Search

🇨🇳 China Unveils Five-Year Plan to Promote SME Development - Statement ➡ China released a five-year plan to promote the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, aiming to increase the per capita operating revenue of above-scale SMEs by about 15% cumulatively by 2030, #China #SMEdevelopment #FiveYearPlan #CN

❗️ GRANDE STEFANO LAVARINI. ❤️ Zupełnie szczerze: miałem ogromne obawy co do końcowego rezultatu na tym turnieju, nawet biorąc pod uwagę udane losowanie, oraz przede wszystkim dalszej współpracy ze Stefano Lavarinim. Wydawało mi się, że z wielu powodów ta formuła po pięciu latach współpracy mogła się wyczerpać. A obecny moment, na dwa lata do kolejnych igrzysk olimpijskich, to ostatnia chwila, by może z pożytkiem dla obu stron spróbować inaczej... Myliłem się. Przepraszam. Włoch po raz kolejny wykonał postawione przed nim zadanie - Grande Stefano Lavarini. Można mieć zarzuty i wątpliwości, ale kadencja Lavariniego to realizacja postawionych przed nim zadań: ✅️: Awans na igrzyska olimpijskie, po raz pierwszy od 2008 roku. ✅️: TOP8 Mistrzostw Świata, po raz pierwszy od 1962 roku. ✅️: Medale Ligi Narodów, pierwsze medale na arenie międzynarodowej od 2009 roku. ✅️: Awans do strefy medalowej Mistrzostw Europy, pierwszy taki awans od 2019 roku. ✅️: TOP3 rankingu FIVB, pierwszy taki wynik w historii w rankingu FIVB w wykonaniu żeńskiej reprezentacji Polski. Teraz z uśmiechem na ustach mogę tylko i wyłącznie jeszcze raz przeprosić naszego selekcjonera oraz zawodniczki za brak wiary w dobry rezultat na turnieju rangi Mistrzostw Europy. Bo półfinał, biorąc pod uwagę ile zmieniło się w tej grupie po turnieju w Paryżu, jest wynikiem co najmniej fantastycznym. Bez względu na to jakie będą te ostatnie dwa mecze. Ten zespół po raz kolejny wykręcił wynik ponad stan. Po prawie siedmiu latach przerwy nasze panie wracają do strefy medalowej i grona czterech najlepszych drużyn na starym kontynencie - to ogromny powód do dumy, GRATULACJE❗️ Foto: @ysr_images Grafika: własna #jazdababy #siatkówka #sport #MistrzostwaEuropy

Une agression avant et une agression après le match, une élue et son conjoint et un lycéen venu faire un five Tous tabassés sous un flot d’insultes raciste la honte absolue, primordial de ne pas lâcher le sujet pour que les auteurs se prennent une leçon de vie au tribunal #Violence #Justice #Racisme

“Socialism Was Good in Theory” That sentence assumes the theory was never seriously challenged. It was. Long before the Soviet Union existed, before Lenin seized power, and before socialism had been tested on a national scale, major thinkers were already attacking its foundations—from very different directions. Five of them stand out. Tocqueville: Equality Can Become Servitude In 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville drew a sharp distinction between democracy and socialism. Both spoke about equality. But Tocqueville believed they pursued it in fundamentally different ways. Democracy, in his view, sought equality while preserving individual freedom. Socialism risked achieving equality by expanding the power of the state over the individual. His warning was essentially this: equality is not automatically liberty. A society can pursue equality so aggressively that it begins sacrificing the independence that makes political freedom meaningful. Bastiat: Follow Where Redistribution Leads Two years later, Frédéric Bastiat attacked socialism from a different direction. His question was deceptively simple: What happens when the state acquires the authority to take from some people and give to others in the name of justice? Bastiat called this “legal plunder.” His concern was not merely that redistribution might be expensive. It was that once government becomes the instrument through which competing groups obtain benefits from one another, politics can turn into a permanent struggle over who controls the machinery of redistribution. The problem, therefore, wasn’t simply how much the state redistributed. It was the principle that made redistribution legitimate in the first place. (bastiat.org⁠) Nietzsche: Equality Can Become Resentment Nietzsche approached socialism neither as an economist nor as a constitutional theorist. He attacked its psychology. He saw modern egalitarian movements as part of a much older moral impulse: resentment toward exceptional individuals and suspicion of strength, ambition and hierarchy. For Nietzsche, the danger was not simply that everyone might become economically equal. It was that a culture could begin treating excellence itself as something morally suspect. The goal would cease to be lifting people upward. It would become bringing the exceptional downward. Böhm-Bawerk: Challenge the Economics Then came Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. In 1896, he turned his attention specifically toward Marx’s economic system. His criticism was not primarily moral or political. It was technical. Böhm-Bawerk argued that Marx’s theory of value did not adequately explain how the labor values developed in Capital could be reconciled with the actual prices Marx subsequently needed to explain. In other words, he attacked socialism where it claimed to possess a scientific economic foundation. The argument became one of the central criticisms of Marxian economics and helped launch a debate that would continue for generations. Mises: The Calculation Problem Then, in 1920, Ludwig von Mises attacked an even more fundamental question: Even if socialism is morally desirable, how would a socialist economy actually know what to produce? A functioning economy has millions of competing uses for scarce resources. Build a bridge or a hospital? Use steel here or there? Produce more machinery or more consumer goods? Under private ownership and markets, prices for capital goods provide information about relative scarcity and opportunity costs. Mises argued that abolishing private ownership of the means of production also removes the genuine market prices necessary for rational economic calculation. The problem wasn’t simply that socialist planners might make bad decisions. It was that the system deprived them of the very economic signals required to systematically compare those decisions. (Mises Institute⁠) And that was the sequence. Tocqueville challenged the political premise. Bastiat challenged the moral and legal mechanism of redistribution. Nietzsche challenged the psychology behind egalitarianism. Böhm-Bawerk challenged Marx’s economic theory. Mises challenged the possibility of rational central economic calculation. Five different thinkers. Five different objections. And all of them came before the Soviet Union had demonstrated what large-scale socialist government would actually look like. So “socialism was good in theory, but bad in practice” is not an argument. It is a historical claim that requires you to explain why these theoretical objections were wrong. The interesting question isn’t whether socialism had critics. It did. The interesting question is whether socialism ever adequately answered them” - ChatGPT

❗️ #TEGODNIA... Dokładnie dwanaście lat temu w Warszawie, miał miejsce mecz otwarcia turnieju mistrzostw świata w piłce siatkowej mężczyzn. Spotkanie Polski z Serbią na Stadionie Narodowym w Warszawie oglądało wówczas... 61 500 widzów. Był, jest i na długie lata będzie to rekord frekwencji siatkarskich mistrzostw świata. ⚪️🔴 Najlepsza siatkarska impreza w naszym kraju, która miała swoją niepowtarzalną aurę i realnie konkurowała z większymi od siebie dyscyplinami. To było to wielkie święto na które czekaliśmy latami. ❤️ Foto: FIVB. #gangłysego | #tegodnia #siatkówka #mistrzostwaswiata #sport

🚨🔵⚪️ Manchester City confident to close all details of Cody Gakpo deal as soon as Liverpool agree to sign his replacement. Deal will cost £85m and Gakpo gave his green light to signing a five year contract at Man City. https://t.co/eWv8RfxXt2 #CodyGakpo #ManCity #TransferNews #GB #NL

🚨🔴⚪️ Arsenal agree deal to sign 17 year old Georgian talent Andria Bartishvili, here we go! 17 year old midfielder has medical booked in London at #AFC next week then signing a five year contract. He’s joining from 2027 when turning 18. Deal worth €4.5m. @Geo__team 🇬🇪 https://t.co/8BwkyoAypG #Arsenal #Bartishvili #AFC #GE

Five Lessons on Aggression and Dominance “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that… it sides even with those who harm it.” Friedrich Nietzsche wrote this nearly 140 years ago, yet it still sounds contemporary. In *Chimpanzee Politics*, Frans de Waal shows that dominance, aggression, hierarchy and confrontation—often dismissed in humans as “toxic masculinity”—also appear in our closest relatives. These behaviors may reflect deep-rooted drives, not merely social constructs. **1. The threat of violence can keep the peace** Most chimp confrontations are displays, not fights. Only about 0.4% of male confrontations become physical. Rank depends on strength, alliances, displays and recognition. Violence matters partly because it is rare: conflict must be allowed to resolve before it escalates. **2. When respect disappears, violence rises** Chimpanzees maintain hierarchy through formal greetings, including bowing. At Arnhem, 22 of 37 serious male fights occurred when males had stopped greeting one another—even though such periods made up less than a quarter of observation time. Violence was nearly five times more likely when recognition rituals broke down. **3. Power requires alliances** Before challenging the dominant male, a chimp often grooms females and plays with their young. Like Machiavelli’s political challengers, he builds support before attempting to seize power. **4. Influence can replace force** Female chimps sometimes recruit males to attack rivals, signaling distress and flattering the enforcer while avoiding the fight. Power can operate through alliances and influence, not just strength. **5. Concentrated resources create conflict** Chimpanzees normally forage for scattered food, limiting competition. When humans provide concentrated food, aggression rises. Larger groups are also harder to govern because familiarity declines and hierarchies become unstable. Stable societies may require hierarchy, respect, controlled confrontation and distributed power. Suppressing every expression of dominance may not eliminate conflict; it may remove mechanisms that keep conflict contained.

🚨🔴 Liverpool have booked a medical for Bradley Barcola on Sunday, then he will sign a five year deal until June 2031. Documents exchanged on Thursday and approved yesterday; Bradley wanted to say goodbye before travelling. Final fee: £106m plus £17m add-ons. https://t.co/cn9e9Wg50z #LiverpoolFC #Barcola #TransferNews #GB

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.

Five Thomas Sowell Lessons the West Refuses to Learn The West has proven Thomas Sowell right: “compassionate” policies often ignore trade-offs and incentives. Sowell offers no villains—only reality. 1) **Ask the right question.** Poverty is the default; prosperity is what needs explaining. Study what creates abundance, not inequality as automatic proof of injustice. 2) **Pick your poison.** There are no perfect solutions, only costs and benefits. Every policy uses scarce resources and shifts who pays. No free lunch. 3) **Leaders need skin in the game.** It’s dangerous to grant power to people insulated from consequences. When decision-makers aren’t harmed by error, bad choices spread. 4) **Keeping what you earn isn’t greed.** Treating production as selfish and redistribution as virtue inverts morals—and concentrates power in those who control taking and giving. 5) **Judge ideas by outcomes, not vibes.** The West keeps discarding institutions that worked because their reasoning feels unfashionable. Sowell’s core point: reality ignores intentions—scarcity, incentives, and consequences still rule.

Orwell’s Five Warnings About the Psychology of Totalitarianism Orwell understood totalitarianism’s psychology: unlike dictators who seek wealth and status, totalitarians aim to reshape humanity. They often claim to act “for our own good,” with conscience on their side. After reading Orwell, five lessons stand out: 1. Political correctness can become mind control “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Words frame reality and limit solutions. 2. Doublethink is the hallmark of propaganda “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” When contradictions become acceptable, rational thought collapses. 3. Control the past and you control the future “Who controls the past controls the future.” Rewriting history turns gratitude into guilt and inheritance into theft. 4. You cannot fight for freedom with a shackled mind “Until they become conscious they will never rebel.” Team loyalties replace judgment; challenging the narrative grants permission to ask questions. 5. True power is the power to shape perception “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes…” The goal isn’t mere obedience, but surrendering the ability to distinguish truth from what authority declares true. Orwell’s warning: don’t let it happen—resist arbitrary power by holding to truth, conscience, family, community, faith, and the people you love.

Five Warnings Carl Jung Left Us Totalitarianism grows where people stop knowing themselves. In The Undiscovered Self (1957), Jung warned that individuality must be lost before oppression can take hold. Here are five of his clearest warnings. 1) Reason fails when fear takes over. Rational debate works only until emotional intensity passes a threshold—then slogans replace thought. 2) The most dangerous people can look normal. “Latent” destructive tendencies can hide under ordinary appearances, especially when society becomes a mob. 3) You don’t really know yourself. Conscious awareness is only the surface; the unconscious (“shadow”) pushes you to project what you refuse to face onto others. 4) When people lose God, they may make the State their god. The religious impulse can shift into politics, turning leaders into sacred figures. 5) The defense is the formed individual. Resistance to the mass requires someone “organized in his individuality”—disciplined self-knowledge, not crowd identity. Where love stops, power begins—and violence and terror follow.