Search

In the city of Druzhkivka, which is affected by the Russian offensive, local residents, such as 63-year-old Zoja, express frustration and despair over the devastation and attacks, while being aware of the danger but refusing to leave their homes because the city is a symbol of life and identity for them. (translated)

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.

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

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.

Multiculturalism or Liberalism… You Can’t Have Both Canada’s Combating Hate Act received royal assent on June 18 and became law in July, defining hatred as an intense and extreme emotion and extending emotion’s reach into government and criminal law. Supporters cite a 169% rise in reported hate crimes from 2018 to 2024, but the increase reflects predictable outcomes when groups with deep historical, cultural, and religious conflicts are placed together in large numbers while assuming differences will fade. “Diversity is our strength” can’t replace shared culture: cooperation at scale requires shared values and norms. Import enough difference quickly while demanding universal tolerance, and social order begins to fracture, leaving strangers who share a passport but little else—so the state steps in to do what culture once did. Multiculturalism can drift toward authoritarianism: the state expands to manage conflicts, neutrality becomes impossible without common standards, and unequal treatment follows. Britain illustrates the danger, with thousands of arrests in 2023 under communications laws for alleged offensive messages and long sentences for single posts. Meanwhile, authorities have shown hesitation toward major crimes involving protected communities, often citing fears of racism and community harm—creating a double standard. Canada also has examples, such as the Gladue principles, which require sentencing judges to consider the circumstances of Indigenous offenders, letting group identity influence state treatment. The multicultural liberal state was sold as open, tolerant, and equal—but if groups won’t “melt,” or fundamentally oppose one another, the result is increasingly unequal laws, more surveillance, and less liberty. Multiculturalism and liberalism are incompatible: without shared cultural standards, a society will be governed from above through laws, courts, and coercion.

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.

Leftist “Empathy” Is Actually Narcissism Leftist “empathy” is often narcissism, not real compassion. Over the past decade, Western politics has debated whether empathy is the highest value—yet many policies justified in its name have produced serious unintended consequences: safe-supply programs, lenient bail, mass migration, identity-based social policy, and gender medicine for minors. Hannah Arendt helps explain why. In *On Revolution*, she contrasted the American Revolution’s focus on institutions and limits on power with the French Revolution’s “politics of pity,” an effort to eliminate suffering through political action. Robespierre’s compassion for the masses helped justify terror. Pity isn’t compassion: it creates a hierarchy between the person who pities and the person pitied. Once you claim to represent “the oppressed,” you can stop listening to real people. Much progressive “empathy” projects idealized versions of others, erasing cultural differences and treating disagreement as ignorance or prejudice. Adam Smith warned about the “man of system,” who thinks society can be rearranged like chess pieces, ignoring human wills. Dostoevsky argued abstract love is easy; loving real people is hard. Nietzsche described a morality that flatters weakness and condemns what rises above the herd, while Orwell questioned whether some socialist intellectuals truly loved workers or simply used them to vent resentment. Rob Henderson calls these “luxury beliefs”: status-providing ideas for elites that impose costs on those below them. The moral prestige is immediate; the damage unfolds over decades. So “suicidal narcissism” may fit better than “suicidal empathy”: projection, superiority, and power disguised as compassion.

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.

The Psychology of the Modern Leftist Once you understand the psychology of the modern leftist, the last decade of the woke revolution makes more sense. The endless outrage, hypersensitivity, and rejection of rational debate may reflect something deeper than ideology: a crisis of self-worth expressed as a moral crusade. “Leftist” is a broad term, but here it refers to socialists, collectivists, LGBTQ activists, and similar movements. What unites them may be more than politics; it may also be a psychological orientation. Modern leftism can be associated with feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, guilt, self-hatred, and resentment. These feelings may be repressed while still influencing behavior. The hypersensitivity to language illustrates this. Words once used without negative intent can become symbols of oppression through activist campaigns. Ironically, those most offended are sometimes privileged academics rather than the minorities they claim to defend. Many leftists identify with groups perceived as weak or disadvantaged. This may reflect genuine compassion, but it can also involve projecting personal feelings of weakness onto others. Strength, success, competition, and rationality can consequently become objects of suspicion. Western civilization, America, and other symbols of power may be treated similarly. The criticism can also be inconsistent. Flaws condemned in Western societies may be excused when found in socialist regimes or traditional cultures. This suggests that resentment may sometimes play a role alongside genuine moral concerns. Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and merit are often viewed skeptically, while collectivism is favored. Objective truth can also become threatening because it creates distinctions: some arguments are better than others, and some people succeed while others fail. When equality of outcome becomes the moral standard, truth, merit, and individualism may be attacked—not necessarily to uplift the oppressed, but to reduce psychological discomfort. When victimhood becomes central to identity, problems may no longer simply be discovered; they can become necessary to sustain that identity.

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 Therapy State Western society has traded moral language for therapy-speak, losing moral grammar and replacing it with clinical categories that don’t work the same way. About 25% of American adults suspect they have ADHD, though prevalence is 6%; on TikTok, most top ADHD videos include unsupported claims. People misdiagnose themselves far more often than they correctly identify mental illness—and yet self-diagnosis persists because it serves a social function. Moral categories allow disagreement: you can argue about right and wrong, measure choices against standards, and debate what those standards require. Psychological categories pathologize disagreement: diagnosis becomes identity, and identity becomes a shield. When someone claims ADHD, anxiety, or trauma, they’re not just describing symptoms—they’re setting a boundary you’re not allowed to question. The shift from “what we should aim for” to “what we are” ends the conversation. Jung saw this displacement mechanism: modern gods and demons don’t vanish; they become neuroses, anxieties, addictions, and therapeutic labels. The question of conscience and choice becomes a fixed identity that must be accepted. Unlike religious frameworks that locate forces outside you and invite struggle, therapy culture internalizes the forces—so the label replaces agency. You don’t resist weakness; you *are* it. And because boundaries can’t be crossed, change becomes harder. When a civilization loses the ability to say “wrong,” it doesn’t become more tolerant—it becomes more rigid. The therapy state replaces moral authority, with disastrous results.

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.

Contraception and Western Culture In the 1960s, the birth-control pill became widely available. Sexual liberation is usually presented as a story of freedom and progress, but its biological consequence is rarely discussed: sex could now be separated from reproduction. Every Western nation has experienced below-replacement fertility for decades. Oxford anthropologist J. D. Unwin anticipated this pattern in *Sex and Culture*, a study of 86 societies. He expected to disprove any link between sexual restraint and civilizational achievement. Instead, he concluded that cultures practicing strict monogamy generated energy expressed through art, science, conquest, and commerce. Relaxing sexual restraint, he argued, consistently weakened that energy within three generations. Unwin also predicted that such societies would abandon rationalism, deism, and monogamy. Three generations after 1960 brings us near the present, and some of his predictions appear increasingly visible. Religious affiliation has collapsed, marriage is declining, the median age at first marriage is at a record high, and a record share of people will never marry. Rationalism also appears to be giving way to egoism, identity, and emotion. Contraception helps explain this transformation. Evolutionary theory distinguishes between a behavior’s immediate purpose—such as pleasure—and its ultimate function, such as reproduction. Sex traditionally served both purposes. Contraception severed that connection, preserving the behavior while disconnecting it from reproduction. Female education, urbanization, workforce participation, economic growth, and the rising cost of living also correlate with declining fertility. Yet many of these changes depend on technological control over reproduction. Career-first lifestyles, extended education, and mass female workforce participation would be far more difficult without it. Women may have gained freedom from child-rearing, but they may have fewer daughters to inherit that freedom. Institutions that promoted this transformation now import replacement populations that may not share its values and could eventually reverse them.

Public debt, global finance, economic concentration, climate change, artificial intelligence, strategic tensions, identity-based hatred: seven immediate dangers, all well-documented, are converging. Facing them head-on is the only way to avoid them. My new column for @lesechos https://t.co/LUIOXNKC9V #PublicDebt #ClimateChange #GlobalFinance #Nocountrycodesfound.

Medvedevin sanat eivät yllätä. Yllättävämpää on, miten johdonmukaisesti Stubbin oma käytös niitä ruokkii. Ensimmäisellä valtiovierailullaan Ruotsiin Stubb ilmoitti, ettei ole koskaan tuntenut itseään niin ruotsalaiseksi. Psykologisesti se on harvinaisen selkeä signaali: identiteetti ei ole ankkuroitunut. Kun oma kansallinen perusta on hatara, ihminen alkaa etsiä hyväksyntää ulkopuolelta. Ja juuri sitä Stubb on tehnyt. Hän on WEF-marionetti ja EU-federalisti, joka puhuu kansallisvaltioiden hävittämisestä kuin se olisi edistystä. Hän allekirjoitti Kiovassa 10-vuotisen turvallisuussopimuksen ja julisti Ukrainan sodan Suomen sodaksi. Hän ennusti joulukuussa 2023, että Venäjä on jo hävinnyt, ja tammikuussa 2024, että tavoitteena on saada Putin häviämään. Realiteetit eivät ole seuranneet. Samaan aikaan Venäjä-suhde on ryssitty ja Yhdysvaltoihin nojaaminen entistä epävarmempaa. Molemmissa suunnissa Suomen oma ääni on vaimentunut ja liikkumatila kaventunut. Psykologisesti kiinnostavinta on se, ettei Stubbilla ole omia suoria linjauksia. Hän omaksuu sen mielipiteen, jonka kuvittelee olevan suosittu, ja vaihtaa sitä tarpeen mukaan. Ulkopuoliset tahot ohjaavat liikkeitä. Selkäranka taipuu sinne, mistä hyväksyntää tulee eniten. Stubb ei ole idiootti. Hän on jotain hyödyllisempää. Mies, jonka linjat taipuvat aina sinne, mistä hyväksyntää sataa ja juuri siksi häntä kannattaa käyttää. Kun presidentin kanta vaihtuu sen mukaan, mikä kulloinkin tuntuu suositulta, kyseessä ei ole enää poliittinen joustavuus. Se on selkärangan puutetta. Moraalista tyhjyyttä. Sätkynukkena toimimista, jossa naruja pitelevät aina joku muu. Ja siihen on jo aivan riittävästi näyttöä. Kysymys ei ole enää siitä, mitä Medvedev sanoo. Kysymys on siitä, kuinka pitkään suomalaiset suostuvat katsomaan tätä esitystä. #wefpuppets #politics #Finland #identity

The article focuses on the alarming trend of the erosion of the political middle class in Germany, where the extreme right, represented by the AfD, is gaining strength, and conservative and social democratic parties are facing a crisis of identity and voter base, raising concerns about the possibility of repeating the historical errors of the Weimar Republic era. (translated)