Search

De marxistische geest is uit de fles bij bankzitter @jesseklaver. Onze eikeltjespyama vindt de stikstofplannen te slap, had dat graag anders gezien. Je adoratie voor het totalitaire communisme hangt uit je broek Jesse, doe potverdorie je rits eens dicht? https://t.co/5a2Lf5CAOd #politiek #stikstofbeleid #communisme

From Powerlessness to Collective Madness The world has gone crazy, but there is a pattern behind it. More people seem to be losing their grip on reality, swept up in ideological movements that demand conformity and punish dissent. This progression begins with powerlessness, continues with possession, and ends in resentment disguised as justice. The first stage is the breakdown of what can be called the power process. Human beings need to set goals, work toward them, and achieve them in order to feel whole. Once, daily life revolved around hunting, farming, building, and creating. Today, survival and progress are often managed by vast systems and institutions. As a result, many people feel alienated and powerless. They turn to movements for a sense of purpose, drawing progress not from their personal lives, but from the causes they embrace. Carl Jung described what happens next. Inside a movement, individuals can become possessed by collective identities. Those who refuse the difficult task of becoming themselves may dissolve into the group mind. This is why ideologies such as communism, nationalism, feminism, socialism, and environmentalism can exert such power: they offer ready-made identities and moral clarity. Individuals gradually stop thinking for themselves and become mouthpieces for the collective identity that has seized them. Nietzsche revealed the final stage: resentment. In *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*, he described the “tarantulas”—moral preachers who spin ideological webs in the name of justice. They claim to champion the weak, but their motivation may be envy and revenge, cloaked in noble language. Their goal is not always to uplift, but to tear down the strong. When the world seems to have gone mad, the pattern is clear: people lose the power process in their own lives, surrender themselves to ideologies, and then act out their resentment as justice. The cure is not another movement, but the difficult task of reclaiming individuality in an age of collective madness.

The 7 Types of People Who Create Evil Societies Andrew Łobaczewski, a psychiatrist who lived under Nazism and Communism in Poland, proposed political ponerology: pathological personalities and social dynamics can generate totalitarian systems. He describes seven recurring types: 1) **Psychopaths**: power seekers who gain control via coercion, intimidation, and violence. 2) **Schizoids**: ideological engineers who craft abstract systems and utopian theories; if reality conflicts, they rationalize more rather than revise. 3) **Spellbinders**: propagandists who convert ideology into slogans, moral stories, and emotional appeals that sort “good/evil” and define the in‑group. 4) **The Spellbound**: true believers who absorb the message and enforce it socially, driven by moral certainty; they often recruit through institutions and peer networks. 5) **Adapted Conformists**: quiet enablers who comply from fear and self‑preservation, often within bureaucracy (“I’m just doing my job”). 6) **Resistors**: a moral minority who refuse cooperation and prioritize conscience, often paying costs like isolation or punishment. 7) **Bystanders**: a passive majority who stay silent through fear, confusion, and disengagement. Together: psychopaths hold power; schizoids supply ideology; spellbinders publicize it; the spellbound enforce it; conformists administer; bystanders tolerate; resistors challenge. Crucially, totalitarianism doesn’t require everyone to be fanatical—enforcers and ideologues can pressure the wider population to comply. It can arise under many systems (communist, fascist, theocratic, etc.), not just left vs right.

When Morality Becomes a Weapon Having the “correct” opinion doesn’t make you a good person. Our age is increasingly ruled by those who believe it does. In *The Brothers Karamazov*, Dostoevsky shows this through the Grand Inquisitor, who imagines Christ returning during the Spanish Inquisition. He arrests Him for threatening an institution that claims to represent Him. The Inquisitor argues people don’t truly want Christ’s freedom; they want bread, certainty, and someone to carry the burden of choice. He eventually admits they don’t need Christ’s teachings—only His moral authority. Dostoevsky reveals how power works: dominators can hide behind morality, while the dominated may trade freedom for the comfort of having others decide. Later, Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski observed communism invoking “the people” to justify terror and execution. He argued that a small minority without conscience can rise during revolutionary upheavals, with ideology serving as moral camouflage. The lesson: moral language can be weaponized by those lacking moral character. Words like justice, equality, safety, harm, care, and compassion can become tools of control. Return to Aristotle’s view of virtue: virtue isn’t a belief you hold but a habit you practice. We become just by repeatedly doing just things; bravery comes from doing brave things. No slogan can replace character.

The Deadly Seduction of Democratic Socialism Young people are being urged to support “democratic” socialism—ideas blamed for tens of millions of deaths in the last century—promising that consent will make it work this time. But consent cannot make an economic system wise. A ballot cannot set the right prices for wages, goods, or services, nor prevent shortages, repression, or famine. This isn’t fringe. New York elected Zohran Mamdani, who says there should be no billionaires and backs rent freezes, state-run grocery stores, free CUNY, and higher taxes. Polling shows strong support for socialism and communism among Americans under 30. The core error is believing resources can be taken from creators and transferred without losing the knowledge that made them productive. Mao’s China illustrates the outcome: land reform dispossessed and killed landowners, production collapsed as local expertise was treated as an enemy, and grain seizures during the Great Leap Forward worsened a catastrophic famine. The lesson: destroying incentives, property rights, and local knowledge destroys production itself. Envy is often disguised as justice. Communist regimes cultivated resentment and turned grievance into political energy, making societies less focused on creating wealth and more focused on making others lose it. Even when central planners tried to subordinate families to the state, people preserved knowledge through markets, private plots, and community practice. Civilization isn’t a machine bureaucrats can redesign. Take away property and you don’t automatically transfer knowledge—abundance can vanish with it. Redistribution may promise equality, but if it destroys the people, incentives, and knowledge that produce abundance, the result is a hungry one.

The Transitional Logic of Political Violence A recurring problem in revolutionary and religious political movements is that violence may be justified as a temporary measure for establishing a new political order, while the institutions created to suppress perceived enemies can become permanent. In Marxist-Leninist theory, the transition from capitalism to communism involved a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The coercive state was ultimately expected to “wither away” once class conflict disappeared. In practice, however, revolutionary governments developed extensive systems of repression. The Russian Revolution was followed by the Red Terror, Stalin’s purges institutionalized persecution of alleged internal enemies, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution demonstrated how political repression could re-emerge long after revolutionary power had been established. A comparable dynamic can be examined in some interpretations of Islamic political thought, although the ideological foundations are different. Ridda (apostasy) has, in certain historical contexts, been associated with both religious and political disloyalty. The early Ridda Wars illustrate how religious and political boundaries could become intertwined. In modern history, the 1988 executions of political prisoners in Iran provide another example of religious or ideological accusations being used to justify state violence. The important question is not whether these traditions are identical—they are not—but whether their political applications can create similar institutional dynamics. When governments define groups as existential threats, extraordinary measures may initially be presented as temporary. Once institutionalized, however, the definition of the “enemy” can expand. The fundamental risk is that a transitional period of coercion may lack a mechanism for returning to normal political conditions. If authorities can continually redefine internal enemies, emergency powers can become permanent. The broader lesson is universal: political systems should be judged not only by the order they promise, but also by the safeguards that prevent temporary coercive powers from becoming permanent.

A Manifesto Written Like Scripture** Marxism is not merely an economic theory; it resembles a religion for those filled with resentment. The Communist Manifesto opens with spiritual language, declaring that “a spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism,” indicating a spiritual war rather than an economic agenda. While supporters claim it seeks to redistribute wealth for equity, the text itself lacks words like “neighbor” or “love” in a positive context. Instead, it frequently uses terms like “violence,” “overthrow,” and “abolish,” emphasizing destruction rather than construction. Marx's concrete proposals focus on seizure and confiscation, with little mention of a classless utopia. He advocated for the “ruthless criticism of all that exists,” suggesting a totalizing worldview that dismisses the possibility of reform. Marxists often argue that true communism has never been realized, yet historical figures like Stalin and Mao embodied the totalitarian ambitions outlined in the Manifesto. Bertrand Russell noted that Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics, quoting Marx like scripture. He drew parallels between Marxism and religion, with Marx as a Messiah and the Communist Party as a Church. The Manifesto states that its goals can only be achieved through the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” indicating a desire to destroy the current world. Interestingly, many Marxist leaders, including Marx himself, came from privileged backgrounds, contradicting the narrative that Marxism serves the oppressed. This pattern continues today, with Marxism appealing primarily to educated individuals from affluent families who face financial stress for the first time. Marxism shifts the concept of sin from individuals to the bourgeoisie, absolving its followers from personal accountability. This doctrine promotes pride, envy, and resentment, elevating hatred of the wealthy as a virtue. It lacks a pathway to forgiveness, viewing class origin as a crime inherited from ancestors. Ultimately, Marxism is not an economic theory but a destructive religion that justifies violence against entire classes in the pursuit of a misguided salvation.

The Elite Origins of Marxist Revolution Bertrand Russell, a socialist who visited Moscow in 1920, observed that the Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics more than political theorists. Lenin quoted Marx and Engels as a pastor recites Scripture. In his *History of Western Philosophy*, Russell described the parallels: dialectical materialism replaces God, the Communist Party becomes the church, communist revolution the Second Coming, punishment for capitalists hell, and the communist commonwealth heaven. The *Communist Manifesto* declares that its aims can be achieved only through “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Marx sought to destroy the existing world and assumed that an undefined utopia would rise. If Marxism claims to speak for the oppressed, why has it so often been adopted by elites? Marx came from an upper-middle-class family that owned vineyards and employed servants. Friedrich Engels, his chief supporter and financier, inherited wealth from his family’s textile business. Lenin’s family owned property and employed servants, while Mao Zedong’s family was considerably wealthier than ordinary Chinese peasants. Fidel Castro’s family owned a large estate, Che Guevara came from an affluent background, and Pol Pot’s family had connections to Cambodia’s royal court. Pol Pot encountered Marxism while studying in Paris. These men went on to create, support, or lead revolutions that killed millions of the people they claimed to represent. This was no accident. The *Communist Manifesto* states that “a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat,” especially those who understand “the historical movement as a whole.” Marx therefore incorporated an explanation for his own class position into the movement’s founding text. Lenin expanded this idea, arguing that workers left to themselves could achieve only “trade-union consciousness.” Socialist theory, he believed, had to be brought to them by educated elites—the revolutionary vanguard. Although Marxism and communism are commonly portrayed as movements created for the poor, the men who developed and led them were, almost without exception, members of the elite.

Marxism: A Religion of Destruction and Resentment Marxism is not an economic theory. It is a religion for destructive and resentful losers. The *Communist Manifesto* opens with spiritual language. Marx and Engels declare that “a specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism”—and that “all the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance” to exercise this specter. Academics and useful idiots claim that the doctrine aims to redistribute wealth in order to create a more equitable world, erasing the distinction between the haves and the have-nots. It is all about love and compassion, guys. Yet, in the roughly 12,000 words of the authorized *Communist Manifesto*, Marx does not use these words of positive affirmation. “Neighbor” is not mentioned, “redistribute” does not appear, and “love” is used twice—but not in reference to loving anybody else. Now consider the opposite. “Violent” or “violence” is used seven times; “overthrow,” nine times; “radical,” fifteen times; “force,” “forced,” or “forcible,” forty-seven times; and “abolish” or “abolition,” sixty-one times. The doctrine is presented as something achieved through violence, revolution, and theft. The one place Marx gets concrete is in his list of ten measures, and every one of them involves a seizure, a confiscation, or an abolition. Of the classless heaven that is supposedly meant to follow, he says almost nothing. Rather, writing to Arnold Ruge in September 1843, Marx claims that his program is “the ruthless criticism of all that exists”—that everything is worthy of criticism—and builds his work from there. Perhaps he was echoing a line from Goethe’s *Faust* that had caught his attention: “All that exists deserves to perish,” a line spoken by a devil. This is another pattern in Marx’s thought. He is not a reformer aiming to make a tweak here or there. His language is totalizing: all, every, everything. Marxists constantly claim that real communism has never been tried. They argue that totalitarian psychopaths such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were merely defects or deviations. Yet their attempts to control everything, down to thought itself, echo the dogma of the *Communist Manifesto*.

They are a policy tool and this policy tool was extensively used by fascist and communist governments. But they are not like taxation because they are not necessary to raise revenue, they are a choice pursued by those who don't like market outcomes, often with disastrous effects #PolicyTool #Fascism #Communism #Nospecificcountrycodesarepresentinthetweet.

La plupart des jeunes qui défendent encore le socialisme ou le communisme tombent dans le même piège de débutant. Ils pointent la Chine et disent : « Vous voyez, ça marche. » C’est exactement l’erreur. La Chine d’aujourd’hui n’a plus rien de communiste ni de socialiste. Elle a commencé à sortir de la misère le jour où elle a arrêté d’en faire. Sous Mao, le « Grand Bond en avant » (1958-1962) a produit la plus grande famine volontaire de l’histoire humaine. Entre 30 et 45 millions de morts de faim. Pas à cause d’une sécheresse. À cause d’une idéologie qui a forcé la collectivisation, inventé des chiffres de production, puni ceux qui disaient la vérité et confisqué le grain jusqu’à ce que les paysans meurent. Mao savait. Il a même déclaré qu’il valait mieux que la moitié meure pour que l’autre moitié mange à sa faim. C’est le socialisme réel. Pas le rêve de collège. Le système où l’État décide de tout, où la vérité devient un crime, et où les corps s’empilent pendant que les dirigeants mangent. Après Mao, Deng Xiaoping a ouvert la porte au marché, à la propriété privée, aux prix, aux entrepreneurs. La Chine a explosé. Pas parce qu’elle a « perfectionné le socialisme ». Parce qu’elle l’a contourné. Le socialisme, dans sa version pure, n’est pas une théorie économique élégante. C’est un mécanisme très simple : On prend l’argent par la force (impôts, confiscations, inflation). On le confie à des politiques et à des bureaucrates. On leur dit de « redistribuer » et de « planifier ». Le problème n’est pas que ces gens soient tous méchants. Le problème, c’est qu’ils n’ont aucune peau dans le jeu. Ils ne risquent pas leur propre argent. Ils ne subissent pas le feedback immédiat du marché. Ils peuvent mentir, gaspiller, protéger leurs amis, et continuer. Regardez autour de vous. France Télévisions : plus de 2,5 milliards d’euros d’argent public par an, déficits chroniques, salaires de cadres à plus de 200 000 €, millions en taxis et réceptions, résidences de comités d’entreprise. Pendant que le service public s’enfonce, l’argent continue de couler. Ce n’est pas une exception. C’est le pattern. Quand tu enlèves la responsabilité personnelle et le prix de l’erreur, tu obtiens exactement ça : corruption douce, gaspillages, mensonges institutionnalisés, et une classe qui se protège elle-même. Les jeunes qui croient encore au socialisme pensent qu’il s’agit de justice. En réalité, c’est un système qui transforme la compassion en machine à produire de la misère et de l’hypocrisie. La Chine l’a appris dans le sang. L’URSS l’a appris dans le sang. Le Cambodge l’a appris dans le sang. On n’a plus besoin de recommencer l’expérience pour un ado de 2026. Le socialisme n’est pas une idée mal comprise. C’est une arnaque structurelle qui a toujours produit les mêmes résultats : pauvreté, mensonge, et une élite qui prétend sauver le peuple pendant qu’elle vit autrement. Nommer. Refuser de jouer. Et construire ce que ce système est incapable de créer. #Socialisme #Économie #Histoire

#OTD in 1920, in the #BattleOfWarsaw the #PolishArmy defeated the Bolshevik #RedArmy advancing westward to spread communism throughout Europe. It was the first great victory of the free world over communism. Poles stopped the Bolshevik onslaught, saving the whole of Europe. #BattleOfWarsaw #PolishArmy #RedArmy #PL #RU