Search

In the devastating floods and landslides in Nepal, 1,243 people have died so far, more than 4,900 are missing, while rescue teams are battling challenges trying to find survivors in the hydraulic structures and identify the victims, among whom are also 33 Latvian citizens. (translated)

Over a year ago, I reported that the Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office (our beloved hate and incitement task force) was once again investigating me over a meme. The background at the time involved protests by left-wing (called "liberals" in American terms) women who were https://t.co/b578xiVuUc #FreeSpeech #Censorship #MemeWars #DE

With @josejavierespa on @Gato_directo. We have talked extensively and candidly about the invasion of #Ceuta, the urgency of pursuing #SanchezTraidor, the alteration of the census and electoral fraud, and the alternative to the current state of affairs, which is @vox_es, fighting all the battles. (translated)

WITNESS TO HISTORY Mike Walsh. Afraid of the truth, major book publishers, including Amazon, banned this ultimate truth-telling illustrated book. Despite censorship, this is the most widely read modernising true history of Adolf Hitler and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. https://barnesreview.org/product/witness-to-history-the-reich-legend-uncensored/

WITNESS TO HISTORY Mike Walsh. Afraid of the truth, major book publishers, including Amazon, banned this ultimate truth-telling illustrated book. Despite censorship, this is the most widely read modernising true history of Adolf Hitler and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. https://barnesreview.org/product/witness-to-history-the-reich-legend-uncensored/

REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN NOW. 🇮🇷 A government that answers protest with prison, torture and executions has no moral legitimacy. The Islamic Republic has had decades to reform. Instead, it has built a system of fear around the IRGC, political prisons, censorship and the gallows. The https://t.co/ooOHHOcF4w #IranProtests #RegimeChange #HumanRights #IR

Que el PSOE callara la boca frente al amaño de sus primarias me deja pasmado. Pero que frente al amaño del censo de unas elecciones generales no se haga absolutamente nada me parece de aurora boreal. ¿Qué ha de ocurrir para que se comprenda la gravedad de esto? #PSOE #Elecciones #Democracia

When Pathology Takes Power If the last decade in the West felt unstable, you’re not imagining it. Andrew Lobaczewski studied how psychological pathology can spread into politics and produce “pathocracy”: societies where disordered personalities gain disproportionate power. He argued that revolutionary upheaval drives “negative selection.” Healthy people are pushed out or leave; manipulative, lying, and ruthless personalities rise through institutions. The system keeps its name and funding, but its character changes. At the top are essential psychopaths—empathy- and guilt-free exploiters. Beside them are schizoids who treat people as data and design control systems from abstract theories. Next come spellbinders: charismatic figures who package authoritarian ideas in the language of compassion, using invented moral standards for convenience. Then the spellbound: true believers. Around them gather conformists who comply to protect careers, while resisters are targeted and bystanders adapt to avoid trouble. Lobaczewski estimated a small minority builds the system, a larger group serves it, and most merely adjusts. Over time, society becomes the censor: truth turns dangerous, sanity is labeled extremism, and resistance is punished. The point isn’t only that bad ideas harm. It’s that pathological personalities can exploit good intentions, ideology, and institutional power—so the real conflict is psychological health versus pathology, and healthy institutions must be able to recognize the difference.

Why Psychopaths Rise to Power: What Hitler, Stalin & Mao Had in Common Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski argued that in certain conditions, psychologically disordered people can rise through institutions and create “pathocracy,” where pathological personalities gain disproportionate power. He described “negative selection”: upheaval pushes aside those with conscience and competence while manipulative, ruthless figures thrive. At the core are psychopaths, who feel little guilt or empathy and use normal human weaknesses as tools. Around them are schizoids, ideological architects who turn abstractions into systems for managing people. Next are spellbinders, charismatic leaders who frame authoritarian ideas as moral duty. Together they produce “paramoralisms”—moral standards that invert reality: dissent becomes extremism, censorship becomes protection, coercion becomes compassion. Beneath them are true believers and conformists who follow out of conviction or career safety, echoing Milgram’s insight that the key question is who gives the orders. Finally come bystanders, a frightened majority that adapts to avoid trouble until self-policing replaces external coercion. Lobaczewski’s warning: pathological behavior becomes far more dangerous when society mistakes it for morality. The real struggle isn’t left vs. right—it’s whether institutions can preserve truth and resist normalization of destructive behavior.

The Tolerance That Censors Institutions preach tolerance, yet disagreement is increasingly punished. As protected classes expand, demands for compliance, surveillance, and reporting grow. A tolerance-saturated society becomes hostile to dissent. Many call it hypocrisy, but the contradiction may be strategy. In 1965, Herbert Marcuse’s *Repressive Tolerance* argued that liberal “equal hearing” can perpetuate oppression. “Liberating tolerance,” he claimed, must discriminate: intolerance toward the Right, tolerance toward the Left. Why? Classical Marxism expected industrial workers to revolt from misery. Instead, comfort increased and revolution stalled. The Frankfurt School offered a remedy: capitalism colonized consciousness, creating “false consciousness.” If factory revolt won’t start, revolution must begin in the formation of minds—culture, education, psychology, entertainment. If so, neutrality becomes the enemy. Free debate spreads the system’s ideas. Elections let prisoners choose their preferred warden. Liberal freedoms act as “steam valves,” releasing pressure to prevent revolt. Tolerance becomes directional: oppressive ideas are suppressed; liberating ideas are amplified. Censorship and punishment are reframed as freedom’s highest expression. Marcuse also recognized liberal resistance to censorship and proposed “emergency” suspensions when oppression is deemed urgent—a logic echoed when speech is treated as harm and coercion as protection. The unsettling possibility is that nothing is malfunctioning: tolerance may function as a weapon. The final stage requires no visible censor—the individual internalizes it, policing their own thoughts.

Why Weak Societies Choose Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would be a system that allows politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, an eerily relatable dystopian novel, with this idea at the forefront. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, there is no overt oppression. The state does not have to stamp on human faces with its jackboots or erect an inescapable surveillance state. Rather, the people of Brave New World happily chain themselves with meaningless pleasure and distractions. The authorities do not rule through terror and rage, the central elements of 1984, but instead give the people everything they ever wanted. A pharmaceutical called Soma becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, likens it to Christianity without tears. While religion requires years of moral training, Soma allows citizens to achieve peace simply by swallowing tablets. It is the perfect escape from reality, a holiday from the facts. Lenina, the female counterpart to the protagonist Bernard, cannot comprehend why he refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard states, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina sees this as a sort of pathology and repeatedly encourages him to take the wonder drug. Bernard explains, “I want to know what passion is.” He understands that there is more to life than merely being content, craving genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than being emotionally regulated by the World State. Lenina’s bewilderment stems from her conditioning to regard unhappiness as a technical problem, encapsulated in the society’s common saying that “a gram is better than a damn.” The people of Brave New World are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the scientific state, relieving people of the responsibility of parenthood. This grants them the ability to engage in promiscuity, where everyone belongs to everyone else, while filling their free time with cheap entertainment and endless sporting events—what would be referred to as slop today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through the lens of fear, while Huxley saw it through pleasure. There was no need to ban a book in Brave New Worldbecause there was no one who wanted to read one. An abundance of low-quality information rendered censorship unnecessary because no one could hear the truth through all the noise. Huxley threw shade at civil libertarians who passionately opposed tyranny because they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions. Humanity in its rawest form is portrayed by John the Savage, an outsider free from the World State’s conditioning. Upon coming face-to-face with this spiritually neutered society, he completely rejects it: “I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.” Huxley’s dystopia is not imposed on an unwilling population but instead requested by a hollow one. Which leads us to the question: How do people become so weak that they get on their knees and beg for totalitarianism? Good times make bad times possible. Once a certain level of luxury and safety is achieved, people start to resemble the hobbits from the Shire. They are so far removed from evil that they forget it even exists and become defenseless in the face of it. Andrew Lobaczewski, who studied the psychology of totalitarianism from inside Poland’s communist takeover, wrote: “During good times, people progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection. They lose the capacity to differentiate human nature, and emotion begins to dominate intellect. Once a critical mass starts operating on the pleasure principle, any excess mental effort seems like pointless labor.” Lobaczewski warned that it is not as simple as some people losing the ability to think rationally. It is worse, because those people then shame anyone capable of doing so. A clever, liberal, and merry individual is a good sport. A more far-sighted person predicting dire results becomes a wet blanket, a killjoy. The ability to have uncomfortable conversations without emotion taking over is, in Lobaczewski’s view, an indicator of whether a society’s future will be good or bad. It is easier to think about pleasant things. This leads people to eliminate any data or facts that cause them discomfort. That becomes a habit and eventually a custom accepted by society at large. Once the general populace accepts that inconvenient truths should be left unsaid, it becomes incapable of reaching correct conclusions. After all, how could you ever describe a picture that you refuse to look at? “Catastrophe waits in the wings of the communities that lose the capacity for psychological reason and moral criticism,” Lobaczewski wrote. “It is on the other side of this weakening of thought that the processes of the generation of evil are intensified at every social scale until they give rise to bad times.” It is precisely man’s dreams of happiness that can lead to chaos and suffering. This hedonistic view of happiness contains the seeds of misery, feeding the eternal cycle whereby good times give birth to bad times. Friedrich Nietzsche viewed socialism as demanding comfort for the greatest number of people possible. To question whether it is good for the masses to live in comfort has become a form of heresy. This reveals the spiritual atrophy that so many suffer from. Considering only the weak believe comfort to be a virtue, it is what Carl Jung would describe as the infantile dream state of mass dependency: the desire to gently slip back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise of parental care. Except this lack of friction has consequences. The perfect state destroys the soil in which great intellect grows. Genius, struggle, passion, strength, and wisdom are required to build a safe and abundant society. Yet once a certain level of comfort is achieved, it can destroy the very virtues required to obtain it. Nietzsche observed that it is the warmest heart that aims to alleviate suffering and hardship but fails to realize that it thereby wills the destruction of its own foundation. Comfort breeds mediocrity, which is then called good. Small people want one thing above all: that no one hurt them. We have taken this pathology to such a degree that we now obsess over hurt feelings and call this virtue. Pleasure, in its proper place, is a byproduct of meaningful goals, not a goal in itself. Aristotle saw that pleasure and comfort distort perception and proper judgment. While they do not cause us to misjudge something like geometry or mathematics, they can destroy our ability to decide what is worth pursuing and, therefore, what to do. Consider The Odyssey. Homer depicts Odysseus’ men on the island of the Lotus-Eaters, where they taste the fruit and lose all desire to go home. Much like Huxley’s Brave New World, they are not imprisoned. Rather, they simply stop wanting anything more. Odysseus has to drag his men back to the ships while they weep to stay. This is what comfort can do to men. It empties them of purpose. We intuitively understand this but fail to apply it to our own lives. We must make the same choice as Odysseus when he refuses Calypso’s offer of endless comfort and immortality. He knows she is more beautiful than his wife Penelope waiting at home. He knows that he and Penelope will grow old and die, a fate he could avoid by staying with Calypso. No one who reads these stories wishes he had stayed. We want him to choose the hard way home because if he took the offer, he would stop being admirable. Yet staying is exactly what our modern society asks of us. We are told that the island is the good life. But what happens to the man who caves to this temptation? In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche imagines a risk-averse society taken to its logical endpoint. The elimination of all struggle produces a man so diminished that he fails to possess even self-contempt or higher aspiration. Safety and sameness become the highest goals, creating “no shepherd in one herd.” Anyone who seeks to be anything more than normal becomes an aberration to be dealt with. Or, as Nietzsche puts it, they have “made the wolf a dog in man himself, man’s best domestic animal.”

The Pinnacle of Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would allow politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion—because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World* explores this idea through an eerily relatable dystopian society. Unlike Orwell’s *1984*, Huxley’s world contains no obvious oppression. The state does not need to “stamp on a human face—forever.” Instead, citizens willingly chain themselves to pleasure and distraction. Authorities do not rule through terror, but by giving people everything they think they want. Soma, a government-approved drug, becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustafa Mond, the World Controller, compares it to Christianity without the suffering. By swallowing a few tablets, citizens can escape reality—a temporary holiday from the facts. Lenina cannot understand why Bernard refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard says, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina views his desire for authenticity as a kind of illness. Bernard wants to experience passion and recognizes that life involves more than contentment. He craves genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than emotional regulation by the World State. Lenina’s confusion results from her conditioning, which teaches her to view unhappiness as a technical problem. This belief is captured by the saying, “A gram is better than a dam.” The citizens of *Brave New World* are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the state, relieving people of the responsibilities of parenthood. Their free time is filled with promiscuity, cheap entertainment, and endless sporting events—what might be called “slop” today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through fear, while Huxley imagined a society where oppression would be unnecessary because people would willingly surrender themselves to pleasure. There would be no need to ban books, because no one would want to read them. An abundance of low-quality information would make censorship unnecessary; the truth would be drowned out by noise. Huxley warned that people’s “almost infinite appetite for distractions” could make tyranny not only possible, but welcome.

Há 26 anos busco aprender e contribuir para o crescimento de um movimento que veio para ficar. Jamais imaginei tudo o que viveríamos ao longo dessa trajetória. Foram 7 mandatos consecutivos como vereador e 2 recordes históricos de votação, sendo um deles no último pleito. Nesse período, tivemos mais de 60 leis aprovadas e, principalmente, atuamos para impedir, por meio de instrumentos regimentais, diálogo e convencimento, que mais de uma centena de medidas prejudiciais avançassem. Metade dos meus mandatos foi com o pé no chão, sem internet, em um tempo em que ser vereador era uma verdadeira batalha diária, marcada por enorme responsabilidade, sendo cada cálculo uma grande conquista, visto que não existiam redes sociais. Tive oportunidades de voos mais altos, mas escolhi permanecer fiel a algo maior do que eu. Nunca houve arrependimento algum. Escolhi Santa Catarina para morar porque sempre amei estar aqui e trago comigo toda a bagagem da vida, sendo apenas mais um entre os mais de 500 mil migrantes que escolheram este estado, segundo o último censo, para ser meu lar. Trago comigo minha experiência e caráter para o povo escolher se sou merecedor de sua confiança. Contem comigo, SEMPRE! Senador Carlos Bolsonaro 2️⃣2️⃣2️⃣ Isto é mais um pouquinho do Carlos. Saiba mais informações sobre nossa trajetória: https://t.co/tBHA3OECyI #Política #SantaCatarina #Cidadania

Freedom of expression is in sharp decline. @UNESCO’s World Trends Report shows a 10% ⬇️decline over 3 years, with media self-censorship up ⬆️ 63% over 12 years. Media are a fundamental public good. We must stay united to protect media & press freedom. 📖 https://t.co/Lz6sa0kTp0 https://t.co/tjPzSfYRKr #PressFreedom #MediaDiversity #FreedomOfExpression #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.

My former philosophy department at @UGent banned the teaching of this paper by Anomaly & Faria, in a philosophy class by my colleague Bouke De Vries. Why? Because it discusses demography and migration as potential threats to liberal societies, and something called “biocultural https://t.co/7bfIx7SSLy #Philosophy #Migration #Censorship #Thetweetdoesnotmentionanyspecificcountries.Therefore #therearenocountrycodestoreturn.

The electoral fraud is already taken for granted due to the manipulation of the census and the massive granting of nationality, which is completely irregular and illegal due to the lack of will for properly documented and controlled processing. In the elections, it will be seen if that is enough to hide it. (translated)