Search

Comme d'habitude dans la manipulation. Après avoir boudé les messes, E.M. fait un 180° et ira finalement à la dernière messe du Pape. Vu l'immense succès de la visite, il se dit qu'il faut récupérer l'événement pour ensuite l'instrumentaliser. Sauf que nous avons tous vu que les valeurs du Pape sont à l'opposé des siennes. Et qu'en 3 jours le Pape a donné plus d'amour, de considération, d'écoute et d'abondance au peuple Français que lui en 10 ans. Le Pape parle de PAIX, d' AMOUR, d'Unité, d'Individu, de Dignité, de VIE quand l'autre ne parle que de guerre, de mort, de collectivisme, de communautés, de qr codes, de division et de pénuries. Le contraste est saisissant et irréversible. #Paix #Amour #Dignité

Cela ne serait pas un état d’urgence social mais un état d’urgence antisocial, d’abord contre ceux qui travaillent et produisent, et par ricochet contre tous les Français Résultats connus d’avance : pénurie, rationnement, montée de la pauvreté, autoritarisme liberticide pour réprimer le mécontentement. À toutes les époques et sous toutes les latitudes, le collectivisme a conduit à la dictature et à la misère des peuples. #UrgenceSociale #Collectivisme #Pauvreté

Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles

Who Owned the Word “Socialism”? One of the great distortions of twentieth-century political history is the claim that because Nazis and fascists fought Marxists and communists, they must therefore have been their political opposites — and hence “right-wing.” That conclusion does not follow. Marxists, communists, fascists and National Socialists all described their movements in socialist or collectivist terms, though they understood socialism very differently. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, while fascism emerged partly from the revolutionary socialist milieu and retained strong anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and collectivist elements. The crucial development was that Marxists and communists increasingly established themselves as the authoritative owners of the word “socialism.” As Marxism became the dominant form of revolutionary socialism, “socialist” increasingly came to mean specifically Marxist, class-based and internationalist socialism. Movements that rejected Marxism could therefore appear to be its political opposite simply because they fought Marxists. But political enemies are not necessarily ideological opposites. Nazis and fascists competed with communists and other socialists for overlapping constituencies — workers, lower-middle-class voters and people alienated by liberal capitalism and parliamentary politics. Their conflict was therefore not simply socialism versus its opposite, but also a struggle between rival forms of post-liberal collectivism. This is where Hayek and Mises matter. Neither claimed that communism, fascism and Nazism were identical. Their argument was that these movements belonged to a broader anti-liberal, collectivist tradition, despite their profound differences and mutual hostility. A socialist movement can fight another socialist movement. Communists and social democrats did precisely that. So the question cannot be settled by asking whom the Nazis and fascists persecuted. It must be settled by examining the principles and political objectives they themselves advocated. “They fought socialists, therefore they were right-wing” is not an argument. It is a conclusion disguised as one.

“Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles” - ChatGPT

“Who Owned the Word “Socialism”? One of the great distortions of twentieth-century political history is the claim that because Nazis and fascists fought Marxists and communists, they must therefore have been their political opposites — and hence “right-wing.” That conclusion does not follow. Marxists, communists, fascists and National Socialists all described their movements in socialist or collectivist terms, though they understood socialism very differently. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, while fascism emerged partly from the revolutionary socialist milieu and retained strong anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and collectivist elements. The crucial development was that Marxists and communists increasingly established themselves as the authoritative owners of the word “socialism.” As Marxism became the dominant form of revolutionary socialism, “socialist” increasingly came to mean specifically Marxist, class-based and internationalist socialism. Movements that rejected Marxism could therefore appear to be its political opposite simply because they fought Marxists. But political enemies are not necessarily ideological opposites. Nazis and fascists competed with communists and other socialists for overlapping constituencies — workers, lower-middle-class voters and people alienated by liberal capitalism and parliamentary politics. Their conflict was therefore not simply socialism versus its opposite, but also a struggle between rival forms of post-liberal collectivism. This is where Hayek and Mises matter. Neither claimed that communism, fascism and Nazism were identical. Their argument was that these movements belonged to a broader anti-liberal, collectivist tradition, despite their profound differences and mutual hostility. A socialist movement can fight another socialist movement. Communists and social democrats did precisely that. So the question cannot be settled by asking whom the Nazis and fascists persecuted. It must be settled by examining the principles and political objectives they themselves advocated. “They fought socialists, therefore they were right-wing” is not an argument. It is a conclusion disguised as one” - ChatGPT

The Psychology of the Modern Leftist Once you understand the psychology of the modern leftist, the last decade of the woke revolution makes more sense. The endless outrage, hypersensitivity, and rejection of rational debate may reflect something deeper than ideology: a crisis of self-worth expressed as a moral crusade. “Leftist” is a broad term, but here it refers to socialists, collectivists, LGBTQ activists, and similar movements. What unites them may be more than politics; it may also be a psychological orientation. Modern leftism can be associated with feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, guilt, self-hatred, and resentment. These feelings may be repressed while still influencing behavior. The hypersensitivity to language illustrates this. Words once used without negative intent can become symbols of oppression through activist campaigns. Ironically, those most offended are sometimes privileged academics rather than the minorities they claim to defend. Many leftists identify with groups perceived as weak or disadvantaged. This may reflect genuine compassion, but it can also involve projecting personal feelings of weakness onto others. Strength, success, competition, and rationality can consequently become objects of suspicion. Western civilization, America, and other symbols of power may be treated similarly. The criticism can also be inconsistent. Flaws condemned in Western societies may be excused when found in socialist regimes or traditional cultures. This suggests that resentment may sometimes play a role alongside genuine moral concerns. Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and merit are often viewed skeptically, while collectivism is favored. Objective truth can also become threatening because it creates distinctions: some arguments are better than others, and some people succeed while others fail. When equality of outcome becomes the moral standard, truth, merit, and individualism may be attacked—not necessarily to uplift the oppressed, but to reduce psychological discomfort. When victimhood becomes central to identity, problems may no longer simply be discovered; they can become necessary to sustain that identity.

2/3 The volume asks a broader and important question: how did Central Europe — a region once associated with strong collectivist traditions and mass parties of the Left — come, within a single generation, to have so few credible left-wing political forces? #CentralEurope #LeftPolitics #Collectivism #CZ #SK #HU #PL #AT #DE

🔐l'État a désormais comme mission tacite l'expropriation, la confiscation et la ponction du maximum de taxes. C'est une guerre contre l'entrepreneuriat et la propriété privée. Quand nous parlons d'UERSS, c'est pour résumer la stratégie désormais visible d'une fusion du collectivisme pour le peuple avec un capitalisme oligarchique pour une poignée de Davosiens. Tout est là. C'est la clé de compréhension. Tout le reste n'est que blabla de temporisation. #Entrepreneuriat #LibertéÉconomique #Collectivisme