate. For him, it’s all over: France, the UK, everything’s locked down at the European level. They lie constantly, they want to put people in straitjackets with draconian laws they dress up as “child protection.” They’ve flipped every word: anti-racism has become racism, progressivism anti-progress. In short, objectively, they’ve won.
And yet I’m radically optimistic about the end of this system. For a reason you almost never hear: there’s no intelligence left in it.
Look at their elites. Glucksmann, Édouard Philippe, Attal… second-rate hacks. The last two truly impressive pieces of globalism in twenty years were Obama and Macron. Today, in the US as in France, all that’s left are third-rate hacks—and they’re bad. Not “I disagree with them”: bad.
But there’s one rule that never fails: when intelligence leaves a system, the system stops working.
And I say this without contempt, quite the opposite. When Mitterrand came to power, there was real intelligence behind him. Attali is brilliant, sincerely. The real problem isn’t even that he’s aged — it’s that his intelligence belongs to a dead paradigm. Today intelligence has switched sides: it’s gone over to the technology camp. And nearly all the true builders are starting to see the scam for what it is.
They won the old game. But everyone who knew how to play it has left the table. That’s exactly why it’s going to collapse: a system without intelligence can’t survive the encounter with reality. 8:50 AM · Jul 3, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French For 50 years, the left has pulled off the greatest intellectual heist in modern history.
Not with guns. Not with laws. With words.
And honestly? Hats off. It's brilliant. It's diabolical. It's high art.
They grasped one thing Orwell wrote in black and white in *1984*: whoever controls the language controls thought. Change the words, and you change what people are capable of thinking. Shrink the vocabulary, and you shrink the realm of the possible.
In *1984*, it's not a detail. It's the heart of the reactor. The Ministry of Truth manufactures lies. The Ministry of Love tortures. The Ministry of Peace wages war. "War is peace, freedom is slavery." Newspeak doesn't describe the world—it replaces it.
And that's exactly what happened. Look at the mechanics:
"Progressivism"? It's anti-progress. It's the ones blocking nuclear power, slowing down tech, demonizing growth, dreaming of degrowth, and wanting to punish those who build. The word says "forward." The project says "backward."
"Antiracism"? It's reinjected race everywhere. It assigns people to their color, locks them into boxes, pits groups against each other. A movement meant to erase race has put it back at the center of everything. It's manufactured the racism it claims to fight.
The crusades "against homophobia"? They tense things up, they divide, they impose—and in turn create part of the rejection they claimed to want to extinguish.
"Protection" European Union style? It's surveillance. They watch you "for your own good," censor you "to protect you," control you "for your safety." Every word is an inversion. The vocabulary of benevolence in service of an Orwellian project.
And the most beautiful part of the scam is the lock. The perfect trap.
Today, millions of clear-eyed people who see the problem perfectly... stay silent. Why? Because they refuse to be labeled "racists." Except that being "antiracist" in the sense the word has been flipped means becoming racist precisely. They've trapped people with their own morality. Checkmate.
That's the masterpiece: they didn't even need to convince you. They just made disagreement unthinkable, by confiscating the words to express it.
So yes—respect. Fair play. They played a round, and they won it.
But there's one thing Newspeak hadn't accounted for.
Everyone gets it now.
The veil has lifted. Words are regaining their weight. And a semantic inversion doesn't survive the precise moment when people see it plain as day. That's over.
We're taking back the words. We're taking back reality. We're taking back the game. 11:53 AM · Jul 3, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French One of the biggest mistakes people make is believing that intelligence makes people good.
There is absolutely no correlation.
History even sometimes shows the opposite.
The Nazi regime was not run by a bunch of idiots. A significant portion of its leaders—lawyers, engineers, scientists, and administrators—were highly intelligent and very competent people.
The problem wasn’t their intelligence.
The problem was the ideology.
An ideology based on race, the collectivization of the individual, the creation of a “new man,” and the denial of human dignity.
Intelligence does not create morality.
It merely amplifies the ideas it serves.
In the hands of good values, it builds civilizations.
In the hands of deadly ideas, it industrializes catastrophe.
That’s why ideas matter infinitely more than IQ.
And that’s also why, paradoxically, I’m rather reassured when I listen to the elites of the European Union.
Yes, I think the current European project is veering toward ever more centralization, bureaucracy, restrictions on individual freedoms, and interventionism.
I consider this trajectory deeply dangerous.
But what strikes me is something else.
I don’t see geniuses.
I see a tremendous amount of narcissism, conformism, groupthink… and very little strategic intelligence.
And that’s probably good news.
Because ideologies become truly terrifying when carried by brilliant people.
History has already shown this.
Bad ideas + exceptional minds = tragedies.
Bad ideas + mediocre bureaucrats = a lot of noise… then, more often than not, a collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.
The real danger has never been intelligence.
The real danger is exceptional intelligence put in the service of bad ideas. 8:19 PM · Jul 6, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French For decades, many believed that the left had won because its ideas were inherently superior.
In reality, it mainly won because it controlled the main arenas of narrative production.
The school. A large part of the media. Part of the academic world. Part of the senior administration. A large part of the cultural apparatus. By repeating the same interpretive frameworks for forty or fifty years, they eventually came to appear as self-evident truths rather than as political choices.
We were told that more state was necessarily more moral. That more redistribution was necessarily more just. That control was a form of protection. That bureaucracy was synonymous with progress.
And, gradually, any questioning of this model became suspect.
Then social media arrived.
For the first time in a long while, the monopoly on narrative began to crack.
Anyone can now publish an idea, challenge a statistic, share an experience, or dismantle propaganda without going through traditional filters. This doesn’t mean that everything circulating is true. It simply means that the power to define what can be said no longer belongs to a handful of institutions.
That’s precisely why some see this evolution as a threat.
When the monopoly on narrative disappears, debate reemerges.
We then observe an interesting phenomenon: many ideologies that seemed inseparable from modernity are increasingly contested. Globalism, wokism, certain forms of identity-based activism or neofeminism are no longer perceived as self-evident by a growing portion of the population, but as political projects among others, which it is legitimate to criticize.
The result is visible in several democracies.
In South America, in North America, movements more favorable to market economics, to sovereignty, or to reducing the role of the state have gained influence. What seemed impossible a few years ago has become an electoral reality.
Europe is probably not immune to this dynamic.
Ideas often take years to cross borders, but they generally end up doing so.
For a long time, we were presented with one camp as naturally that of the good, of morality, and of progress, while any opposition was caricatured as retrograde or dangerous.
Today, more and more citizens are challenging this representation.
They no longer see only the promises; they also look at the results: an ever-heavier bureaucracy, stagnant growth, massive public debt, a loss of confidence in institutions, and permanent polarization of public debate.
The paradox is that many people sincerely convinced of defending the weakest sometimes end up, unwittingly, defending structures that thrive on this permanent fragmentation of society. The more citizens are divided into opposing groups, the more those who administer, regulate, and arbitrate concentrate power.
Yet a prosperous society is not built on permanent competition between population categories.
It is built on the creation of value, individual responsibility, freedom to enterprise, trust, and cooperation.
History is never written in advance.
But it seems to me that we are witnessing a change of cycle.
And this time, the monopoly on narrative is disappearing. 7:54 PM · Jul 8, 2026
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael The encouraging thing about the European Union is that they're all really dumb. And the dumb ones surround themselves with other dumb ones, and they'll entrust the execution of their Orwellian plan to B players, and it's going to be a total mess. And in the meantime, Europe will have collapsed. This bureaucratic monster can only crumble. 7:25 PM · Jul 9, 2026
Mal wieder eins meiner Lieblingsthemen, Nick Bostroms Simulationshypothese (obwohl ich es eher mit George Berkeley halte; der Buddha geht aber auch, das gesuchte Wort lautet Dharma).*
Zitat
Zitat Elon Musk@elonmusk·59m Consistent with the simulation hypothesis.
Like a video game, objects are randomly generated, with positional certainty only when observed.
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Elon is right, but I'm going further and I weigh my words.
It's not that the universe "generates" objects the moment we look at them. It's that before looking, there's nothing to generate. Take an electron: as long as no one measures it, it's not somewhere we don't know about. It's described by a wave function—a superposition of all its possible positions at once. The "where" doesn't exist yet. It's not hidden. It's indeterminate.
Then we measure. And the wave collapses: out of the infinite possibles, a single state freezes. Reality slices itself. "Positional certainty only when observed," says Elon. Exactly. Certainty isn't revealed by the gaze—it's created by it.
That's, word for word, what a game engine does. GTA doesn't calculate the street behind you. It only renders it the instant your camera lands on it. Occlusion culling. Lazy rendering. We don't spend computing power on what no one is looking at.
The objection always comes: "fine for a particle, not for the macro world." Wrong. Physicist Julien Bobroff explains it very well: we've put into superposition not just electrons, but entire molecules—thousands of atoms (Arndt's interferometry experiments in Vienna). The boundary of the quantum keeps rising. If we never see a chair in superposition, it's not a law of nature: it's decoherence. The bigger an object is, the more it interacts with its environment, the faster its state freezes on its own. The environment observes it constantly. A practical threshold, not a wall of principle.
And if the threshold is just a threshold, then nothing forbids quantum states at every level.
Electron → molecule → organism.
At every level, a superposition of possibles that we're simply unable to maintain at our scale. Which means that at every instant, as long as nothing has sliced it, every reality remains open—at every level.
It takes an act—a measurement, an interaction, a consciousness?—to lock in the consensus on a branch. Everett calls it many worlds: no possibility really disappears. What you call "your" reality is just the branch on which your consciousness has latched.
I'm not claiming it's proven. The measurement problem remains open, and "consciousness collapses the wave" is just one interpretation. But the raw fact doesn't budge: our reality computes on demand. It only renders what's observed, and keeps everything else in probability as long as no one looks.
That's precisely how we'd code a universe.
Simple coincidence—or signature of the code? 7:28 PM · Jul 9, 2026
* Ich sehe gerade, daß dharma im griechischen Part der Kandahar-Inschrift (aus der Zeit Kaiser Asokas) mit eusebeia/εὐσέβεια übersetzt worden ist: das dürfte eins jener interkulturellen Mißverständnisse darstellen, die die ersten Übersetzer der Bibel ins Chinesische dazu verleitet haben, "deus" mit Tao wiederzugeben.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Translated from French 🚨 The OSS Simple Sabotage Manual (1944) describes how to paralyze an organization without explosives. The European Union seems to have taken it as its official instruction manual. Here are the disturbing similarities:
1. "Insist on everything going through official channels." ✅ 27 states, 24 official languages, 3 seats, thousands of committees and agencies. Even a directive on lightbulbs goes through 7 levels of validation.
2. "Hold meetings. Speak at length with anecdotes." ✅ 45-minute speeches in the European Parliament on minor topics. Strasbourg and Brussels locals applaud politely.
3. "Refer everything to committees. Make them as large as possible (never fewer than 5 people)." ✅ The trilogue, COREPER, working groups, expert committees… A simple decision turns into a 3-to-7-year obstacle course.
4. "Bring up unrelated matters repeatedly." ✅ Talking agriculture? Let's add the Green Deal, LGBT rights, Palestine, and the carbon border tax. Nothing is ever straightforward.
5. "Haggle over the precise wording of communications." ✅ Months of negotiation over a semicolon in a 400-page regulation. The word "should" vs. "must" can stall everything.
6. "Reopen decisions that have already been made." ✅ Directive adopted? We reopen it 2 years later for "revision," "strengthening," or "adaptation to the geopolitical context."
7. "Advocate caution and deliberation. Avoid all haste." ✅ "We need more time to study the impact," "let's consult stakeholders more," "better safe than sorry." Result: nothing moves quickly.
8. "Question the legitimacy of every decision." ✅ "Is this really within the EU's competence?" (even when it's already in the treaties). Subsidiarity invoked when convenient, forgotten when not.
The EU doesn't need Russian or Chinese saboteurs. It has turned itself into a machine for slowing down Europe, exactly as the manual recommended to weaken the enemy.
The funniest part? All of this is done legally, democratically, and with the best intentions. 10:03 AM · Jul 10, 2026
Zitat Matt Van Swol@mattvanswol Just so we are all on the same page:
Illegals are voting. Illegals are getting free food. Illegals are getting free childcare. Illegals are getting free education. Illegals are getting free tax credits. Illegals are getting free healthcare. Illegals are getting free housing assistance. Illegals are getting free legal representation. Illegals are getting free mental health services. Illegals are getting free college tuition in over a dozen states.
It is the most insane scam ever perpetrated on the American people. 4:25 PM · Jul 9, 2026
Elon Musk@elonmusk·1h True
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael Same in Europe.
Europe must be saved, or we will face World War III.
And then it’s game over.
The bureaucrats in Europe are currently the biggest risk factor for World War III.
And World War III would be fast and would destroy everything.
Even those who trigger it.
They are depressed and seem willing to destroy themselves, like terrorists. 1:05 PM · Jul 10, 2026
Bitte beachten Sie diese Forumsregeln: Beiträge, die persönliche Angriffe gegen andere Poster, Unhöflichkeiten oder vulgäre Ausdrücke enthalten, sind nicht erlaubt; ebensowenig Beiträge mit rassistischem, fremdenfeindlichem oder obszönem Inhalt und Äußerungen gegen den demokratischen Rechtsstaat sowie Beiträge, die gegen gesetzliche Bestimmungen verstoßen. Hierzu gehört auch das Verbot von Vollzitaten, wie es durch die aktuelle Rechtsprechung festgelegt ist. Erlaubt ist lediglich das Zitieren weniger Sätze oder kurzer Absätze aus einem durch Copyright geschützten Dokument; und dies nur dann, wenn diese Zitate in einen argumentativen Kontext eingebunden sind. Bilder und Texte dürfen nur hochgeladen werden, wenn sie copyrightfrei sind oder das Copyright bei dem Mitglied liegt, das sie hochlädt. Bitte geben Sie das bei dem hochgeladenen Bild oder Text an. Links können zu einzelnen Artikeln, Abbildungen oder Beiträgen gesetzt werden, aber nicht zur Homepage von Foren, Zeitschriften usw. Bei einem Verstoß wird der betreffende Beitrag gelöscht oder redigiert. Bei einem massiven oder bei wiederholtem Verstoß endet die Mitgliedschaft. Eigene Beiträge dürfen nachträglich in Bezug auf Tippfehler oder stilistisch überarbeitet, aber nicht in ihrer Substanz verändert oder gelöscht werden. Nachträgliche Zusätze, die über derartige orthographische oder stilistische Korrekturen hinausgehen, müssen durch "Edit", "Nachtrag" o.ä. gekennzeichnet werden. Ferner gehört das Einverständnis mit der hier dargelegten Datenschutzerklärung zu den Forumsregeln.
Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden
Online