Luca Rossetti retweeted
The Road to Serfdom made simple:
1. Plan the whole economy: someone must decide what gets made and who gets what, since people don’t naturally agree on one set of priorities. Every economy is millions of simultaneous decisions. A plan requires someone to override all of them – which means someone must have the power to do so.
2. These decisions are too big and detailed for normal democratic debate, so power shifts to a smaller group who can just act – technocrats. Parliaments are too slow, too divided, too accountable. The plan needs someone who can simply decide. Emergency powers, expert committees, regulatory agencies. Democratic legitimacy becomes an obstacle to efficiency.
3. Fixed laws everyone can rely on get replaced by case-by-case rulings, because a plan needs flexibility, not predictability. Rule of law requires knowing in advance what the rules are. A plan requires adjusting them as conditions change. The moment the rules become flexible, they are no longer rules – they are instruments.
4. Dissent becomes a problem to manage, not an opinion to vote on – the plan can’t work if people are free to ignore it. Opposition stops being legitimate political competition and becomes sabotage. The language follows: enemies of progress, deniers, those who put their selfish interests above the common good.
5. Enforcing all that selects for people most willing to be ruthless — Hayek’s “worst get on top” — i.e. negative moral selection. The scrupulous drop out. The system rewards those who can enforce without hesitation, punish without guilt, and comply without question. Over time it doesn’t just attract the worst – it produces them.
6. Since economics touches everything — your job, your home, your speech, your children’s education, your access to healthcare — controlling the economy ends up controlling your whole life. There is no private sphere left, because every private decision has an economic dimension, and the economy belongs to the plan. That’s the serfdom.
7. Hayek’s insight was not that government is always wrong. It was that the logic of planning is self-compounding – each step makes the next one necessary, each power grab requires a larger one to enforce it. You don’t plan your way to serfdom. You slide, one reasonable emergency measure at a time, until the slide is the system.
Atlas Shrugged made simple:
1. Society runs on a small number of highly capable producers – industrialists, inventors, engineers – whose work everyone depends on but takes for granted.
2. The system starts rewarding need over achievement: the more capable you are, the more you’re expected to sacrifice for those who aren’t.
3. Success gets treated like a debt – taxed, regulated, resented – until the most capable start asking why they bother trying at all.
4. One by one, led by a man named John Galt, they simply withdraw – walking away rather than keep propping up a system that punishes them for producing.
5. Without them, the whole structure collapses, revealing that the “automatic” prosperity everyone assumed was actually being generated by specific, irreplaceable people.
6. Atlas is the Titan from Greek myth, condemned to carry the sky on his shoulders forever – Rand’s stand-in for the producer class, holding up civilization while getting blamed for it.
7. “Shrugged” is the whole argument in one word: Atlas doesn’t fight, doesn’t protest – he just quietly sets the weight down. Nobody realized the sky was being held up by anyone in particular, until the day it isn’t.
You don’t want us? We just go…🤷🏻♂️
Luca Rossetti retweeted
The Nuclear Family is a Technology of Western Civilization – So It Needs to Be Destroyed With All the Others.
The nuclear family is not a natural unit. It is a technology – the most successful child-rearing, wealth-transmitting, civilization-building technology ever developed. And like every other Western technology that works, it is currently being systematically dismantled.
1. Every society in history has organized reproduction and child-rearing somehow. The Eastern clan, the tribe, the loyalty network – these are the alternatives. They work, up to a point, for the societies that run on them. They produce strong internal solidarity and fierce external competition. They also produce nepotism over meritocracy, loyalty over competence, the network over the individual. Low-trust societies stay small and family-based – unable to build the large institutions, the corporations, the rule of law that require trust between strangers. The nuclear family is the Western solution: small enough to invest maximally in children, open enough to produce citizens who can cooperate beyond the clan.
2. It is a technology in the precise sense: a solution to a problem, developed through trial and error over millennia, encoding accumulated wisdom that is not immediately visible to those who inherit it. It aligned incentives with extraordinary precision – the man invested in children he was certain were his, the woman had a committed partner for the most vulnerable years, the children had two adults with maximum skin in the game. And crucially: it introduced a free market for mating rather than arranged marriage. Individuals chose their partners – which meant attraction, compatibility, and genuine commitment rather than clan negotiation. The most intimate human bond brought into the competitive, meritocratic framework that produces everything else the West does well.
3. The attack follows the standard pattern. Reframe the technology as oppression. Celebrate the alternatives as liberation. Restructure the incentives – welfare systems that replace the husband, legal systems that make marriage a liability for men, cultural systems that mock the committed father. Then watch the institution dissolve.
4. The data is not ambiguous. Children raised by married biological parents outperform children from every other arrangement on every measurable outcome. This is one of the largest and most replicated findings in social science. The nuclear family is not one lifestyle choice among many equivalent options. It is the arrangement that produces the best human beings at scale. Which is precisely why it had to go.
5. The deepest damage is not measurable. The nuclear family was the primary transmission mechanism of civilization – values, habits, language, culture, and identity passed from one generation to the next in the most intensive possible environment. Destroy this transmission mechanism and you don’t just produce worse outcomes for individuals. You break the chain. The torch cannot change hands if the hands are gone.
6. The replacement is the state. When the family dissolves, the state expands to fill the functions the family performed. This is not a coincidence. It is the design. Tocqueville described it: the soft despotism that replaces every horizontal bond with a vertical dependency on the government shepherd. The nuclear family was the primary horizontal bond. Its dissolution is the prerequisite for the complete vertical dependency the administrative state requires.
7. The nuclear family is not a conservative preference or a religious requirement. Defend it not because it is traditional. Defend it because it works – and because what is offered in its place doesn’t. The clan and the tribe produce loyalty. The administrative state produces dependency. The nuclear family, with its free market for mating and its maximum investment in the next generation, produces citizens. That is the one thing the system replacing it cannot afford to produce.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme).
Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident.
Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité.
Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison.
Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme.
Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable.
Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion.
C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part.
Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes.
Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre.
Alors pardon. Et au travail.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
To any future historians reading this, this era will make a lot more sense if you remember that every name is the opposite of what it really is. The antifascists are fascists, the antiracists are racists, the fact-checkers are propagandists, etc. Hopefully this has been fixed by your time.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
🚨WHAT THE MEDIA WON’T SAY… BUT THE VIDEO DOES.
Here’s what actually happened.
A federal operation was underway.
A volatile scene.
Uniformed agents.
Crowds forming.
An individual INSERTED himself into that operation.
He was armed earlier.
He physically resisted.
He engaged in a hands-on struggle with federal agents.
At that moment, agents DO NOT KNOW:
If there is a second firearm.
If there is a blade.
If there is a staged weapon nearby.
If there is an accomplice closing distance.
That is how real-world use of force works.
The media stripped ALL of that context.
They froze one frame.
They erased resistance.
They pretended removing one weapon magically ends a lethal threat.
It doesn’t.
In a live fight, the threat persists until the suspect is fully secured and searched. Period.
Calling this “execution” is propaganda.
Calling agents “aggressors” is narrative laundering.
Calling resistance “helping” is deliberate deception.
This is how trust in law enforcement is destroyed…
And chaos is justified.
Watch the video.
Ignore the spin.
Reality doesn’t bend for headlines.
#SilentMajoritySpeaks
#AStoneGroove
Luca Rossetti retweeted
C'è gente che si preoccupa di come sarà il clima tra 50 anni e va in paranoia per un qualsiasi evento meteo estremo a 2000 Km da casa sua.
Tutto ciò non indica un problema climatico, segnala un problema di salute mentale.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
The Stupidity of Fans: Ferrara, Panichi, and the Tennis They Don't Deserve
There’s a certain kind of light during tennis afternoons, when the sun hits the courts and the silence between points feels like a held breath. It’s a sport of grace, of nerves of steel—because no matter how precise you are, one bad bounce can cost you everything. But all it takes is a quick glance at social media (and increasingly, even the stands) to realise that even in the most predictable and straightforward trajectories, its fans know how to turn the game into a screaming marketplace, where accusations are sold and cheap certainties are bought.
Take Umberto Ferrara and Marco Panichi—two athletic trainers who, for opposite reasons, have ended up chewed and spat out by Italian, Serbian, and global fanbases alike. Their crime? Essentially, training world number ones.
Let’s start with Umberto Ferrara, the man who, for many, has become the symbol of an unforgivable mistake. In March 2024, Jannik Sinner tests positive for Clostebol at Indian Wells. The investigation reveals a surreal sequence of events: Ferrara buys a topical spray, Trofodermin, for a small cut. Giacomo Naldi, the physiotherapist, applies it and then massages Sinner without gloves, transferring the substance. A banal accident, a speck of misfortune that WADA, after months of investigations, ultimately defined as:
"This was a case that was a million miles away from doping,"
—WADA general counsel Ross Wenzel told BBC Sport.
No malice, no intent. Exhausted by WADA’s pressure, Sinner agrees to a three-month ban away from Grand Slams—on WADA’s proposal—which in no way, under any legislation, amounts to an admission of guilt (see our article here). Ferrara and Naldi were both cleared of all wrongdoing.
And yet, when Matteo Berrettini hires Ferrara in November 2024, fans go wild. “A scandal!” “He shouldn’t be allowed to work again!” they cry on social media, as if Ferrara had orchestrated some master plan instead of stumbling into misfortune.
The paradox is plain: if Ferrara were guilty, so would Sinner be—under the same strict liability anti-doping rules. But WADA made it clear: no intent, just bad luck. So why the public lynching? Because fans can’t stop. They can’t read beyond the headline. They can’t tell the difference between a mistake and a crime. Sometimes you wonder if they can read at all.
Ferrara becomes a monster to be taken down, the scapegoat for a rage that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with blind tribalism. And often, these are people completely detached from the actual world of tennis. Anyone who witnessed Sinner’s rise from fragile talent to world number one knows how central Ferrara was: he transformed a physically delicate player—who used to withdraw or show up in poor condition four times a year—into the machine we know today. Before and after the Clostebol case, Ferrara was there, guiding with love and expertise. Those who saw them together know it. Those who didn’t, talk. And in doing so, they not only slander Ferrara—they indirectly hurt Sinner too.
Panichi, the Invented Traitor
Then there's Marco Panichi, the other side of this twisted coin. He spent years sweating beside Novak Djokovic, from 2019 to 2024, shaping the body of a timeless champion. After many months and the end of that collaboration—Djokovic’s own decision—Panichi joins Sinner’s team. A logical move. A top-level professional joining the world number one’s camp.
And yet again, fans cry foul.
In March 2025, an old Sky Sport interview from a year earlier becomes the pretext for an absurd media crucifixion. Panichi had said something harmless:
"From a mental standpoint, the Davis Cup match took a greater toll on Nole," referring to the 2023 semi-final lost to Sinner.
A technical comment. Obvious to anyone who understands tennis. Yet someone twisted it into fake news:
"Djokovic hates Sinner—Panichi reveals all."
The result? A wave of abuse, especially from Serbian Djokovic fans, who paint Panichi as a traitor, a turncoat biting the hand that fed him. He ends up closing his Instagram account, maybe tired of the noise he didn’t deserve.
Here too, the stupidity of fans shines through: they take a sentence, rip it out of context, blow it out of proportion, and turn a respected professional into a soap opera villain. Never mind that Djokovic himself, in Doha, February 2025, praised Panichi’s work with Sinner. Never mind that Panichi spoke with admiration about Djokovic—about his relentless pursuit of improvement, which in his view aligns him closely with Sinner (currently world number one, not exactly a rookie). He acknowledged the continuity of Djokovic’s team, with respect.
But fans don’t listen. They don’t read. They don’t think. They shout.
And the media? They serve as megaphone and director of this endless circus.
“Ferrara, from doping to Berrettini.”
“Panichi spills Djokovic’s secrets.”
Headlines made to sell, not inform. Every word is bait in a sea of clicks. Every article an invitation to a verbal brawl.
It doesn’t matter that Ferrara was cleared of all wrongdoing.
It doesn’t matter that Panichi never betrayed anyone.
Truth is a footnote; drama is the main course. And the fans fall for it. Always. With a hunger that turns sporting narratives into low-grade soap operas.
Painful to say, but in this social-media-driven era, even some players ride the wave of fan frenzy.
Ferrara and Panichi: Victims of the Same Stupidity
Two very different men—one caught in an unfortunate accident, the other in a ridiculous misunderstanding—end up in the same pot. Victims of the same blind fandom.
There’s something tragic in all this: the passion that should elevate sport drags it down to the level of a medieval square, where people shout “burn him!” without trial. Fans don’t see human beings, they see symbols: Ferrara the sinner, Panichi the traitor.
It doesn’t matter what the facts say.
That WADA cleared him.
That Djokovic smiled.
They want blood—or at least a scapegoat to parade around.
A Game Tainted? So I ask myself: What kind of tennis is this?
What kind of sport is it where a trainer can’t make a mistake without being crucified, where an interview becomes a weapon?
It makes me furious—honestly—to see a game I love so much, so complex and beautiful, reduced to a ring for warring fan bases. Ferrara and Panichi don’t deserve this. Neither do Sinner or Berrettini.
Did you see Ferrara in Sinner’s box at the Miami Open?
No.
And imagine why—not because of facts, but because of the absurd noise from fans.
But maybe the problem isn’t them.
It’s us.
Us, who cheer without thinking.
Who judge without knowing.
Who turn a bad bounce into a holy war.
There was a time when tennis was a dialogue between player and audience—a pact of mutual respect. Now, it’s a monologue of out-of-tune voices, a noise that drowns out everything, including the truth.
If you’ve spent your life courtside, you can’t help but feel a quiet melancholy—the kind that comes when you watch a beautiful game, sullied by a stupidity that never forgives, never stops, and never shuts up.
#Nolefam #sinneristi #sinner #Djokovic #panichi #ferrara
Luca Rossetti retweeted
CO2 increases temperatures, that’s factually correct. In the atmosphere, however, the effect is negligible because to calculate the climate sensitivity you need an input signal that accounts for the majority of the output (CO2 feedback). The IPCC forgot the input - THE SUN!
You are familiar with control theory, it’s literally rocket science.
Climatologists, however, are not. That’s why they made this mistake a long time ago and it is still present in all of their papers.
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Da precisare che non lo votato... esiste in Italia un politico che difronte ad una domanda del genere riesce a rispondere con tanta pacatezza e chiarezza? Visto a quello che siamo abituati strilla accuse volgarità...
🔴VANNACCI DIVENTERÀ UN LEADER POLITICO CON MILIONI DI ELETTORI
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Genio, tu che cambi le cose non andando a votare.
Certo che le cambi: i piddini vinceranno e, quando l'#OMS riproporrà il piano pandemico, non avrai un #Borghi o un #Vannacci in grado di fermarlo.
La tua astensione è la forbice con cui ti tagli i coglioni, genio.
#elezionieuropee
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Persona normale:
- rispetta le forze dell’ordine
- ha le sue idee, le espone con calma e tranquillità
- ama sventolare la bandiera della propria Nazione
- non interrompe mai i comizi e i discorsi di chi la pensa diversamente
- nel corso della giornata, si fa i fatti suoi, non rompe le scatole a nessuno
- ammira i nostri monumenti ed opere d’arte
Persona comunista:
- odia le forze dell’ordine
- interrompe i comizi e i discorsi di chi la pensa diversamente, continuamente e con ogni mezzo
- ogni scusa è buona per fare del becero vittimismo e piagnucolare
- vorrebbe vivere di aiuti statali
- impone le sue idee con insulti e minacce
- schifa la bandiera della sua Nazione, sventolando qualsiasi bandiera non sia quella italiana
- giustifica i pestaggi di chi la pensa diversamente da lui dicendo “stavo difendendo la democrazia”
- imbratta monumenti con vernice, bombolette spray o altro
- blocca fisicamente il passaggio delle auto, causato traffico e limitando la libertà delle persone costringendole in auto, talvolta anche in piena estate
Il 1º viene considerato dai media (rossi) un pericolo, mentre il 2º un intellettuale che difende la democrazia.
#ElezioniEuropee #Meloni #Salvini #Vannacci #IlariaSalis
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Snow Skiing in the EU vs The USA
US: "Go hard. Push yourself. Athletic endeavor!"
EU: "Would you like wine with lunch?"
US: Chicken fingers and frozen fries with a Pepsi. $25.
EU: Homemade lasagna with apple strudel. $25.
US: "Would you like a green, blue, or double black?"
EU: "You can have any run as long as it's a cruiser."
US: 5 lifties at every chair.
EU: See 5 employees the whole day (all smoking)
US: "Long day, let's go pass out in front of the TV."
EU: "Apres ski, then hit the club!"
US: "Let's get the first lift at 830am."
EU: "Perhaps start around 10ish before first espresso?"
US: "1-day lift ticket? That'll be $295."
EU: "1-day lift ticket? That'll be $50."
US: "I wear a brown jacket and pants like everyone else."
EU: "My fashion makes a statement."
US: "What is that smell? These people need to brush their teeth."
EU: "What is that smell? These people need to eat less cheese."
US: "Where did all these Texans/Californians come from?!"
EU: "Why are all these Americans here?!"
Luca Rossetti retweeted
Riportiamo il post di un belga rimasto anonimo che sul nostro Paese ha scritto:
"L' Italia è come quella tipa che ha più talento di tutti, perché è nata bella, più bella di tutte.
È quella più ingegnosa, che si inventa mille cose, perché è piena di risorse.
Sa discutere di storia, di mare, di montagne, sa di cibo, di buon vino, di dialetti, di pittori, di scultori, di scrittori, di eccellenze nella scienza, non c'è niente che non sa.
E quando questa tipa bella e talentuosa inciampa e cade, la platea delle sfigate esulta.
È la rabbia delle povere gelose, quelle al buio, perché lei è comunque bella anche quando cade a terra.
L'Italia è una tipa con stivale tacco 12, che nessuna sa portare meglio di lei... solo il tempo di rialzarsi.”
