Search

Frankly shameful views expressed by a member of current US administration (the same who earlier tried to blame the rise in oil prices on UKR). Defending Russia, a sworn enemy, while criticising an ally?! Impossible to understand and excuse. History will judge this very harshly.👇 #USPolitics #Russia #OilPrices #US #UKR #RU

CHANCELLOR STOCKER: ISLAM IS NOT THE ENEMY. PUTIN AND THE MULLAHS ARE THE ENEMY. @_CStocker Austria must finally distinguish between millions of peaceful Muslims and the authoritarian regimes and ideologies that threaten Europe. My position is clear: 🇦🇹 Austria shall join NATO. https://t.co/a3R523mTMG #Austria #NATO #Islam #AT #RU

Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “CGAS (Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale) and related gender ideological-belief measures were strongly associated with left-wing authoritarianism” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “CGAS (Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale) was not simply standing in for being politically left-wing” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Support for coercion, punishment, and violence appears to be tied less to liberalism generally than to an authoritarian disposition organized around left-wing ideological content” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Gender ideology may function as an ideological accelerant” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Gender ideology may supply authoritarian psychology with a structured map of perceived outgroups, threat sources, and oppressor classes” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Dissent becomes not a legitimate position but a failure of professional duty or an act of harm” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “The same psychological machinery operates on the extreme left”- Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Violence can come to seem permissible or necessary” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Three findings pull in the same direction. People who strongly endorse gender ideology positions score dramatically higher on left-wing authoritarianism than their political identity alone would predict. Furthermore, both LWA (Left-Wing Authoritarianism) and CGAS (Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale) predicted support for political violence” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Together, these findings support the paper's core claim: gender ideology may function as an ideological accelerant, telling left-wing authoritarian psychology who the enemy is, why the situation is urgent, and—in those already disposed toward force—that violence is legitimate” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “One mechanism by which clinical content may translate into violence permission deserves note. Trans-Genocide Belief—the perceived likelihood that a genocide of individuals that identify as transgender is currently underway in the United States—is predicted to more strongly relate to CGAS (Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale) and LWA (Left-Wing Authoritarianism) than to political identity and to be associated with elevated justification for political violence” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “This prediction is consistent with broader research showing that perceived threat, existential threat, and collective victimhood can increase support for hardline, punitive, or exclusionary action against outgroups, particularly when paired with authoritarian dispositions or strong moral conviction (Armaly & Enders, 2022; Carriere et al., 2022; Hirschberger et al., 2016; Kljajić et al., 2025; Schori-Eyal et al., 2014; Skitka, 2010)” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Related work on moralization and violent intergroup conflict further suggests that when a political conflict is framed as a moral emergency involving dangerous or demonized outgroups, violence can come to seem permissible or necessary (Mooijman et al., 2018; Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022)” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “The practical stakes are straightforward. Research frameworks for understanding authoritarianism have historically focused overwhelmingly on the political right, while analogous left-wing pathways have received far less attention. Yet federal agencies and public safety officials are concerned not only with ideology in the abstract, but with radicalization pathways: the content that tells people who to fear, why the situation is urgent, and when force becomes acceptable” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology “This study suggests that the same psychological machinery operates on the extreme left, and that it may be running through institutional channels—clinical guidelines, professional standards, credentialed expertise—that current threat-detection frameworks are not well designed to recognize” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Violence connected to gender ideology remains largely undocumented in the academic literature. This study provides a first systematic empirical look at the psychological infrastructure that makes such violence conceivable” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Both LWA (Left-Wing Authoritarianism) and CGAS (Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale) were significantly positively correlated with justification for political violence across all six targets” - Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? “Our main findings for youth starting treatment with blockers include: At baseline, about one-quarter of these youth had clinically concerning scores for depression and anxiety. About one-quarter reported having thought about suicide, and 8% reported having attempted suicide in the past. These numbers are on par with the population of middle school youth at large” - The Trans Youth Care - United States “Our main findings for youth starting treatment with GAH include: At baseline, about half of these youth had clinically concerning scores for depression and anxiety. About two-thirds reported having thought about suicide, and one-quarter reported having attempted. By two years after starting GAH, these youth showed increased scores for life satisfaction, appearance congruence (having the physical appearance of one's body match one's gender identity), positive emotions, and psychological well-being and decreased scores for depression and anxiety” - The Trans Youth Care - United States

The Great Feminization, Measured Seventy-two percent of men under thirty hold a positive view of women; among women under thirty, 50% (a 22-point gap). Among women under twenty-five, the share is 35% (a 37-point gap). Where the manosphere and “toxic masculinity” dominate headlines, the data points elsewhere: young women increasingly sort men into the enemy column. The class divide is sharp. Among working-class young women, 61% view men positively; among professional-class women, 36%—a 25-point gap tied to exposure to universities, HR departments, media organizations, and NGOs. The pattern runs through institutional conditioning. Helen Andrews argued this in 2020: between 2015 and 2020 many Western institutions became majority-female, including the New York Times newsroom (2018), law schools (2016), medical schools and the college-educated workforce (2019). Affirmative-action mandates, discrimination settlements, and diversity requirements helped drive the shift. As institutions changed, so did missions: justice increasingly focused on protecting “oppressed” minorities; newsrooms shifted from reporting toward narrative enforcement; universities moved from arguing to “safe spaces.” The result is a “daycare governance model”: infants to be protected (the oppressed), caregivers to provide protection (the allies), and predators to be removed (the dissenters). Research shows the same frame in speech: FIRE’s 2026 college speech rankings found women less tolerant than men across ideologies, including less tolerance for their allies. A woman entering kindergarten in 2005 has spent twenty years inside this system—she didn’t invent it, she inherited it. The 35% figure suggests sorting into victim, ally, and predator, with no grey zones. Working-class women, less conditioned by these pipelines, still view men positively (61–36). None of this is entirely new; Gustave Le Bon described the mechanism in 1895.

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 Psychology Behind Political Violence Political life carries an appetite for violence beneath the surface. A shooter leaves a manifesto; supporters celebrate; online strangers justify killing over insults, misgendering, and fantasies of execution. We’re told these are separate phenomena—different ideologies, grievances, causes—but they’re deeply connected. The murderer, the celebrant, and the online fantasist share one conviction: blood will build a better world. We often assume ideology comes first, violence second—radicalization infecting an otherwise ordinary person. But corrupted people may seek ideologies that rationalize what they already want to believe. Feeling comes first; philosophy follows. Nietzsche called this *ressentiment*: not ordinary anger, but enduring resentment rooted in surrendered agency and perpetual victimhood. Ressentiment is creative: it turns grievance into virtue and revenge into justice. That’s why movements can sound humanitarian while obsessing over enemies. They promise liberation but focus on who must be eliminated; they call violence self-defense while celebrating destruction. Notice the imbalance: energy goes to identifying who deserves punishment, not to explaining how their better society would work. This is the difference between genuine grievance and pathological ressentiment. Genuine grievance seeks repair; ressentiment seeks subtraction. Its “solutions” are fantasies of punishment—heads cut off, privilege liquidated, wrong pronouns punished. These aren’t coherent doctrines of stability; they’re rationalizations for resentment. Ressentiment also despises self-improvement because it requires admitting agency. Its worldview depends on locating suffering outside oneself. The deepest enemy of these movements, then, is not any specific ideology. It is agency itself.

The Noble Enemy: Why You Must Respect the Man You Fight Respect your enemies—and even be thankful. It isn’t weakness; it’s discipline and a mental edge that makes victory possible. Hatred costs you home-field advantage: it hijacks your attention, clarity, and preparation. Anger also misfires. It directs you, exhausting yourself to entertain others. It exposes you, making destruction your only goal so you forget what to preserve—and what the enemy is doing. Lastly, contempt blinds you: if you think you’re superior, you stop training, studying, and preparing, deciding the fight is won before it starts. In Heat, the cop and thief recognize they’re two sides of the same danger. They don’t become less dangerous; they see each other clearly—making the final confrontation tragic. In The Dark Knight, the Joker’s “You complete me” reflects a deeper truth: each gives the other purpose. The hero is defined partly by the villain he must face; the villain by the hero who provides something worthy to oppose. As Nietzsche suggests, be proud of your foes—not to concede, but to commit to discipline. Disrespect makes you stop training; contempt makes you stop scouting; hatred makes you stop listening. The worthier the foe, the worthier the man required to meet him. What you don’t understand, you can’t defeat.

Why Leftist Activists and Revolutionaries Can Never Declare Victory Leftist movements face a paradox: they use oppression narratives to gain institutional power, then keep claiming victimhood as that power grows. Instead of disappearing, activism “shapeshifts” inside bureaucracy, media, academia, corporations, and the arts. Even when DEI is challenged, its structures often remain under new names—diversity becomes “belonging” or “inclusive culture.” The logic is permanent revolution: influence depends on the struggle never ending. Goals shift, new categories of oppression are defined, and intersectionality divides people into ever finer oppressor/oppressed groups, creating an endless hierarchy of grievances. If activists declared victory, the justification for ongoing mobilization would collapse. The risk is social atomization: identities replace shared citizenship, and the state shifts from neutral protector to an instrument for redistributing power between designated victims and oppressors. Bureaucracy and propaganda can replace community and argument. History shows recurring purges—once the revolution’s machinery turns inward, yesterday’s enforcers become today’s targets. The result is also a ressentiment psychology: identity forms around an “enemy,” not one’s own strength. This dynamic helps sustain the consultancy model—identify the guilty, define the aggrieved, and perpetuate conflict. Equality with a finish line is manageable; equality of outcomes is not, so there is always another disparity, injustice, or enemy. The movement fears completion less than failure, because ending would make its power machinery unnecessary.

The Left Didn’t Replace Religion… It Became One Many leaders in the West may reject God, but they often believe with near-religious fervor in something else. The progressive worldview mirrors religion: people still crave meaning, so it gets redirected. Science is treated like scripture interpreted by an expert priesthood; capitalism becomes the fallen world; revolution is purification; climate change is apocalypse with repentance; gender identity is the soul, the “true self” trapped in a betraying body. Without metaphysics, evil must be placed in the material world. For many on the left, Hitler functions as a secular Satan, so anything tied to him can be treated as morally contaminated—nationalism, borders, ethnic identity, masculinity, Europeans, industry, and Western traditions. Jung’s “shadow” is projected onto an enemy, letting adherents feel morally pure while avoiding the harder work of facing their own capacity for evil. Where Christianity locates sin inside every heart (“original sin”), the secular version relocates the flaw into the world—into whiteness, the West, nationalism, borders, or any chosen symbol. This framework makes moral judgment easy and singular: if Hitler is evil, then opponents become “fascists,” “Nazis,” or “Hitler.” Disagreement turns from political to moral and existential. This isn’t a claim that progressives can’t see evil elsewhere—it’s that this framework has become an instinctive moral compass. The ruling class isn’t truly secular: it has its own faith, and increasingly expects you to live by it.

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.

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.

The Never-Ending Movement One of the deepest paradoxes of the social justice movement is that it uses narratives of oppression to gain institutional power, then claims victimhood as that power grows. It is no longer at the gates. It is inside the bureaucracy, media, academia, arts, and corporations it once opposed. Many think “woke” has run out of steam. I think it has solidified. DEI has not disappeared; it has often been renamed. “Diversity and inclusion” becomes “belonging,” while the offices, staff, and mandates remain. The letterhead changes; the apparatus survives. The movement cannot declare victory because victory would mean surrendering its institutional power. A political party wants to govern; a movement must keep moving. Once it stops, it loses its purpose. Intersectionality makes perpetual subdivision possible. People are classified into ever-smaller groups of oppressors and oppressed. Equality before the law has a measurable endpoint. Equality of outcome does not. Every remaining disparity can therefore become evidence that more intervention is needed. Revolutions also tend to consume their own. The Jacobins eventually turned on their fellow revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks purged their own. Mao mobilized the Red Guards before suppressing them. The pattern is simple: stop, and you are a traitor; continue, and eventually you become the target. Nietzsche identified a psychological engine beneath this dynamic: ressentiment. Goodness is defined through opposition to an alleged oppressor, making the enemy a source of moral identity. Remove the enemy and the movement loses its purpose. That is why new grievances and villains must continually be produced. A conventional reform program can declare victory and disappear. Ressentiment cannot, because victory removes the enemy that gives it meaning. The movement therefore may fear completion more than failure. They do not fear that they will fail. They fear that they might finish.

The Evolution of Modern Leftism Left-wing and woke ideology often presents itself through noble ideas: compassion, justice, equality, and progress. But progress toward what? That question is rarely asked. To understand modern leftism, we must look back nearly 200 years. Ideas evolve like viruses: when society develops resistance to one form, academics modify it until it becomes more contagious, destructive, and difficult to recognize. Hegel proposed the dialectic: opposing ideas—a thesis and antithesis—collide to produce a synthesis. Marx applied this framework to economics through dialectical materialism. He viewed history as a struggle between the “haves” and “have-nots” and predicted that workers would overthrow capitalism and create a communist utopia. When Marx’s vision failed, Lenin reworked it. He argued that workers needed to be led by an elite revolutionary class. This produced the idea of perpetual revolution: after one oppressor is defeated, the next ruling class becomes the new enemy. The struggle never ends. The Frankfurt School later adapted Marxism for the West. It argued that capitalism’s material success had made workers less receptive to revolution, so the focus shifted to culture, education, media, religion, and the arts. The goal became a gradual “long march through the institutions.” Postmodernists expanded the theory further, arguing that power exists everywhere—not only between rich and poor, but also between men and women, racial groups, heterosexual and homosexual people, and colonizers and the colonized. The personal became political. Intersectionality then presented oppression as a matrix in which every identity adds another layer of victimhood and moral authority. At one extreme is the idealized figure of a poor, disabled, rural, transgender lesbian woman from a developing country. At the other is the supposed ultimate oppressor: a wealthy, educated, able-bodied, straight, white, cisgender, Christian, Western man living in a city. Modern progressivism, in this view, is essentially neo-Marxism in drag.

CO₂ IS NOT THE ENEMY. PUTIN IS THE ENEMY. Europe needs climate realism, energy abundance, industrial strength and strategic clarity. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Yes, Europe should reduce emissions. We should electrify transport and heating, expand nuclear energy and renewables, https://t.co/XeLj7DbPjw #ClimateRealism #EnergyAbundance #StrategicClarity

In 1945 Justice Jackson opened Nuremberg on a promise: the law binds ally and enemy alike,or it binds no one. Today his country targets the very institution delivering that mission- to spare a fugitive from trial. Empire it was, empire it is. Where evil sits makes all difference. https://t.co/itRX54gP0a #Nuremberg #Justice #InternationalLaw #DE #US

Islam is not our enemy Iran is We are not waging war against any religion We are waging war against our enemies Russia & Iran + their axis We do that in selfdefence as Russia and Iran declared war on Free World 1917 and 1979 #Islam #Iran #SelfDefense #IR #RU