猴子应该被关在笼子里，锁上铁链度过一生。
OMG. Video reportedly captured on a Mahoning Valley Community Schools bus in Ohio shows a male student BRUTALLY attacking a female student as others laugh and do nothing.
The bus driver and the aide also allegedly did NOT intervene to stop the attack.
School officials also allegedly did not contact the female student's parents, and she was not seen by the nurse.
We reached out to the school for comment, but they did not respond.
1
傻逼们的民主是灾难
A 24-year-old brat tells Caleb Hammer the rich should be taxed “to the max.”
He asks her what that means.
And when she answers, he can’t believe this person votes.
HAMMER: “You’ve never lived in the real world.”
GRACE: “I haven’t. I can admit that. But like, what if there was a world that we lived in and everybody had money and everybody was able to live comfortably?”
HAMMER: “That’s not the world we live in.”
GRACE: “Reality sucks. Capitalism is bad. I don’t like it.”
HAMMER: “Yeah, really easy for someone to say that grew up in a really nice house in one of the best school districts in Texas.”
“Who has the rent f*cking paid for. That is able to go to Europe on a whim with their sister.”
“You never got to actually see what happens when you put in the work and get benefits and actually have a little bit of responsibility and actually f*cking build something or do anything.”
GRACE: “But the people who you should be going after are the people in the top something percent that like hoard all the world’s wealth. Like go after those people. Those people need to be taxed to the f*cking max.”
HAMMER: “What does that even look like to you? You probably don’t even know what that looks like. What does that look like? How do you tax someone to the max?”
GRACE: “I’m not sure.”
HAMMER: “Oh! Interesting. This person’s voting.”
GRACE: “Yes, I am. And I already know who I’m voting for.”
HAMMER: “And you literally can’t describe a tax.”
What’s scary is her vote counts the same as yours.
CONTEXT: The top 1% of earners already pay 38.4% of all federal income taxes, according to the latest IRS data (tax year 2023). That’s $823,000,000,000.
The bottom half of taxpayers pay just 3.3%.
3
最没有的就是这些狗屁不通的人文知识分子！他们就是专门生产文字垃圾的废物。
Марксизм это изложенные псевдонаучным языком представления о жизни неграмотного крестьянина, занятого натуральным хозяйством.
Крестьянин, занятый натуральным хозяйством, почти ничего не покупает и не продает. У него нет на это средств, и в экономике он почти не участвует. При этом в городе живут люди, которые лучше едят и одеваются. Очевидно, они едят украденный у крестьянина хлеб, ведь сами они не пашут и не сеют. Крестьянину от этих людей никакой пользы, и он их ненавидит, периодически устраивая крестьянские восстания. Марксизм идеально подошёл бы этим людям, именно поэтому социализм имел успех только в отсталых странах, где ещё сохранялось натуральное хозяйство – Россия, Китай и прочая Африка. Марксизм не победил в странах развитого капитализма, как это предсказывал Маркс, потому что рабочие там уже не были занятыми натуральным хозяйством неграмотными крестьянами.
Парадокс популярности марксизма в современном мире заключается в том, что в самых развитых странах появился новый класс пролетариев, аналогичных неграмотным крестьянам 16 века – городская интеллигенция. Они живут на подачки государства и ничего не продают, потому что никто в здравом уме не платит за статьи о гендерном равенстве. Они ненавидят всех, у кого больше денег ©
4
马甲 retweeted
The Fed manufactures every boom, then oversees the bust.
Look at the dot-com bubble. Between 1995 and 2000, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan expanded M2 money supply by 40 percent. That cheap credit had to go somewhere. It flooded into the NASDAQ, inflating valuations of companies with no earnings, no revenue model, and sometimes no actual product. Pets(.)com burned through $300 million and collapsed within a year of its 2000 IPO. Webvan raised $375 million and went bankrupt in 2001. This is the rational response to irrational money.
Greenspan delivered his famous "irrational exuberance" speech in December 1996, four years before the crash. He saw the bubble. Then he inflated it anyway, cutting the federal funds rate to 4.75 percent in 1998 after the Russian default crisis and Long-Term Capital Management implosion. Investors took that signal and leveraged into equities harder. NASDAQ peaked at 5,048 on March 10, 2000, then fell 78 percent over the next 30 months, destroying $5 trillion in household wealth. People watched their retirement accounts crater while Greenspan pivoted to explaining why nobody could have seen it coming.
Ludwig von Mises described the mechanism in his business cycle theory: artificially low interest rates misdirect capital into projects that only pencil out at that fake price of money. The moment the Fed tightens or the market corrects rates upward, malinvestment collapses. Every dot-com bonfire was a malinvestment.
Entrepreneurs, engineers, and retail investors absorbed the losses. Greenspan absorbed none. He collected his salary, retired in 2006, and published a memoir. The institution that created the catastrophe survived it completely intact, ready to run the same cycle again with mortgage-backed securities.
Which, of course, it did.
马甲 retweeted
No, el consumo no genera riqueza. De hecho, el consumo destruye riqueza.
Consumir es agotar bienes que ya fueron producidos.
La riqueza viene de producir, y para producir es necesario capital, o sea, ahorro previo que alguien dejó de consumir.
Si consumir más nos enriqueciera, Argentina sería potencia mundial porque llevamos unos 50 años o más estimulando la demanda.
El salario no es algún que se fija en base a la bondad de un empresario.
Tiende al valor descontado del producto marginal del trabajador.
O sea, si le pagás por encima de lo que ese trabajador aporta, ese puesto te termina dando pérdidas y desaparece.
Si el aumento viene mediante el Estado a través de una violación de los derechos de propiedad, el resultado es desempleo, sobre todo de los menos productivos.
Lo que el empleado gasta de más es lo que el empresario deja de ahorrar, invertir o gastar.
Sin un aumento real de la productividad.
Es decir, en la práctica no esta apareciendo demanda nueva sino que la misma demanda esta cambiando de bolsillo.
Y si sale de la inversión, a futuro baja la productividad, y con ella el salario real de los trabajadores.
La tontería de que el trabajador mejor pago rinde más ya lo desarmó Rothbard en MES, si fuera cierto, los empresarios, que buscan ganancias, subirían los salarios por su cuenta para quedarse con ese aumento de productividad.
Es decir, no sería necesario que nadie venga y se los imponga por la fuerza (lo que constituye una violación de los derechos de propeidad).
Los salarios reales suben de verdad por una sola vía y es más capital por trabajador.
Eso pide ahorro e inversión, o sea, consumir menos hoy.
Por eso Bastos tiene su icónica frase de Capitalismo, ahoro y trabajo duru.
También lo menciona explicitamente Rothbard en MES, la idea de que estimular el consumo cura la economía es falsa, y lo cierto es lo contrario.
Primero se produce y después se consume.
这个傻子在模仿《发条橙》吗？
🚨 NOW: DERANGED LEFTIST has been ARRESTED after attacking a TPUSA patriot and ripping down the American flag at University of Texas Tyler
He LOOKS and SOUNDS EXACTLY as you'd expect
We need to bring back insane asylums!
Conservatives are under attack and it's because the left keeps JUSTIFYING it.
10
马甲 retweeted
Patents are government-granted monopolies. If you strip away the euphemism, the state forbids competitors from using an idea, backed by courts and injunctions.
The Wright brothers prove what happens when that monopoly metastasizes. Orville and Wilbur secured U.S. Patent 821,393 in 1906, covering their lateral control system. Rather than compete on engineering, they spent the next decade suing Glenn Curtiss and every other American aviation pioneer who dared improve on their design. Curtiss, who built superior aircraft, had to spend his time fighting injunctions instead of building planes. The U.S. aviation industry largely froze while litigation dragged through courts.
Europe had no such paralysis. French, German, and British manufacturers iterated freely, competed aggressively, and by the time World War One broke out in 1914, European aviation had lapped America. The U.S. military scrambled to field combat aircraft and found its domestic industry strangled. The government ultimately forced a cross-licensing agreement in 1917 through the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, dismantling the very monopoly Washington had granted eight years earlier. The state created the problem, then congratulated itself for solving it.
This is the standard story patents tell. The incentive argument runs like this: without patent protection, inventors will not invest in research because competitors will copy their work. The claim sounds intuitive, but the math rarely supports it. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on patent litigation and regulatory lobbying than many spend on actual drug discovery. Curtiss needed customers and competitive pressure to motivate him, which the Wright litigation denied him.
Progress compounds through imitation, recombination, and rivalry. Prices fall, quality rises, and you benefit directly when inventors race each other rather than race to the courthouse. Every year a patent holds a superior technology off the market is a year you pay more for worse outcomes.
社会财富不可能因政府的行政命令产生，只能靠自由市场创造。左派始终倾向于政府而不是市场，他们全是猪！
Hay un sector infantilizado de la población que cree que la mejora en la calidad de vida es una cuestión que llega por ley y no por los avances tecnológicos y la mejora de la productividad. Siguen creyendo en un mundo de buenos y malos, de pobres y ricos. Niegan la ley de la oferta y la demanda, niegan la importancia de los incentivos y niegan la propia historia de la humanidad.
Ninguno de los llamados “avances sociales” de la historia llegaron como consecuencia de cambios legislativos. Más bien al revés: los cambios legislativos fueron la consecuencia de avances que ya habían llegado en la práctica.
Solo una mente infantil puede creer que, cambiando leyes, puedes conseguir trabajar menos y ganar más en términos reales. Solo una mente infantilizada puede creer que un cambio de ley sobre un aspecto específico de la economía solo afecta a ese aspecto específico y mantiene inalterados los demás.
Es realmente triste que más de un siglo después de la revolución bolchevique sigan funcionando los mismos mantras. Y es que, lamentablemente, no hay nada como decirle a la gente lo que quiere oír: que la culpa es de los “privilegiados” y no de ellos. Que castigando a esos privilegiados ellos vivirán mejor.
La realidad es que sólo quien se esfuerza progresa. Es duro, es impopular, pero es la realidad. Nadie regala nada, no hay trucos que van a hacer que mejores tu vida sin esfuerzo. El Ozempic económico no existe; o tiene unos efectos secundarios tan devastadores a medio plazo que nadie en su sano juicio lo recetaría.
10
邪恶的白左知识分子
Top 20 des sorties les plus abjectes de l'intelligentsia de gauche française. Ceux qui nous ont fait la morale pendant cinquante ans.
Aragon, 1931. Il écrit un poème à la gloire de la Guépéou, la police politique de Staline. La machine qui remplira le Goulag.
Sartre, 1954, de retour d'URSS : « La liberté de critique est totale en URSS. » Pendant que les camps tournent à plein régime.
Sartre, 1961 : « Tout anticommuniste est un chien. » Le ton du débat intellectuel français pour trente ans.
Simone de Beauvoir, 1957, La Longue Marche. Un portrait enchanté de la Chine de Mao, juste avant le Grand Bond en avant et ses dizaines de millions de morts de faim.
Paul Éluard, 1950. André Breton lui demande d'intervenir pour leur ami Záviš Kalandra, condamné à mort dans un procès stalinien à Prague. Éluard refuse publiquement. Kalandra est pendu.
Philippe Sollers et la revue Tel Quel, 1974. Voyage en Chine en pleine Révolution culturelle, retour en extase maoïste.
Sartre, préface des Damnés de la terre, 1961. Abattre un Européen, explique-t-il, c'est faire d'une pierre deux coups : un oppresseur et un opprimé disparaissent, il reste un homme mort et un homme libre.
Sartre, 1972, après la prise d'otages des JO de Munich et le massacre des athlètes israéliens : le terrorisme serait la seule arme des opprimés.
Sartre, 1974, rend visite à Andreas Baader en prison. Jean Genet, en 1977, publie dans Le Monde un texte de soutien à la Fraction Armée rouge.
Sartre, 1973, interview à Actuel : un régime révolutionnaire doit se débarrasser de ceux qui le menacent, et il ne voit pas d'autre moyen que la mort.
Alain Badiou, Le Monde, janvier 1979 : « Kampuchéa vaincra ! » Un texte de soutien aux Khmers rouges, qui viennent d'exterminer près d'un quart de la population cambodgienne.
Michel Foucault, 1978. Il part en Iran et s'enthousiasme dans la presse italienne pour la « spiritualité politique » de la révolution de Khomeini.
René Schérer, L'Émile perverti, 1974. Un philosophe de Paris VIII théorise la « libération » sexuelle de l'enfant contre l'éducation.
Schérer et Guy Hocquenghem, Co-ire, 1976. Une revue entière consacrée à l'enfant « désirant ». Publiée, diffusée, discutée comme de la pensée sérieuse.
Gabriel Matzneff, Les Moins de seize ans, 1974. Publié par un grand éditeur, chroniqué, célébré. En 1990 chez Pivot, il raconte, le plateau rit. Seule Denise Bombardier ose se lever.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Le Grand Bazar, 1975, puis à Apostrophes en 1982. Il décrit des jeux sexuels avec des enfants de crèche. Il dira plus tard que c'était de la provocation et que rien n'a eu lieu. Personne sur le plateau ne bronche.
Foucault, 1978, sur France Culture, dans un débat intitulé « La loi de la pudeur ». Il plaide contre la majorité sexuelle et refuse de présumer qu'un enfant ne peut pas consentir.
Mai 1977. Lettre ouverte à la commission de révision du Code pénal pour abroger les lois sur les relations sexuelles avec les moins de 15 ans. Signée notamment par Foucault, Deleuze, Barthes, Derrida, Althusser.
Janvier 1977. Le Monde, puis Libération, publient une tribune pour défendre trois hommes poursuivis pour relations sexuelles avec des mineurs de moins de 15 ans. Une soixantaine de signatures du gratin intellectuel de l'époque. Jack Lang, des décennies plus tard : « C'était une connerie. »
Libération, le journal cofondé par Sartre. Il ouvre ses colonnes aux militants pédophiles, publie des petites annonces d'adultes cherchant des enfants, et en 1979 une pétition pour défendre un homme arrêté pour des relations avec des fillettes de 6 à 12 ans.
Ces gens ont dirigé la vie intellectuelle française. Ils ont formé nos profs, écrit nos manuels, tenu nos rédactions. Et ils nous ont expliqué pendant cinquante ans où était le bien.
8
马甲 retweeted
The Weimar hyperinflation of 1923 wasn't just an economic crisis; it was the systematic destruction of Germany's middle class and the social order that held society together. When the government chose to finance its deficits by printing money rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, it unleashed a monetary catastrophe that would reshape German society forever.
By November 1923, it took 4.2 trillion marks to buy a single US dollar. Teachers, engineers, and civil servants who had saved their entire lives watched their nest eggs become worthless overnight. A lifetime of prudent saving couldn't buy a loaf of bread, while speculators and debtors who had borrowed heavily found their debts evaporated by inflation.
The psychological trauma went far deeper than the economic devastation. The German middle class had built their identity around thrift, hard work, and delayed gratification. Values that hyperinflation made not just useless but actively harmful. Those who had played by the rules were punished, while those who abandoned fiscal responsibility were rewarded.
This wasn't merely monetary policy gone wrong, it was the foundation for the political extremism that would follow. When money loses meaning, society loses its anchor, and people become desperate enough to embrace radical solutions. The lesson remains: sound money isn't just about economics, it's about preserving the social fabric itself.
西方的白左是邪恶的源头！一定要牢记这一点。
Pol Pot. This piece of shit killed an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979, somewhere between 25 and 33 percent of the entire population. He did this by applying an ideology to its logical conclusion. Ideology always has a conclusion; socialism's conclusion is death.
The Khmer Rouge abolished money in 1975. Completely. Banks closed. Markets dissolved. Currency became contraband. They then abolished private property, forcibly relocated urban populations to collective farms, and set central planners the task of organizing rice production for the entire nation. The result was predictable: mass starvation beside the rice fields. Planners cannot coordinate production without prices. Prices require private property and voluntary exchange.
Pol Pot studied in Paris during the 1950s, absorbing French Communist Party doctrine and Maoist agrarianism. Western universities provided the intellectual scaffolding for the killing fields. Coercion requires enforcers, tribunals, and eventually mass graves; Cambodia's are at Choeung Ek.
Every collectivist experiment reaches this same point, because central planners cannot solve what free exchange solves automatically every second of every day.
7
马甲 retweeted
David Sacks：民主黨下屆一定會推動 AI 監管，審查言論的能力將更大
Chamath 認為民主黨真正關心的還是經濟公平，如果監管反而讓少數 AI 巨頭取得更大的壟斷地位，跟選民想要的結果完全相反，就不會成為主要立法方向。
但 Sacks 認為，這反而就是民主黨要的結果。
民主黨可能建立一套以 Superintelligence 為核心的監控與審查體系。
例如成立聯邦 AI 監管機構，要求所有前沿模型上市前都必須經過政府批准，甚至按照政府要求修改模型。
而所謂的 AI Harm，可能從安全風險擴大到 Misinformation、Disinformation，甚至政府不喜歡的政治言論。
這就像 COVID 期間政府施壓社群平台審查內容，只是這次掌握的技術更強大。
政府甚至不需要禁止人民使用 AI，只要政府能使用比人民更強大的模型，就足以形成權力不對等。
政府也可以與大型閉源模型公司形成利益交換：
政府以 AI 安全為由擴張監管權力；AI 巨頭則欣然配合，利用高昂的合規成本建立 Regulatory Capture（監管護城河）。
新創公司負擔不起監管成本，少數巨頭卻能藉此排除競爭者。
民主黨在下一屆國會大力推動 AI 監管，幾乎是 100% 確定的事。
All-In Podcast：AI 資料中心建設放緩，雲巨頭將成為整個 AI 產業的 Kingmakers。
隨著 AI 資料中心建設放緩，未來算力供應可能遠低於市場預期，GPU 租賃價格隨之大漲。
AI 產業的競爭，將從「誰有最強的模型」，轉向「誰真正掌握算力資產」。
贏家與輸家開始出現巨大變化：
👶尿布雲（Neoclouds）：最尷尬。 靠外部融資擴建算力，還可能被舊長約綁死。現貨價格漲了，自己卻未必賺得到。
🏅前沿模型（Frontier Models）：壓力山大。 OpenAI、Anthropic 等公司需要不斷增加算力，才能維持模型迭代速度。算力一旦短缺，不只成本上升，連研發進度都可能被拖慢。
🐲雲巨頭（Hyperscalers）：最大贏家。 Amazon、Google、Microsoft、Meta，以及 SpaceX 等擁有大量現成算力的公司，將掌握更大的定價權。
雲巨頭現在有三條路可以走：
① 繼續當房東。
維持現狀，繼續出租算力，按照舊合約收租。
② 不租了，留給自己用。
例如 Google 可以決定，未來新增的 Compute 全部拿去訓練 Gemini，不再供應 OpenAI、Anthropic 等競爭對手。
結果就是對手取得的算力減少、成本上升、模型迭代放緩，Gemini 反而有更多時間追趕。
③ 最狠的一招：直接漲價。
SpaceX 與 Anthropic 的算力合約設有雙向 90 天終止條款。
原本看起來是 SpaceX 的風險，現在卻可能變成一張王牌。
假設 GPU 現貨租金暴漲兩至三倍，Elon 為什麼還要繼續用舊價格出租算力？
直接終止舊合約，重新報價不就好了？
Anthropic 不接受？
那就賣給 Google、Meta，反正市場上有的是財力雄厚、願意出高價的買家。
問題是，SpaceX 供應了 Anthropic 相當大比例的算力。如果市場缺乏替代供應商，Anthropic 恐怕沒有太多選擇。
Elon 跟 Anthropic 關係再好，這也不是人際關係的問題，而是一張 Excel Spreadsheet 的問題。
當舊合約的機會成本越來越高，重新簽約的價值遠高於維持現狀，商業決策自然會改變。
更有趣的是，一旦 Elon 帶頭重新定價，其他雲巨頭也可能開始思考：
憑什麼我要用舊價格，把越來越稀缺的算力租給競爭對手？
這才是整個 AI 產業最恐怖的地方。
至於尿布雲，可能更加尷尬。
借了一屁股債、簽了一堆舊長約，結果算力價格漲了，自己未必能受惠；想繼續擴張，又要面對更高的資金成本及更稀缺的產能。
當然，手上有大量未鎖價算力的尿布雲，反而可能受惠。
整個 AI 產業權力洗牌的第一個催化劑，就看 Elon 敢不敢率先重新定價算力。
過去是賣鏟子的說了算，現在是囤最多鏟子的雲巨頭，決定誰有資格下場挖金礦。
🙂↕️
Ron DeSantis explains why the GOP "screaming socialism" doesn't work anymore:
"Young people have a very positive view of socialism compared to capitalism. The question is, why is that? Some of it is the education in our universities. But I think a big part of that is, what they're comparing is not free enterprise versus socialism. What they're comparing is how government gets involved in business, and you have crony capitalism. The best kind of indirect supporters of socialism are some of these corporatist republicans who propagate these crony policies. The average person is seeing that and saying, 'Wait a minute, you're trying to bend the government to funnel benefits to this corporation or that industry. What about having a competitive market? ... Young people really aren't seeing that. They're seeing just a handful of companies that have an outsized influence on our economy and on our society"
15
哈哈哈哈😂
A guy goes into a bar in New York where the bartender is a robot.
The guy sits down at the bar, and the robot asks: "What will you have?
The guy replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings back his drink and asks, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "168."
The robot talks about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.
After the guy leaves, he pauses at the street corner and thinks about what he just encountered, and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.
The robot asks, "What's your drink?"
The guy answers, "Whiskey."
The robot returns with his drink and asks, "What's your IQ?"
This time, the man replies "100."
The robot talks about NASCAR, Budweiser, Awbarn, and professional wrestling.
The man finishes his drink and leaves, but he is so interested in this "experiment" that he decides he'll try again.
He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he wants to drink.
The man replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings the drink and asks, "What's your IQ?"
This time, the man answers "50."
The robot leans in real close and s-l-o-w-l-y says, "How awesome is Mamdani’s rent freeze? It surely will help the housing problem.”
6
傻逼知识分子当年也积极支持共产党🙂↕️
研究了一下南非以前白人支持让黑人接管政府的人，后来有没有失望，挺有意思。黑人接管政府后，有的白左看到南非经济下滑，社会暴力混乱，又逃跑移民了。
南非出现过这样一批人：他们出生于白人家庭，享有种族隔离制度赋予白人的特权，却主动反对种族隔离，支持黑人获得平等公民权，支持曼德拉和非国大（ANC）执政。
其中一些人曾经是左翼人士、自由派知识分子、记者、作家，甚至是反种族隔离运动的参与者。
有意思的是，1994年南非实现民主转型之后，其中一些人对新政府的发展方向产生了相当大的失望。 有人批评腐败、犯罪、公共治理恶化，有人认为自己当年对曼德拉之后的南非抱有过高期待，对ANC后来的执政表现不满。
2005年1月18日，南非《Mail & Guardian》发表了政治活动家 Raymond Suttner 的文章：《白人左翼后来怎么样了?》
文章开头就指出：1994年以后，一大批曾经积极参与反种族隔离运动的白人，退出政治活动或移民海外。
他总结了他们的失望：
民主南非没有达到他们曾经的期待。
一部分人感觉白人在新政治秩序中被边缘化。
一部分人认为新政府的非洲主义（Africanism）正在排斥白人，削弱非种族主义（Non-racialism）。
一些曾经的白人活动家觉得，自己当年为民主转型作出的牺牲没有得到承认。
不过，Suttner本人是ANC和南非共产党领导层的前成员。他对这些白人左翼也有批评，认为其中一些人仍然希望以道德导师的身份监督黑人政治人物，却没有充分理解黑人经历的历史压迫。
一些移民后的白人：
Anne Paton：她的丈夫是著名反种族隔离作家 Alan Paton，写过《哭泣的大地》，长期关注黑人遭受的压迫。
Anne Paton 在1990年代末决定移民英国。
她在解释离开原因的文章中说：
她从未见过南非出现如此严重的种族摩擦。
她很遗憾丈夫没有活到1994年，见证民主选举时的喜悦和民族和解。
但她庆幸丈夫没有活到后来，因为看到自己深爱的国家变成这样，他一定会非常难过。
安德烈·布林克：曾经支持解放运动，后来对ANC非常失望
2009年，他出版回忆录：《人生十字路口》
在书的最后部分，他对曼德拉之后的南非进行了相当严厉的批评。
他主要提出了几个问题：
犯罪问题越来越严重，社会安全状况令人担忧。
ANC政府内部出现腐败。
政府在艾滋病问题上的错误处理令他失望。
南非的外交政策和政治决策出现了令他难以接受的情况。
他曾经以为反种族隔离运动中的那些优秀人士掌权后，会表现得与过去的统治者不同，但现实并非如此。
他甚至在书中使用了非常严厉的表述，称ANC执政集团已经成为人民的敌人。
他后来接受《卫报》采访时解释了自己的失望：
他认为，自己失望的一个重要原因，是当年对这些人抱有过高的期待。
21
