I cannot want to, if I have to. Ich kann nicht wollen wenn ich muss. https://xitter.cf/t.co/mvtlWfaY38 https://xitter.cf/t.co/gxJfi5Qvv9
Germany
Joined June 2009
- Tweets22K
- Following151
- Followers348
- Likes22.5K
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Imagine how good it would feel to fly over one of the Greta Thunberg Extinction Rebellion protests in one of these bad boys
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
There's a reason why JK is Rowling around in a giant stack of money right now.
And it isn't because she sat down at a keyboard thinking "gosh, I hope people think I am a Very Serious Adult Grown-Up, thinking Very Serious Adult Grown-Up Thoughts all day."
She had other priorities.
No one needs anyone else's permission to write words on a piece of paper, of course, but I think that if you're worried about people thinking you're weird, or uncool, or childish, then "fiction author" might not be most comfortable choice of professions.
You have to risk being all of those things if you want to make people feel something, you see.
In order to reach past other people's emotional defenses, the walls they put up against the everyday world, the only place you're going to find material to do that is to reach past your own.
Humans are among the most childish of all species. We continue to have brain growth into adulthood, and we learn and play and be curious throughout our lives.
That's what good writing taps into... that childish place in other people. And it comes from the childish place within ourselves.
If you sit down at a blank page, and you're too embarrassed to tap into that, well, you're not going to tap into that, are you? You're going to stay in the shallow end, where it's safe, and you don't ever have to worry about not being taken seriously.
Doesn't mean you can't write a fun story, but you ain't getting seven movies and a theme park.
As for me, if someone captures lightning in a bottle, then I'm not too proud to look over and see what kind of wires she used.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Germany destroyed its own price controls in 1948 and watched an economy resurrect itself inside eighteen months.
Ludwig Erhard did it unilaterally. On June 20, 1948, he abolished the Nazi-era price and wage controls that the Allied occupation forces had maintained, then went on radio to tell Germans what he had done before anyone could stop him. The American occupation authorities were furious. General Lucius Clay demanded an explanation. Erhard told him he had not reformed the controls, he had abolished them.
The results were immediate. Goods reappeared on shop shelves within days. Germans who had been hoarding anything of tangible value started trading again because currency reform and price liberalization made holding marks rational for the first time in years. Industrial output rose 50 percent in the six months following the reform.
The villain in this story is price controls, and the economists and bureaucrats who insist they tame chaos rather than create it. Price controls tell producers to stop producing and tell consumers to hoard. Every time. The postwar German black market proved it: the official economy was starving while the illegal economy fed people. Erhard simply liberated the black market by freeing prices.
You benefit from this history whether you know it or not, because it settled an empirical argument that interventionists have been trying to reopen ever since. Free prices coordinate production without a central planner. Suppress them and you get empty shelves and queues. Germany in 1946 had both. Germany in late 1948 had neither.
The so-called Wirtschaftswunder, the economic miracle, was not miraculous; Erhard applied basic economic logic that Friedrich Hayek had already formalized in 1945 in "The Use of Knowledge in Society." No central authority possesses the dispersed, local, constantly changing information that prices aggregate and transmit. Bureaucrats trying to set correct prices are not just inefficient; they are epistemically incapable of the task. Hayek made the theoretical case, thrn Erhard ran the experiment on a starving nation, and proved it.
West Germany grew at roughly 8 percent annually through the 1950s. East Germany, running Soviet central planning across the same ethnic population with similar prewar industrial infrastructure, stagnated and eventually built a wall to prevent its citizens from leaving. That comparison is about as clean a controlled experiment as political economy ever produces. Same people, same history, radically different institutions.
The lesson: prosperity flows from secure property rights, sound money, and voluntary exchange. Erhard gave West Germans all three in one afternoon.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Karl Marx – The Man.
You know him as the author of the Manifesto.
But behind the manifesto there was a man – an envious, deceitful and lazy one – constitutionally averse to productive work. The theory is just a result of that. It is the man, elevated into a system.
Do you recognize any of this in the socialists and communists around you? Read on.
1. His father Heinrich was a hardworking lawyer from Trier who wrote his son letters in the tone of a man watching a slow-motion disaster he cannot stop. Not angry – exhausted. "Is your heart in accord with your head, your talents?" he wrote in 1837. "Is that demon heavenly or Faustian? Will you ever be capable of truly human, domestic happiness?" The tone was like: "My heart often sinks when I think of you and your future." The despairing correspondence of a disciplined, hardworking man who cannot understand what is wrong with his brilliant, promising, and comprehensively useless son. A loving father watching his brilliant son consume money, accumulate debts, drink heavily as a student, produce poetry of remarkable mediocrity, and demonstrate a comprehensive inability to translate intelligence into anything useful. A father asking his clever son whether he is a visionary or a catastrophe. The answer turned out to be both. Heinrich died before seeing the full scope of the disappointment. He was spared the Manifesto.
2. He never worked. The foundational fact about the man who devoted his life to the theory of labor. For most of his adult life he was kept by Friedrich Engels – son of a factory owner, manager of a Manchester textile mill – who spent his days doing the precise capitalist management the theory condemned, so that Marx could theorize about it in comfort. Engels also paid the rent, covered the debts, funded the cigars, and at one point claimed paternity of Marx’s illegitimate child – born to the family’s unpaid servant – to protect his friend’s reputation. The servant was not paid. The child was not acknowledged. The theory of "liberation" was produced in conditions of domestic exploitation that would have embarrassed a Victorian mill owner. If you remember Rousseau you’ll notice a pattern here…
3. Helene Demuth – cooked, cleaned, raised the Marx children, and managed the household through decades of poverty that was chronic not because of capitalism but because Marx could not hold a job and would not try. Her specific working-class life was spent in unpaid service to the man theorizing about her liberation. He did not liberate her. He did not pay her. He fathered her child, denied it, and let Engels take the blame. The secret held until after both men were dead. Engels confessed on his deathbed.
4. The debts are almost comic. In one year at university he spent 700 talers – his father noted with incredulous precision that "the richest spend less than 500." Expelled from Belgium, France, and Prussia. Ended up in London, stateless, in damp apartments, pawning the family silver, writing to Engels for money with the regularity of a man who has made extracting funds from a friend into an art form. Several of his children died young in conditions produced by his inability to earn. Marx noted the deaths in letters and continued the manuscript.
5. The envy is the key to everything. A brilliantly clever man who felt the world had not given him his due – who watched others succeed and experienced their success as an offense requiring theoretical explanation. The result: the most sophisticated intellectual expression of resentment ever produced. A complete systematic account of why the successful are guilty, why their success is stolen, and why the man who has not succeeded is the true repository of value. A theory of envy with footnotes. Nietzsche called this ressentiment. He was describing the same type, from a different angle, at roughly the same time.
6. He died in 1883. Eleven people attended the funeral. Engels compared him to Darwin – generous, since Darwin spent twenty years accumulating evidence before publishing and Marx spent twenty years accumulating debt. His wife had died two years earlier, exhausted. His servant had spent a lifetime unpaid. His illegitimate son grew up unacknowledged. The Manifesto was by then on its way to inspiring experiments that would kill approximately a hundred million people.
7. The Manifesto was not written from the bottom. It was written by a clever man funded by a factory owner’s son, who had never done a day of proletarian labor, who exploited the people closest to him, whose father despaired of him, and whose considerable talents were deployed entirely in explaining why the world owed him more than it had given. Look around you. The envious intellectual who has never built anything but knows exactly what is wrong with everything others have built. The "man of the people" who cannot manage his own affairs. The revolutionary funded by the people he condemns. You have met this person. You may have voted for him.
From Plato to Bernie and AOC – A Brief History of Communism
Twenty-four centuries, one idea. It always starts the same way and always ends the same way.
1. Plato, 380 BC. The world is badly made, the wise should redesign it, and the rulers may lie to the people for their own good – he called it the noble lie. Property abolished among the guardians, the family abolished with it. Everything since is a version of it, with progressively worse writing and progressively higher body counts.
2. The millenarian sects. Property abolished, the chosen in charge, purification required – a thousand years before capitalism existed. The idea needs no economy to appear.
3. Rousseau, 1762. Man is good, institutions corrupt him, so institutions must be remade. The General Will – the collective desire of the people, which the correct leader can identify and implement regardless of what individual people actually want. The philosophical foundation of every subsequent revolution that murdered people in the name of their own liberation. Whoever refuses to obey shall be forced to be free. Rousseau personally abandoned all five of his children to the orphanage. He wrote extensively about the correct upbringing of children. This is a pattern.
4. Kant and Hegel. Kant splits the world as we see it from the world as it is. Hegel adds that history is going somewhere. Together they supply the phrase that ends every argument: the wrong side of history.
5. 1789, French Revolution. The idea gets a country. Virtue is the goal, and virtue turns out to need enforcement. Four years from liberation to the guillotine and the Terror.
6. Marx, 1848. The same idea in a scientific costume – now you weren’t arguing for it, you were reading the future. Written by a man who had never worked in a factory, funded by a man who owned one.
7. Lenin, 1917. The vanguard party: a small group of professionals who know what the workers need better than the workers do. Delivered to Russia in a sealed train by a German general who wanted Russia out of the war. He got that, and more.
8. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. What it looks like when it wins. Terror as government, and a lie so complete that people lost the ability to tell what they thought from what they had to say. Tens of millions dead in China, a quarter of the population in Cambodia. Not a deviation. The same premise, applied with enthusiasm. Collectivization, the gulag, the Great Leap, the killing fields – roughly a hundred million dead in one century. Each time preceded by intellectuals explaining why this time would be different.
9. The Frankfurt School. The workers in the West refused to revolt, so the explanation changed: the problem is cultural, and Western civilization itself is the oppressor and has to be deconstructed. Everything to be criticized, nothing to be built.
10. Gramsci, Spinelli, Dutschke and 1968. Don’t storm the parliament – get a job in the editorial office. Power in the West rests on consent, and consent is made in schools and newspapers – so take those instead. The long march through the institutions. The generation that failed in the streets became the professors, editors and judges. It worked, which is why elections now change the government but not the direction.
1989 – the system collapses, the archives opened, and in the Western universities almost nobody changed their mind. A faith, not a theory.
11. Bernie and AOC. Same idea, new clothes, and nobody left who has read the source material. Free everything, paid for by the billionaires. Honeymooned in the Soviet Union in 1988 – three years before it collapsed – and came back impressed. Three houses. Net worth in the millions of dollars. Democratic socialists. The reasoning is Plato’s, the aesthetic is TikTok.
From Plato to Bernie and AOC: Even communism isn’t immune to decay…
What follows
12. The lie is not a side effect. It is the system.
13. Where truth is handed out instead of found, anyone who insists on finding it is in the way.
14. It survives because it protects positions, not beliefs. Ask who is best for the job and every protected position is at risk. Ask who belongs in the room and the same people stay in it for life.
15. The managerial class is the nomenklatura. Same selection, same script, same immunity to results. Only the letterhead changed.
16. Where everything needs permission, permission becomes the currency – and whoever knows the apparatus rules, whoever wins the election.
17. Silence is not ignorance. It is knowledge plus a calculation: speaking costs everything, silence is free.
18. Underneath, it runs on two fuels: envy and fear. Envy supplies the motive – someone else has what you don’t, and the system promises to take it. Fear supplies the compliance – everyone can see what happens to those who say the wrong thing. Neither has anything to do with justice, and neither ever built anything.
19. The idea never learns, because the error is not in the implementation. It is in the premise: that the "wise" can plan the lives of the many better than the many can plan their own.
20. The answer is not a better plan for society. It is refusing to let anyone hold the pen.
Reality is not negotiable. Say so out loud, build things that work, and hand them to your children.
Tell the truth. Have courage. And build.
From one Jew to another and I mean it sincerely: Shut the fuck up you stupid bitch.
We are living in the year 2026. The president of Argentina is the great Javier Milei, and not the evil communist Krishner. The government of Britain is the awful, communist, Islamist ,hostile ,antisemitic Labour Party. Not the great Margaret Thatcher or the great Churchill. In the year 2026- Argentina is a friend of Israel, and Britain is hostile to Israel. So why me, an Israeli, will support the UK position over the Argentinian, regarding the falklands?
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
A French writer explained the error in 1850. A Nobel economist repeated it in a Pennsylvania lecture hall in 1978. Governments still make it every year. Almost nobody watches the clip.
This is Milton Friedman on the parable of the broken window, the oldest mistake in economics.
The trick is that the destruction is visible and the cost is not. You see the glazier get paid. You never see what the shopkeeper would have bought instead.
Watch how he sets it up before he names the fallacy. He lets the audience agree with the wrong answer first.
176 years of warnings. Still the most persuasive bad idea in politics.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
What was Woke? A megathread documenting the most deranged era of our time 🧵🧵🧵
When AOC declared woke over and dismissively laughed that "Woke 1 was crazzzy", she was sending a calculated signal to the Leftist rank & file that "Woke" was now more of a political liability than a help and it was time to pivot from "its not happening" to "ok it was happening but it wasnt that bad, can we just move on now?"
The online hordes clearly understood the assignment, as the online space is full of ppl either dismissing Woke as "just some online kooks " and pretending not to understand what Woke even was (thus making discourse impossible).
They will adopt a "gotcha" strategy where they will demand to know on the spot exactly what was so bad about Woke and when you dont have an itemized list in bullet points at the ready, will dismiss your entire argument that Woke was bad.
So here I'm creating a thread so you can all bookmark it and use it anytime says "Woke wasnt that big a deal", "it was just online kooks", or "it was just about having empathy and being kind".
You will notice not one of the examples in this thread are "online kooks". Almost every single one is a major media company. Despite the catastrophic reputational loss of the last two decades, these companies are still very powerful and influential, and since most of the public still mindlessly outsources their thinking to the media, they play a key role in shaping public opinion. Keep that in mind as you read some to the deranged things these psychopaths were pushing on us.
If in the future, someone wants to study how, when and why the mainstream media pivoted from Neutral Arbiter of Truth to Culture Warrior, Narrative Shaper and Social Engineer, this thread would be a valuable resource.
So without further ado, what IS Woke?
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Bernie is making a critical error:
He's using the OECD's measure of relative poverty, which is the proportion of children living in households with incomes below 50% of the national median
In other words, an inequality measure, not a poverty measure
Here's a real QoL measure:
Childhood poverty rates
🇺🇸 21.1%
🇬🇧 15.8%
🇮🇹 14.5%
🇨🇦 14.0%
🇱🇺 13.5%
🇵🇹 12.5%
🇬🇷 12.3%
🇫🇷 12.0%
🇦🇹 9.8%
🇩🇪 9.1%
🇨🇭 9.1%
🇨🇿 8.8%
🇰🇷 8.5%
🇸🇪 8.4%
🇳🇱 8.4%
🇧🇪 7.9%
🇳🇴 6.9%
🇮🇪 6.8%
🇫🇮 4.6%
We must end the outrage that in the richest country in the history of the world, more than 1 in 5 children live in poverty.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The cited figures represent "relative poverty," defined by the OECD as the share of children living in households with incomes below 50% of their national median income. It measures inequality within a country, not absolute poverty or living standards. oecd.org/en/data/indica…
Es war klug die Kommentare zu sperren.
Es sind die Grünen, und die Grünkommie Politik der restlichen Deutschen Partei, die den Einbau von Klimaanlagen erschwert und den Strom dafür teurer macht.
Es war klug (und feige) die Kommentare zu sperren. Eine der Säulen des Islamismus nennt sich "Intifada". Hier ist die Berliner "Queer Pride", die @TiloJung wahrscheinlich nicht als rechtsextrem bezeichnen würde, wie sie Stunden vor dem Anschlag, diese Intifada in Berlin fordert.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
On this day in 2014 the Russian TV triumphantly reported about the downing of an aircraft over the occupied areas in Donetsk region, east Ukraine. Back at the time they assumed it was a Ukrainian military cargo aircraft and not MH17:
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
John Lasseter, the guy who created this franchise and wrote and directed the first three movies, was fired in disgrace over vague allegations of “weird hugs.”
The precipitous decline in the quality of Disney and Pixar’s output coincides precisely with his departure.
Of course, the collapse of Disney wasn’t wasn’t just the result of removing one guy; his was the most prominent ouster in a coup across Disney animation where a “boys club” brain trust that was responsible for Disney’s golden age in the 2000s and 2010s was purged and replaced by a new female-led regime that makes stuff like “Wish” and “Strange World.”
The #ToyStory franchise has generated $51 billion in economic activity, according to a study commissioned by Disney. Nearly $25 billion occurred in the U.S.
“This is our No. 1 animated franchise,” says Disney's chief brand officer Asad Ayaz. “I don’t think there’s many other franchises that have been embraced by audiences and critics over the course of three decades. People who were kids when the first movie came out are taking their own children to the new ‘Toy Story.'”
variety.com/2026/film/news/t…
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Sam - you were more than just a lovely actor to work with - refined, thoughtful, a skill second to none - you were a mentor, protector, and above all, friend. Thank you for making our scenes together feel so real. I will be forever grateful to have been on this journey with you.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Hello Mr. Dugin,
You blame Israel for Lindsey Graham's death before his body was cold.
No evidence cited. Just a Mossad conspiracy theory, hours after a senator's heart stopped.
Ten months ago, you said Charlie Kirk was killed by Ukraine. You compared him to your daughter. You called him a "warrior of word and spirit." You said "at least the orders were given by the same people."
Kirk: Ukraine did it. Graham: Mossad did it. Two different actors, two different motives, same country, ten months apart. You never address the contradiction because there's nothing to address. Blame is assigned by the victim's politics. Kirk was MAGA: blame MAGA's enemies. Graham was a neocon: blame Israel.
The common thread: whatever undermines America.
You have no undergraduate degree. You enrolled at the Moscow Aviation Institute and were expelled. Your sole advanced degree is a Candidate of Sciences from Rostov State University... a regional school, awarded at 38, with no documented academic pathway beneath it. But you're confident Mossad killed Lindsey Graham.
You lectured at the General Staff Academy from 1992 to 1995. No salary, no badge, no formal appointment... you walked in through Alexander Prokhanov's connection to General Rodionov during the year the Russian military lost its entire ideological framework overnight. As Gleb Pavlovsky said: "He made a huge impression on people who never read any books."
That's the most accurate description of your career anyone has ever written.
In 1997, you published Foundations of Geopolitics. You prescribed the dismemberment of China... support Tibetan independence, arm Uyghur separatism, create an independent Manchuria. China was "Russia's most dangerous geopolitical neighbor." Then China became Russia's most important ally. You accepted a Senior Fellow appointment at Fudan University, in the country whose fragmentation you designed. When Bannon pressed you on this in Rome in 2018, you went silent for over a minute. You've never publicly reconciled this. But you know who killed Lindsey Graham.
The "Putin's Brain" label was coined in Foreign Affairs in 2014 by Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn. Thoburn worked at the Foreign Policy Initiative, the neocon think tank founded by Kristol, Kagan, and Senor as PNAC's successor. After Darya's death, Barbashin posted publicly: "Dugin was never Putin's brain. This was always a catch name." The co-author of the article that made you internationally famous called it clickbait. You've never corrected the label, because without it, you're not more than Substack.
You asked whether Candace Owens stopped World War III. You called Tucker Carlson "the number one journalist in the world." Every statement does the same thing: inflate your counterpart so the relationship with you seems proportionately significant. It's audience development with a philosophical accent.
And this is what all of it produced. A man with no degree, no Valdai invitation, no academic publisher, and no evidence... blaming Israel for a cardiac arrest before the body was cold.
The data says you are a small man made large by people who needed you to be large.
You blame Israel for Graham's death because that's what's left when you have no credentials, no evidence, and no access: the one accusation that never requires proof.
Yakov Gourevits 🇩🇪 retweeted
Hello Mrs. Owens,
You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson "wasn't even there." That you felt "confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk."
He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: "I am, I'm sorry." He engraved "Hey Fascist! Catch!" on the ammunition a month before he used it.
You said police "didn't even question" Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it.
You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson's DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days.
You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater.
You called Erika Kirk a "clinical psychopath" to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was "an occult ritual." You said Charlie was "sitting in a pentagram." You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu.
You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man's name.
And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson's own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They're challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely.
Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him.
So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath.
Every single one failed.
I don't know why you did this. I'm not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I've spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man's murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow.
The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality... under oath, on the record, where it counts.
I'll be here for all of it... because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and @TPUSA and @MrsErikaKirk from evil.
