Why are Democrats going after Elon Musk with everything they have? It's not because he's a billionaire in politics. They've been perfectly comfortable with billionaires in politics for decades. They're going after him because he's the first one playing against them. Look at the numbers. Soros's Democracy PAC had put over $100 million into this midterm cycle before the summer was even over. Only a tiny fraction of it shows up under his own name. Then add the advocacy arm of his foundations, which doesn't have to disclose all of its political spending. And that's just the visible part. Over 40 years, tens of billions have gone into NGOs, universities, legal networks and media projects that shape what counts as an "acceptable" opinion. That's the real game. Billionaires have been buying politicians for decades, on every side. But the smartest ones figured something out: you don't buy a candidate, you buy the ecosystem. Universities, foundations, newsrooms, NGOs, regulators, courts. Once you control who writes the reports, who trains the lawyers and who decides what counts as "misinformation", elections become a detail. For 30 years that ecosystem leaned one way. Nobody called it oligarchy. They called it "civil society." Then Musk showed up. He bought the main public square, took the filters off, and started spending in the open, under his own name. Yes, he's the biggest donor of these midterms. Everyone can see exactly how much he gave and to whom. That's the difference. One plays in daylight, the other plays through a maze of structures. And suddenly, billionaire money in politics became a threat to democracy. This isn't really about left versus right. It's about an ideology that captured these institutions and leads straight into a wall. More regulation, less building. More process, less progress. Countries shutting down working nuclear plants. A decade to approve a power line. A system whose default answer to any ambition is "no." Musk is the opposite. Reusable rockets. Mass-market EVs. Satellite internet for the whole planet. Brain-computer interfaces. A serious plan to make humanity multiplanetary. You can hate his tweets. You can't deny that no one in the last 20 years has pushed the frontier of what humanity can build further than he has. That's why they need to break him. Not because of his money. Because he proves the system can be bypassed. If we leave the system as it is, we don't get a catastrophe. We get something worse: slow, comfortable stagnation. A civilization that manages its own decline instead of building its future.

Once you see the world through this lens, a lot of things that looked random suddenly make sense. You understand why Macron recognized a Palestinian state at the UN. Not a state with borders it controls, a single government, or elections. A symbol. A gesture for domestic consumption, performed on the world stage. That's the politics of posture over reality, the obłuda I described earlier: what matters isn't what is true on the ground, it's the narrative you get to emit. You understand why Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of France's hard left and a man trained in Trotskyist organizations in his youth, made Gaza the center of his politics and refused for months to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Look at the mechanism. He doesn't address French Muslims as individuals with their own jobs, families, ambitions and disagreements. He addresses them as a bloc. A mass to be mobilized. That's the collectivist reflex in its purest form: you don't speak to people, you herd categories. Yesterday the proletariat, today identity blocs. The individual disappears every time. You understand why Zohran Mamdani built his rise on the Democratic Socialists of America. The mayor of New York isn't just a progressive Democrat. He's a DSA member, and DSA doesn't hide what it is: an organization that openly calls itself socialist and treats the Democratic Party as a vehicle. His campaign promised a rent freeze, city-run grocery stores, free buses. Every one of those ideas has the same shape: the individual steps back, the city steps in. The price is set by the planner, the store is run by the planner, and voters are addressed as categories, tenants, riders, communities, rather than as free people who can build something of their own. And Mamdani didn't come out of nowhere. The same movement helped send Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress in 2018, and Bernie Sanders spent decades making the word "socialist" respectable in American politics. Different faces, same software. The lie isn't that they hide their ideology. It's the promise attached to it: that you can freeze prices without killing supply, that the state can run what entrepreneurs run, that someone else will always pay. That promise has been tested on every continent. It has never been kept. And you understand the most important thing: collectivists need chaos. This isn't a metaphor. It's their own doctrine. Lenin's strategy in 1914 was to turn the war between nations into a civil war inside them. The Soviet Union spent decades arming and funding movements across the Middle East and pushed through the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. The KGB had an entire doctrine, "active measures," dedicated to amplifying every division inside Western societies. A stable, prosperous, confident society is the collectivist's worst enemy. Chaos is his natural habitat. Why? Because chaos is the perfect justification. It justifies emergency powers. It justifies more state. It turns citizens into frightened masses looking for a shepherd. It replaces individual judgment with tribal loyalty. A society at peace with itself asks the planner: what do we need you for? Look at the two great conflicts of our time through this lens. Russia's war in Ukraine was launched by a former KGB officer who called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe of the century. A man formed in the exact school that treated chaos as a weapon. He doesn't just wage war on Ukraine. He wages it on Western cohesion, feeding every division he can find in our elections, our streets, our feeds. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the perfect fuel for Western politics. It splits every campus, every party, every city. It lets politicians like Mélenchon build an electoral base on permanent outrage. And for everyone who lives off that outrage, a real peace would be a disaster. Ask yourself honestly: who in our political class actually has an interest in this conflict ending? That's the pattern. The people who live off chaos never solve it. They manage it, they feed it, they posture around it. Because a solved problem is a lost lever. Freedom produces order from the bottom up: people who own things, build things, trade with each other and have something to lose. Collectivism produces disorder from the bottom up and then sells you order from the top down. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Le Monde me range dans l'« extrême droite » et le « narratif xénophobe ». Ça me rappelle la réponse d'Elon Musk quand on lui a reproché de soutenir l'extrême droite. Une phrase, et tout était dit : « Je soutiens les gens normaux. » C'est exactement ça. Je ne soutiens pas l'extrême droite (qui n'existe pas). Je soutiens les gens normaux. Les gens qui veulent simplement vivre en paix. Les gens qui ne veulent pas voir leur culture dissoute par une immigration de masse que personne ne contrôle. Les gens qui veulent tenir un commerce sans se faire piller. Les gens qui veulent sortir dans la rue sans se faire planter. Les gens qui veulent prendre le RER le soir sans calculer leur trajet. Les gens qui veulent que leurs enfants aillent à l'école sans avoir peur. Les gens qui veulent qu'un délinquant soit puni, quelle que soit son origine. Les gens qui se lèvent tôt, paient leurs impôts et ne voient plus très bien ce qu'ils reçoivent en échange. Les gens qui veulent que la police puisse faire son travail. Les gens qui veulent qu'une mairie reste une mairie, pas un brasier. Les gens qui aiment la France, d'où qu'ils viennent. Les gens qui veulent pouvoir dire tout ça sans être traités de fascistes dans un quotidien national. Ces gens-là ne sont pas une marge. C'est la majorité du pays. Si Le Monde appelle ça l'extrême droite, c'est que Le Monde ne sait plus à qui il parle. Petit message aux journaux de gauche. Il reste déjà très peu de Français qui vous font confiance. En attaquant des gens comme moi, qui ne font que le travail que vous avez arrêté de faire, regarder le réel et le décrire, vous ne nous décrédibilisez pas. Vous vous décrédibilisez vous-mêmes. Chaque article de ce genre me ramène des milliers d'abonnés et vous en coûte quelques-uns de plus.

Paris on October 17. Rome, Milan, Turin, Bologna and Florence tonight. The same name, "October 17," on both sides of the Alps. The same script: crowds of young people, groups breaking off from the march, attempts to force police lines, shop windows and train stations attacked. This didn't come out of nowhere. In Italy, the alleged organizer of the "October 17 Movement" was just arrested in Milan and placed under investigation. In Rome, dozens of young people were detained with balaclavas, gloves and masks in their bags. Messaging groups were circulating a guide on how to break through police lines. Nearly 5,000 people identified and 371 detained in a single day. You don't show up to a cost-of-living protest with a balaclava by accident. So let's ask the question nobody wants to ask: who organizes, who coordinates, who funds? Here's what we already know, and it's public: several French organizations orbiting these protests have been funded by George Soros's Open Society. The Ligue des droits de l'Homme received around $380,000 in 2016 and 2017. FIDH, Attac and 350.org have listed Open Society among their backers. Does that prove Soros is paying the rioters? No. And I won't say it until someone proves it. But it does show one thing: part of the activist ecosystem setting the tone lives off money from foreign billionaire foundations. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's written in their annual reports. What I'm asking for is simple. Full transparency: every organization calling people into the streets publishes the list of its funders. Zero public money for groups that excuse violence. And if Italy is investigating who organizes these movements, France should too. Because behind the streets, there's a much bigger battle. On one side, a vision where foundations, NGOs and unelected institutions decide on behalf of the people what they're allowed to think, say and vote for. On the other, builders who believe in free speech, in production, in conquest. Soros and Musk embody these two camps. One funds narratives. The other builds rockets, cars, satellites, and a platform where you can still say what you think. The first camp had decades, billions and every institution on its side. And it's losing. You'd have to be pretty blind to bet against that. Never bet against Elon Musk.

I've been saying it for months: we're heading toward a new 1989. Not the fall of the Berlin Wall this time. The fall of the globalist project, and its fundamentally collectivist vision of humanity. Remember the video Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum published in 2016, the "predictions for 2030." Prediction number one: "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy." You'll own nothing, rent everything, and smile about it. They presented it as a desirable future. Marx summed up communism in a single sentence: the abolition of private property. The WEF just rewrote it with a delivery drone. Their problem is that two forces are now tearing this project apart. The first is AI. For the first time in history, a single individual can own a lever of production that used to require an army of employees, a bank, and a state. AI doesn't centralize capital. It hands it to the people who build. That is the exact opposite of "you'll own nothing." The second is reality. Exploding debt, collapsing public services despite record taxes, rising insecurity, schools that no longer teach anything. You can lie about reality for decades. You can't stop it from arriving. So here's what they're going to do now. First, activate their networks. Soros's foundations, starting with Open Society, have spent years pouring money into NGOs, activist collectives, and "anti-repression" groups that form the ideological and logistical breeding ground of the crowds we're seeing today from Paris to Montreal. When the argument no longer works, all that's left is chaos. Second, manipulate the youth. This is how communists have always taken power. Mao, speaking to Chinese students in 1957: "The world is yours. You young people are like the sun at eight or nine in the morning." Nine years later, he unleashed the Red Guards: high schoolers and university students who humiliated their teachers, denounced their parents, and burned books. And once they were no longer useful, he shipped some 17 million of them off to the countryside to be "re-educated." Youth is always the fuel of the revolution. Never its beneficiary. Third, the globalist elites will do everything they can to keep the chaos going. Because a country in chaos demands more state, more control, more surveillance, more "governance." Chaos isn't a bug in their project. It's how it runs. But either way, their project has only two possible endings. Neither one goes their way. Ending one: political Islam. They think they can use it as an ally against the West, against the nation, against the family. They forgot Iran. In 1979, the Iranian left, led by the communists of the Tudeh Party, marched hand in hand with Khomeini to overthrow the Shah. Four years later, the party was banned, its leaders in prison, many of them executed. Islamism never lets itself be used by Marxism. It devours it. Your Marxist project will end up eaten by the very people you thought you were manipulating. Ending two: economic collapse. Because let's say it plainly: the elites running this project are, on the whole, economically illiterate. Brilliant at storytelling, hopeless at incentives. Ludwig von Mises proved it back in 1920: without private property there are no prices, without prices there is no economic calculation, and without economic calculation there is only waste and shortage. Hayek drove the point home: no central planner can aggregate the dispersed knowledge of billions of people. Global collectivism can't work. Not because it's been badly implemented. Because it is structurally impossible. The USSR learned that in 1989. They're about to learn it now. The wall is already shifting.