Search

Great to join @EPP Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers in Ireland 🇮🇪 A timely exchange on Ukraine, maritime security, the Middle East, migration and multilateralism. Our priorities are clear: 🇺🇦 Continued support for Ukraine ⚓ Freedom of navigation and maritime security, https://t.co/vXgpxI5qSr #UkraineSupport #MaritimeSecurity #Multilateralism #IE #UA

🇦🇲 ARMENIA, CHOOSE EUROPE. @NikolPashinyan Lavrov says Armenia must choose between the European Union and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. Then the strategic choice should be clear: EUROPE OR PUTIN’S RUSSIA. EURO OR EAEU. FREEDOM OR DEPENDENCY. For years, Moscow claimed https://t.co/EIkztI2GGQ #Armenia #ChooseEurope #EUvsEAEU #AM #RU #EU

We will keep weakening Russia’s economy with our sanctions. We will keep supporting Ukraine, including with European air defence and PAC-3 Patriot systems. We will work closer than ever with NATO. And deter anyone who attacks our freedom and security. https://t.co/C7Yy7cLKPk #Sanctions #SupportUkraine #NATO #RU #UA #NATO

Strong and independent justice systems are essential to protecting freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. If this is relevant to your work, enrol and join colleagues from around the world. 🌍 🔗 Register here: https://t.co/tYhaDvmDc2 #FreedomOfExpression #JournalismMatters #GlobalJustice #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.

“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

It is astonishing. For thousands of years, nations have fought to win or preserve the freedom to make their own decisions and determine their own fate. And now some are voluntarily giving it away. A textbook symptom of suicidal empathy. #Freedom #Decisions #SuicidalEmpathy #Thetweetdoesnotmentionanyspecificcountries.Therefore #therearenocountrycodestoreturn.Theresponseisempty.

🇦🇹 YES — I SUPPORT AUSTRIA’S HEADSCARF BAN FOR GIRLS UNDER 14 IN SCHOOLS. This is not a ban on Islam. This is not a ban on adult Muslim women wearing the hijab. It is about one simple principle: Children must have the freedom to grow up before adults impose religious dress codes #Austria #HeadscarfBan #ChildrensRights #AT

Republicans from across Ireland came together in Ballina today to remember & honour the hunger strikers. Their courage & sacrifice unlocked a new chapter in our national struggle & gave fresh momentum to the cause of Irish freedom. Today, Ireland is changing again. A new https://t.co/7mvskUerqS #IrishFreedom #HungerStrikers #Ballina #IE

🇮🇸❤️🇪🇺 ICELAND IN THE EU 2028 Europe is not only a market. Europe is a family. Iceland already shares so much with us: democracy, freedom, peace, prosperity, Schengen, the Single Market and a deep commitment to the European way of life. Now it is time for Iceland to take its https://t.co/WOnzAhEddb #IcelandInEU #EuropeanFamily #UnityInDiversity #IS #EU

La libertad no es gratis. Freedom is not free. Y estoy convencido de que la mayoría de los venezolanos estamos dispuestos a dar concesiones a cambio de nuestra libertad. Pero de nuestra libertad. No de un estado de opresión maquillado, donde aparentamos mejores condiciones, pero realmente no las disfrutamos. Obviamente este es un argumento moral. Y quizá, desafortunadamente, la discusión moral sobra para los actores que sobre todo inciden en nuestro destino. En ese caso, yo propondría un argumento político, realista: las alianzas y acuerdos se sostienen, más que en coacción, en coincidencias de intereses. Eso los hace duraderos. Legítimos. En Rusia cayó la Unión Soviética, pero su transición fue a una corrupta oligarquía que, más de 30 años después, sigue siendo un problema para EEUU. #Libertad #Venezolanos #Política

How Did a Democracy Vote Itself Out of Existence? — The Birth of “Streitbare Demokratie” One of the most important questions in modern democratic history is: How can a democracy use democratic procedures to destroy itself? This question became central in Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Founded in 1919, Weimar Germany was a democratic state with universal suffrage, including voting rights for women, and strong civil liberties. Yet, within fourteen years, democracy had been replaced by Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship. The Nazi rise to power was not simply a military coup. The Nazi Party gained influence through elections, propaganda, and political negotiations. In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor, and his government used legal mechanisms, including the Enabling Act, to remove parliamentary control and dismantle democratic institutions from within. The lesson for post-war Germany was clear: a democracy can be destroyed not only by external enemies, but also by political movements that use democratic freedoms to eliminate democracy itself. When West Germany created its new constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), in 1949, its founders developed the concept of “Streitbare Demokratie”—a democracy capable of defending itself. The idea was that democracy should not be completely neutral toward forces that seek to abolish democratic rights. A democratic majority cannot legitimately remove the foundations that make democracy possible. Therefore, the Basic Law introduced several safeguards: Political parties that seek to undermine the democratic constitutional order can be banned. The Federal Constitutional Court was given strong powers to protect constitutional principles. Core values such as human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law were given special protection and cannot easily be removed. “Streitbare Demokratie” reflects a difficult balance. Democracy requires freedom of speech, political competition, and tolerance of different opinions. However, history showed Germany that unlimited tolerance toward movements committed to destroying democracy can allow democracy itself to disappear. The central question remains: How tolerant should a democracy be toward those who are intolerant of democracy? Germany’s answer after 1945 was that democracy must defend the principles that make freedom possible. A democracy is not preserved only through elections; it is preserved when citizens and institutions protect the foundations that allow free elections to exist.

When Therapy Replaces Morality: The Rise of the Therapy State By replacing religious frameworks with therapy speak, Western society may have lost its moral “grammar” and traded it for clinical language—though moral and psychological categories work differently. The DSM has expanded dramatically: in 1952 it listed 102 disorders; by 2013 it had over 400. Meanwhile, young adults report worsening mental health: poor mental-health days among 18–25-year-olds rose from 3.5 to 6 per month between 1993 and 2020, and depression diagnoses more than doubled from 2006 to 2020. Yet the most striking shift is self-diagnosis. About one in four American adults suspect they have ADHD, while actual prevalence is around 6%. Social media fills the gap: many popular ADHD and autism clips include misleading or unsupported claims. The label persists because it serves a function. A diagnosis increasingly becomes identity—and identity becomes a shield. When someone claims ADHD, anxiety, or trauma, they may be drawing a boundary others are not allowed to cross. Where moral language asks what we should become, therapeutic language labels what we are; once the label becomes identity, the conversation often ends. Religious language framed forces as external, preserving agency—you could resist. Therapeutic culture internalizes them: you don’t have weakness to overcome; you have ADHD. Jung argued that old gods and demons didn’t vanish; they became neuroses, anxieties, and addictions—turning questions of conscience and choice into labels to accept. The result isn’t greater freedom but greater control. If a civilization can’t say “wrong,” it doesn’t necessarily become more tolerant. Moral language permits disagreement and growth; therapeutic language can pathologize it and end discussion. The therapy state is the successor to moral authority—and it may be easier to enforce.

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.

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.

Milton Friedman Exposed the Fatal Flaw of Socialism Milton Friedman exposed the fatal flaw in socialism: the assumption that inequality proves capitalism is morally broken. Inequality isn’t automatically injustice—people differ in intelligence, ability, effort, and circumstances—and “greed” isn’t uniquely capitalist. The deeper issue is human nature. Thomas Sowell contrasts visions where humans are inherently self-interested and society must channel those traits through institutions, versus visions where people are malleable enough for experts to remake society. Civilizational breakthroughs rarely come from central planning; central control doesn’t erase flaws, it relocates them. The businessman’s greed can become the bureaucrat’s, and the desire to manage markets can become the desire to dominate whole industries. Hayek warned that central planning tends toward coercion: redistributing wealth requires taking it, and enforcing plans requires people willing to use force. The result can be “mercy” that demands submission—comfort and certainty traded for freedom. The question is simple: where are the angels who will run society for us?