Social media is the equivalent of when the sound guy forgets to turn the mic off after church & all the kids go take turns saying stuff.
eopedaw retweeted
One of the better exercises of this type I’ve seen.
This quoted post is unavailable.
eopedaw retweeted
You know how we know that there is white culture? Because it’s super fun to see people who for whom it was NOT their culture growing up enjoying it! When they cheer over her little yodel that is pure Appalachia is so fun!!
And here’s the thing, I love hearing black gospel!! I loooooooove funk that I definitely didn’t grow up with!
Denying that white people have a culture that sprung from particular regions and backgrounds is part of the denigration of white people that has become second nature to our young socialist class.
And it’s destructive and needs to stop. When you deny that white people have culture, you’re NOT being not racist, you’re just being racist against people you think it is acceptable to be racist toward.
Like you @Ilegvm this is the first movie I saw with dolly. Later I saw her in Rhinestone with Sylvester Stallone. I thought she was an actress at first because I didn't know her music. I had no idea until one day my eyes were opened. She was an absolute legend. She appealed to everyone and always will. I love watching people's reactions when they hear her for the first time.
eopedaw retweeted
Age reveals character. And both Dolly’s and Barbara’s eventually became very clear…
This is the WORST INTERVIEW EVER! I don’t know where Barbara Walters was working in 1977 - NBC or ABC - but no network should have broadcast this trash interview teapawt.net/CineAudu/status/209233…
eopedaw retweeted
The word tolerance has been weaponized against you. The weapon was forged in 1965. You should know who forged it and why.
Before there was the French Theory — before Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze made deconstruction elegant and exportable — there was the Frankfurt School. And the Frankfurt School was worse, because it was deliberate. Foucault played with ideas he never expected to have consequences. Herbert Marcuse knew exactly what he was building.
These were not fringe academics. The Institute for Social Research relocated from Frankfurt to Columbia University in 1934 when Hitler came to power. Funded, positioned, and deliberate, they spent the next decades producing the theoretical infrastructure for the dismantling of the civilization that had given them refuge. This is not ingratitude – it is the logic of the project. It was universal – it applied to every Western civilization equally.
Marcuse — godfather of the New Left — published Repressive Tolerance in 1965. The most influential political document most people have never read. Its argument: tolerating wrong ideas is itself oppression. True tolerance requires the suppression of intolerant ideas. Tolerating everything is repressive. Suppressing the wrong things is liberating. The argument is circular by design – it puts the conclusion inside the premise and dares you to find the exit.
The practical implication was stated explicitly: withdrawal of tolerance from movements that are regressive, from speech that reinforces existing hierarchies. The left decides which movements are regressive. Everyone else is silenced – not despite tolerance but in its name. The most sophisticated justification for censorship ever produced, dressed in the vocabulary of liberation.
The French Theory picked up the tools and made them elegant. Foucault made the Frankfurt critique of power literary. Derrida made the critique of meaning philosophical. Deleuze made the critique of identity aesthetic. What had been a political program became a cultural sensibility – which is why it spread further and faster than the original. You can argue with a political program. A cultural sensibility is in the air you breathe.
The generation that read Marcuse went on to run the universities, the media, the foundations, the NGOs, the content moderation departments, and the EU regulatory apparatus. They did not implement his argument cynically – they implemented it sincerely, because they had been taught it as philosophy.
This is why cancel culture does not feel like censorship to the people practicing it. The journalist who demands a speaker be deplatformed genuinely believes she is defending free speech. The HR department that fires the employee for the wrong opinion genuinely believes it is creating an inclusive environment. They have been taught that this is what tolerance means. Marcuse taught them.
Musk has been fighting Marcuse’s argument for four years probably even without knowing Marcuse’s name. Every content moderation policy, every advertiser boycott, every regulatory assault – these are Repressive Tolerance, institutionalized. The DSA is Repressive Tolerance with a legal budget. The fact-checking organization is Repressive Tolerance.
The good news: the argument fails on contact with a free platform – because the suppression becomes visible, the mechanism becomes nameable, and a named mechanism loses half its power. This is why the Counter-Reformation moves so fast against X. Not because X is dangerous. Because X is where Repressive Tolerance gets named.
You are reading this now – which is precisely what Repressive Tolerance was designed to prevent.
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.
eopedaw retweeted
I finally understand what Machiavelli meant when he said, "Never play fair in a game where others cheat." It doesn't mean become evil. It means stop being naive. Stop bringing honesty to people who study manipulation, stop giving access to people who weaponize closeness, and stop expecting clean hands from people who already showed you they'll throw dirt. Sometimes wisdom is not revenge. Sometimes wisdom is learning the rules of the room before the room uses your goodness against you.
This quoted post is unavailable.
eopedaw retweeted
He thought a car was about to run him over,
then that some thug was going to jump him,
and right after that he was sure the police would mistake him for a criminal... way too much adrenaline in just a few secs.
eopedaw retweeted
This video is WAY too nice to communists but… socialism appeals most to the young and the young will shut down if you just call them idiots.
And the evidence is so overwhelming it’s hard to call them anything but idiots.
So… probably a good idea to sit down and watch this with your family as a primer.
eopedaw retweeted
I just found this clip of Zohran Mamdani on an Arab podcast, admitting that he fooled white liberals
Progressive ideology is just a tool
His real priority? "Identity"
eopedaw 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.
eopedaw retweeted
Jordan Peterson made a profound point on Chris Williamson’s podcast.
When God dies, a lot of unexpected things die with Him, including science.
Science isn’t some purely neutral, secular tool. It rests on deeply religious assumptions: that truth exists, that it’s knowable, that pursuing it is good, and that the universe makes sense.
These aren’t scientific claims, they’re metaphysical, rooted in a religious worldview. The universities themselves grew out of monasteries.
Without that deeper foundation, science eventually stops being about truth and becomes just another tool for power, ideology, or convenience. You lose the reason to be honest when the data gets inconvenient.
Do you think science can survive long-term without any belief in objective truth or a higher moral order?
eopedaw retweeted
If you want to understand the modern left, you need to understand three men.
One redefined freedom. One redefined history. One redefined power. Together, they created the intellectual foundations of much of modern progressive politics.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau laid the foundation in the 18th century. He argued that man is born good and free but is corrupted by society – especially by private property. This idea that civilization itself is the source of inequality and oppression became the emotional core of leftist thought. Rousseau replaced the individual with the “general will” and portrayed traditional institutions as chains that must be broken.
Karl Marx took Rousseau’s romantic critique and turned it into a supposedly scientific system. He argued that private property and class relations were not just morally wrong but historically doomed. Marx shifted the focus from abstract human nature to the economic base, claiming that history moved through class struggle toward a final, inevitable revolution. His ideas justified the seizure of power and the total reconstruction of society in the name of progress.
By the 20th century, however, it was clear that the Western working class was not going to revolt. Antonio Gramsci provided the next crucial development. He argued that capitalism maintained power not primarily through economics, but through cultural hegemony – the dominance of “bourgeois ideas” in education, media, religion and civil society. Gramsci concluded that revolutionaries must first capture the institutions of culture before they could seize political and economic power. This strategic shift moved the left’s focus from factory workers to universities, schools, media and the family.
Together, these three thinkers created the intellectual architecture of modern leftism: Rousseau supplied the moral grievance against civilization, Marx supplied the revolutionary method and historical justification, and Gramsci supplied the long-term cultural strategy. The result is a movement that no longer primarily fights over wages and factories, but over language, education, identity, and the moral legitimacy of Western society itself.
eopedaw retweeted
Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.
Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.
Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.
Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.
Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.
La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.
eopedaw retweeted
A British novelist whose father worked in a bank explained the entire 2008 financial crisis in a 272-page book that a 12-year-old can follow, and the part that should scare you is how simple the fraud was once he stripped the jargon off it.
His name is John Lanchester.
He is a novelist by trade. He writes for the London Review of Books and The New Yorker. He grew up in Hong Kong because his father worked at a bank there, which means he absorbed the language of finance the way most kids absorb the language of cartoons. By the time the 2008 crisis hit, he was one of the very few writers on earth who could speak both finance and English fluently.
He sat down and wrote a book called I.O.U.: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay.
In the UK it was published under the title Whoops! It came out in 2010. 272 pages. The reviews from financial journalists were almost embarrassed in their praise, because Lanchester had done in plain English what most of them had failed to do in years of professional coverage. He had actually explained what happened.
Here is the version a middle schooler can understand.
Step one. A bank gives a home loan to a person who clearly cannot pay it back. No real job. No savings. No way to make the monthly payments. The industry had a nickname for these loans. They called them NINJA loans. No Income. No Job. No Assets. The bank knew the person could not pay. The bank did not care.
Why did the bank not care?
Because the bank was not going to keep the loan.
Step two. The bank takes thousands of these loans, puts them in one giant pile, and sells the entire pile to a Wall Street firm. The Wall Street firm now owns the right to collect all those monthly payments. The original bank has been paid. Whether the homeowners actually pay or not is now someone else's problem.
Step three. The Wall Street firm takes the giant pile of loans and chops it into slices. They call the slices tranches. The top slice is supposed to be the safest because it gets paid first. The bottom slice is supposed to be the riskiest because it gets paid last. They give each slice a credit rating. The top slice gets stamped AAA, which is the highest rating you can get on earth. It is the rating used for the bonds of the United States government.
A pile of loans to people with no income and no job has just produced an investment product rated as safe as the United States government.
Step four is where the trick gets worse.
The bottom slices, the ones full of the riskiest loans, are hard to sell. Nobody wants junk. So the Wall Street firm takes the bottom slices from a hundred different piles, mixes them together into a new pile, and chops that new pile into new slices. And the top slice of this new pile, made entirely from the junk of the old piles, also gets stamped AAA.
This new product has a name. It is called a Collateralized Debt Obligation, or CDO.
A 12-year-old can see what is wrong here. You cannot take a hundred bags of garbage, dump them into one big bag, and then declare that the top of the big bag is now gold. The garbage is still garbage. The math does not change it.
But the people who ran the ratings agencies were not 12-year-olds. They were adults with finance degrees. And they stamped this stuff AAA over and over again because the Wall Street firms were paying them to do the stamping. The ratings agencies had become a paid service. The people they were rating were also the people writing their checks.
Step five. The Wall Street firms sell these AAA-rated CDOs to pension funds, foreign governments, insurance companies, and retirement accounts all over the world. Everyone buys them because the rating says they are safe.
Step six is the final trick.
Someone invents a product called a Credit Default Swap. It is insurance against a CDO going bad. The clever part, the part that Lanchester explains so well, is that you do not have to actually own the CDO to buy insurance on it. You can buy insurance on a CDO that belongs to someone else. You can buy insurance on a CDO ten times over. A hundred times over. There is no limit.
This is the equivalent of taking out fire insurance on your neighbor's house. And then on a thousand strangers' houses. And then betting against the entire neighborhood.
The smart people in the industry realized the CDOs were garbage. So they started buying credit default swaps against them. Not to protect themselves. To bet on the collapse.
Step seven was the part nobody planned for.
Housing prices stopped going up. The NINJA borrowers, who had been refinancing every year by using the rising value of their houses as collateral, suddenly could not refinance. They started missing payments. The bottom tranches of the CDOs started failing. Then the middle. Then the AAA tranches that had been declared safer than government bonds turned out to be made of the same garbage as the rest.
Then the insurance bills came due.
The biggest insurer in the world, AIG, had written hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on these CDOs. They did not have the money to pay. If AIG collapsed, every major bank on earth that had bought insurance from them would also collapse, because their "safe" CDOs would suddenly have no insurance. The American taxpayer ended up writing AIG a check for 182 billion dollars to keep the entire global financial system from falling apart.
The total damage of the crisis, by every honest estimate, runs into the trillions of dollars. Millions of people lost their homes. Millions lost their jobs. Almost nobody on Wall Street went to jail.
Here is the part Lanchester drives home in the final chapters, and the part you should not forget.
The fraud was not hidden in the math. The fraud was hidden in the complexity. Each individual step looked legitimate. Each individual product had a name, a rating, a paper trail. The reason nobody stopped it was that no single regulator, no single executive, no single auditor was forced to look at the entire chain from end to end. The garbage at the start and the AAA stamp at the end were separated by so many layers of paperwork that everyone could honestly say their specific layer looked fine.
Lanchester's central argument is the one that should haunt every person reading this in 2026.
Complexity is the disguise. Anytime a financial product is so complicated that the person selling it cannot explain it in 60 seconds, the complexity itself is the warning sign. The complexity is not protecting the customer. The complexity is hiding the fact that the customer is the product.
The 2008 crisis was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of plain language.
Almost every product on the market today that is being sold to retail investors, from leveraged ETFs to certain crypto derivatives to private credit funds, has the same structural pattern. Layered. Hard to explain. Stamped with an authoritative rating. And the people selling it can never quite tell you what is inside.
Which brings me to the question.
The next 2008 is already being built somewhere in the financial system right now.
Which industry, or which product, do you think is hiding the same trick under the same kind of complexity right now in 2026, and what makes you suspicious of it?






















