Search

Enlist today. Die tomorrow. Your girlfriend will be happy. And rich. Russia is pure evil. This is genocide. Sending young men from small villages in remote colonies to die in Ukraine. Buryatia will be free. Decolonizing Russia is the only way to peace https://t.co/yOF3fWpuL4 #StopTheWar #DecolonizeRussia #Genocide #RU #UA

As the great Indian writer Arundhati Roy said - "The carcas of European Liberal Democracy is under the rubble in Gaza" When will the Europeans garner the courage to say No to the US/Israel Axis of Evil...? #AtalantaBologna https://t.co/yhgY2eC3dP #Gaza #ArundhatiRoy #USIsrael #IN #EU #US #IL

🇧🇷 MIBR VENCE E PRECISA VENCER UMA PARTIDA PARA JOGAR EM SÃO PAULO O MIBR venceu, de virada, a 🇺🇸 Evil Geniuses, por 2 a 1, e segue vivo na chave inferior dos playoffs do VCT Americas 2026 Stage 2. Com o resultado, a equipe de 🇧🇷 dgzin se despede da competição. O MIBR enfrenta a 🇧🇷 LOUD no domingo (30), às 21h (horário de Brasília). O vencedor jogará as finais do VCT Americas em São Paulo a partir do dia 04/09. O perdedor estará eliminado e fora do Champions. #VCTAmericas #MIBR #Esports

The Three Roads to Evil We live in an age of unlimited access to information. Most of it is a gift, but it also gives us an unbroken view into horror—images on screens, the Epstein files, and constant stories once confined to nightmares. Some shut it off; others stare until it stares back, leaving them cynical. But it has always been this way. Long before Epstein, there was Caligula—years of sadism and cruelty on Capri. In every era, there have been people whose evil makes rationality struggle to explain it. I see three roads to evil: worshipping the wrong things, succumbing to ideology, and becoming so bitter you resent life itself. First: worshipping wrong values. Some make wealth, lust, power, or status their highest good. They lie, cheat, and steal to obtain it, then declare morality and law for the weak. Everyone else becomes an instrument. Second: ideology. When someone abandons a religious worldview, they may fill the vacuum with an ideology that claims to explain everything and promise a perfect world. Communists reduce history to class struggle; Nazis to racial struggle. The ideologue believes society can be remade by controlling causes and effects—people become cogs, sacrificed for utopia. Third: resentment. Those who see themselves as helpless victims can come to hate life itself. They treat hardship as injustice and life as something done to them. Their values invert: strength becomes evil, weakness virtue; love is attacked while lust is celebrated; wealth is theft—and criminals become victims while their victims are the privileged. These roads always exist, and always will. You can’t stop others from walking them. But it’s your responsibility not to.

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.

What Chairman Mao and Dolores Umbridge Have in Common In Harry Potter, Dolores Umbridge is a more realistic villain than Voldemort: she gains power through titles, loyalty, conformity, and paperwork, not competence. She weakens Defense Against the Dark Arts by replacing practical preparation with Ministry-approved theory—her real talent is playing the institutional game. This echoes Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil,” where ordinary people advance by obeying and enforcing a system. When loyalty matters more than ability, institutions start selecting for mediocrity. The parallel with Maoist China is stark. During the Cultural Revolution, Zhang Tiesheng was celebrated for submitting a blank exam and attacking “bookworms.” Despite poor results, political loyalty earned him a seat in the National People’s Congress. Mao’s promotion rule was effectively “red and expert”: political reliability outweighed competence. The consequences were catastrophic. Honest reporting was punished, so officials produced what Mao wanted to hear. False harvest data drove unrealistic targets and helped fuel the Great Leap Forward famine, which killed tens of millions. Education was politicized too: the Gaokao was abolished in 1966, and when admissions resumed, scores were replaced by class background, manual labor experience, and Party recommendations; the national exam returned only in 1977. Totalitarian systems don’t just remove capable people—they select for those politically reliable and morally compliant. Mediocrity shields leaders from rivals; reduced conscience makes coercion easier. Psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski called this pathocracy: rule by the pathological disordered, where normal institutions lose their ability to distinguish honest from manipulative. The system keeps its name and stated purpose while serving something else. The lesson: tyranny doesn’t require everyone to become evil. It requires enough people to stop recognizing the pathological. Once that moral filter disappears, institutions become vulnerable to exploitation—how psychopaths take over a society.

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.

Where the Money Goes When the Problem Grows The worst evil is identifying a problem—addiction, illness, hatred—then building an industry to “solve” it. Organizations grow, the problem worsens. Many call this wasted money. Some argue for more funding or stricter oversight. After decades of the same results, a reasonable person should ask whether it’s failure—or the system working as designed. Call it the Caretaker’s Incentive. Three conditions keep problems managed forever: status (praise for “tending” the afflicted), money (budgets rise with the problem and shrink when it improves), and conscience (moral framing shields caretakers from questioning their role). Economist Bruce Yandle described a parallel in “Bootleggers and Baptists.” In Prohibition, moral reformers and profitable bootleggers backed the same policy for different reasons, with virtue providing cover. Today, reformers and funded interests may be the same institution, making corruption harder to spot. When the mission is caring for the elderly, it’s easy to hide fraud behind compassion. Costs spread across millions, benefits concentrate among insiders. No one loses enough to unite against it; insiders gain enough to defend it. The people being paid are awake. The people paying are asleep. C.S. Lewis warned in 1948 that torment for “our own good” can continue endlessly because conscience approves. Corruption is dressed as virtue—and those who object are shamed.

Who Gets Promoted in a Broken Society? In Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling created a villain: Dolores Umbridge. She gains power not through competence, but conformity, loyalty, and bureaucracy. Evil rarely looks like Voldemort. Umbridge resembles Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”: ordinary people pursuing advancement by playing the institutional game. She enforces ideology through bureaucracy. Loyalists replace competent people, dissenters are labelled extremists, and punishment becomes a tool of conformity. The goal is not truth, but compliance. Political Ponerology Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski studied how institutions can be captured by pathological individuals. He called the resulting system pathocracy, and the transformation of normal institutions into ones serving pathological interests ponerization. The danger begins when institutions lose the ability to distinguish competence from manipulation. Those willing to conform can rise precisely because others will not. Ideologues create doctrines, propagandists spread them, and ruthless operators capture institutions. The lesson: totalitarianism does not require one tyrant. It emerges when institutions lose the ability to distinguish the pathological from the honest. The Case of Mao Mao’s China offers a striking example. During the Cultural Revolution, Zhang Tiesheng became famous for submitting a blank exam paper while denouncing intellectuals. Political loyalty mattered more than academic ability. Mao elevated being politically “red” over being technically “expert.” Specialists were displaced by ideologically reliable outsiders. Officials who honestly reported collapsing harvests were purged, while those telling Mao what he wanted to hear advanced. False information helped sustain the Great Leap Forward, whose famine killed tens of millions. China abolished university entrance exams in 1966; they were not restored until 1977. A system that selects against competence eventually loses the ability to see reality. Mediocrity protects power; moral compromise enforces it. Capture education, and you shape a generation unable to challenge the system.

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.”

When Failure Becomes a Demand for More A worldview that persists despite its unending list of failures is not interested in truth but in power. Consider how its adherents respond to the breakdown of their policies. They do not believe that multiculturalism itself has failed; they believe it was not implemented forcefully enough, or that the host nation was not subjected to enough propaganda promoting compulsory compassion. It is not that gender dysphoria is a mental illness; they argue that society simply has not normalized it enough. It is not that safe supply has failed; it merely has not been expanded enough. Decriminalization is not a bad idea, they insist. We simply failed to provide criminals with enough free resources and support programs before implementing it. Friedrich Nietzsche expressed the idea of suicidal empathy in his own words nearly a century and a half before Saad. In *Beyond Good and Evil*, he described a society that had grown so “pathologically soft and tender that it sides even with those who harm it.” Once society reaches this stage, he observed, anything that raises a person above the herd or intimidates their neighbors is declared evil. Mediocrity becomes the highest achievement.

Marxism as a Secular Religion A traditionally religious person accepts that they inhabit a world of scarcity and suffering, finding peace through belief in salvation from God. The affluent atheist, encountering hardship and personal responsibility for the first time, may instead become overwhelmed by anxiety. Marxism, disguised as economic theory, promises to relieve individuals of responsibility by transferring it to the system. It offers the religious concepts of a fallen world, a chosen people, certainty, and moral status, while removing Christianity’s most difficult demands: repentance and forgiveness. Rather than locating sin within each individual, Marxism assigns it to a class: the bourgeoisie. Salvation is no longer a process of personal transformation but something achieved by acting against others. The individual is not asked to examine himself, because guilt is always assigned to another class. This helps explain why Marxist revolutions so often end in mass graves. If evil is viewed as a property of a class, then eliminating that class becomes an act of purification. Mass murder is not treated as a betrayal of the doctrine but as its ultimate fulfillment. Marxism elevates resentment to a virtue. It portrays inequality as a cosmic injustice and suggests that hatred of those who possess more is morally justified. Ironically, although it rejects God, it borrows religious language. In a purely material world of atoms colliding randomly, no arrangement of matter can be inherently unjust. Class origin becomes a crime inherited from one’s ancestors, and forgiveness has no meaningful place. When salvation is promised through the violent removal of an entire class, the result is tragically predictable. Marxism is not merely an economic theory; it is a secular religion of resentment and destruction.

Konami afirma que tiene planes de convertir a Silent Hill en una franquicia anual, similar a lo que tiene planeado Capcom con Resident Evil. De hecho, están trabajando en múltiples juegos de la franquicia que aún no han sido anunciados. https://t.co/3OlVUeB2vB #SilentHill #Konami #Videojuegos

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

Demand for giving up Russian citizenship is through the roof. Russia has increased the price to 10x, but most Russians don't want to be citizens of evil anymore. I doubt Russia will be able to fund much of the war by getting rid of citizens. https://t.co/KK5declt3Q #Russia #Citizenship #WarFunding #RU