Search

Nous sommes en plein renversement orwellien. Défendre le pluralisme, c’est être néonazi. Promouvoir la paix, c’est être va-t-en-guerre. Dénoncer les massacres, c’est être terroriste. Se battre pour la souveraineté de la France, c’est être manipulé par une puissance étrangère. Mettre en exergue les faits, c’est être conspirationniste. Lutter contre la GPA, c’est être homophobe. Dénoncer la pédocriminalité, c’est être complotiste. Défendre la famille, c’est être pétainiste. La connerie a tout envahi. Les mots puent. Pas seulement la merde. Mais la mort. #Liberté #Pluralisme #Société

Vasemmisto huutaa, että on muka "kassanryöstö", kun mm. osakeyhtiöiden ja yhdistysten verotus kevenee. Samalla vasemmisto itse esittää miljardien eurojen veronkorotuksia ryöstääkseen duunarit ja yritykset. Punapropaganda käänsi termit taas päälaelleen, Orwell pyörii haudassaan. #verotus #politiikka #oikeus

The Destruction of Historical Understanding The third lesson we can take away from *1984* is that if you want to control people, you must destroy their understanding of history. Orwell writes, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” There is a clear example of this in Canada. In order to create one large, international communal state in which everyone is expected to care about everyone else, those in power must shatter people’s understanding of history and persuade them to support that agenda. How do you accomplish that? Canada’s unmarked-graves controversy is a useful example. The story became global, and much of the political class and media supported it. No bodies were ever found. Instead, ground-penetrating radar detected anomalies in the soil, which were then described as unmarked graves containing children. From the very beginning, there was no physical evidence to support such a bold claim. But that was never the point. The point was to make people believe that supporting Canada meant supporting the genocide of children allegedly buried beneath the ground on which they stood. Whether or not people accepted the claims, the narrative had a powerful effect: it undermined patriotism and weakened any sense of loyalty to the nation.

The Politics of Pity For a decade, the West has argued whether empathy should be its highest value. Some praise it as a superpower; others call it harmful. Gad Saad’s “Suicidal Empathy” topped the New York Times list. Elon Musk called empathy a weakness; John C. Reilly called it a superpower. Ideas should be judged by consequences. Compassion-justified policies have coincided with worse addiction and homelessness, rising crime, mass migration, social fragmentation, higher living costs, and controversial medical interventions for gender-dysphoric minors. When these fail, advocates often claim it was not implemented “strongly enough.” ## An Inversion of Truth A quote often attributed to Hannah Arendt claims “the death of human empathy” precedes barbarism, but no source supports it, and her writings argued almost the opposite. Arendt contrasted the American Revolution’s institutions and law with the French revolutionaries’ “politics of pity.” Pity is not compassion: it ranks “fortunate” and “unfortunate,” grants the pitier moral authority, and overrides rights. Arendt argued this enabled Robespierre’s Terror. ## The Trojan Horse Empathy can become projection—imposing your values as if they were others’ needs. Adam Smith warned about the “man of system.” Nietzsche described societies so “soft and tender” they side with those who harm them. Orwell noted equality preaching alongside elite privilege. Rob Henderson calls these “luxury beliefs.” I call it suicidal narcissism: acquiring moral status by appearing compassionate while policies erode the foundations others rely on. The reward is immediate; the damage comes later.

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.

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.

Why Good Times Make Weak People The pinnacle of tyranny is a society in which people are controlled without force because they love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World explored this idea. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, its citizens are controlled not through terror but pleasure. Soma provides instant relief from discomfort—a “holiday from the facts.” Huxley’s people are not prisoners but satisfied customers: the State produces children, promiscuity is normalized, and entertainment fills every empty moment. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell feared that truth would be hidden from us, while Huxley feared that we would become so distracted that we would no longer care about it. The Softening of Man Good times can make bad times possible. When safety and luxury become normal, people can lose sight of the struggles that created them. Andrew Lobaczewski argued that prosperity can weaken profound reflection. Pleasure becomes dominant, while uncomfortable truths are dismissed because thinking about them requires effort. Those who think critically may even be ridiculed. This creates a dangerous cycle: societies lose the capacity for psychological reasoning and moral criticism, allowing catastrophe to develop unnoticed. Sterilizing Genius Nietzsche understood that comfort, elevated above all else, can destroy the qualities that made civilization possible. Struggle, ambition, discipline, passion, and courage helped create prosperity—but prosperity can weaken the virtues that produced it. The Odyssey illustrates this. The Lotus-Eaters simply lose the desire to return home. Odysseus must drag his men back while they weep to remain. He rejects Calypso’s offer of immortality and endless comfort, choosing the difficult path home. We admire that choice because comfort without purpose is not a life worth admiring. Nietzsche imagined the endpoint in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a society where safety and sameness become the highest ideals, producing “no shepherd, and one herd.” Anyone who seeks greatness becomes an aberration.

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.”

The Pinnacle of Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would allow politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion—because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World* explores this idea through an eerily relatable dystopian society. Unlike Orwell’s *1984*, Huxley’s world contains no obvious oppression. The state does not need to “stamp on a human face—forever.” Instead, citizens willingly chain themselves to pleasure and distraction. Authorities do not rule through terror, but by giving people everything they think they want. Soma, a government-approved drug, becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustafa Mond, the World Controller, compares it to Christianity without the suffering. By swallowing a few tablets, citizens can escape reality—a temporary holiday from the facts. Lenina cannot understand why Bernard refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard says, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina views his desire for authenticity as a kind of illness. Bernard wants to experience passion and recognizes that life involves more than contentment. He craves genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than emotional regulation by the World State. Lenina’s confusion results from her conditioning, which teaches her to view unhappiness as a technical problem. This belief is captured by the saying, “A gram is better than a dam.” The citizens of *Brave New World* are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the state, relieving people of the responsibilities of parenthood. Their free time is filled with promiscuity, cheap entertainment, and endless sporting events—what might be called “slop” today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through fear, while Huxley imagined a society where oppression would be unnecessary because people would willingly surrender themselves to pleasure. There would be no need to ban books, because no one would want to read them. An abundance of low-quality information would make censorship unnecessary; the truth would be drowned out by noise. Huxley warned that people’s “almost infinite appetite for distractions” could make tyranny not only possible, but welcome.

Więc już nie kanoniczne 6 milionów, a „setki tysięcy”👇 - czyżby @w_zurek @MS_GOV_PL popadał w negacjonizm haggady holokaustu? Stosując orwellowskie kryteria i stachanowskie tempo narzucone w moim przypadku, prokuratorzy @ipngovpl powinni już w tej chwili występować z zarzutami. #Holokaust #Negacjonizm #Historia

This is what the distinguished “educational committee” had to say about the decision to discuss the paper in class: “a serious error of judgment.” It sounds Orwellian, but this is the state of academia today—or at least of @UGent. The problem of ideological capture has been a https://t.co/AicHHNivk6 #AcademicFreedom #IdeologicalCapture #UGent #BE

This is what the distinguished "educational committee" had to say about the decision to discussi paper in class: "a serious error of judgment". It sounds Orwellian, but this is now the state of academia, or at least of @UGent. The problem of ideological capture has been long in https://t.co/4QozBKv213 #Academia #IdeologicalCapture #UGent #BE

George Orwell am 2. Februar 1945 in seiner Kolumne "As I please" in der "Tribune" zur geplanten Vertreibung der Deutschen: „Ein Flugblatt, das ich kürzlich vom Friends’ Peace Committee erhalten habe, stellt fest, dass, falls der gegenwärtige Plan, alle Polen aus den Gebieten, die von der UdSSR übernommen werden sollen, und als Ausgleich alle Deutschen aus den Teilen Deutschlands, die an Polen fallen sollen, umzusiedeln, durchgeführt wird, dies die Umsiedlung von nicht weniger als sieben Millionen Menschen mit sich bringen wird. Manche Schätzungen, glaube ich, liegen noch höher, aber nehmen wir an, es seien sieben Millionen. Das kommt der Entwurzelung und Umsiedlung der gesamten Bevölkerung Australiens oder der zusammengelegten Bevölkerungen Schottlands und Irlands gleich. Ich bin kein Experte für Transport oder Wohnungswesen und würde gerne von jemandem, der besser qualifiziert ist, eine grobe Schätzung hören: (a) wie viele Waggons und Lokomotiven, die wie lange laufen müssten, benötigt würden, um diese sieben Millionen Menschen plus ihr Vieh, ihre landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen und ihren Hausrat zu transportieren; oder alternativ (b) wie viele von ihnen an Hunger und Erschöpfung sterben werden, wenn man sie einfach ohne ihr Vieh usw. abtransportiert. Ich vermute, die Antwort auf (a) würde zeigen, dass dieses ungeheure Verbrechen tatsächlich nicht durchgeführt werden kann, obwohl es begonnen werden könnte – mit Verwirrung, Leid und der Aussaat unversöhnlicher Hassgefühle als Folge. In der Zwischenzeit sollte das britische Volk so konkret und detailliert wie möglich darüber aufgeklärt werden, auf welche Art von Politik seine Staatsmänner es festlegen.“ https://t.co/bIP8eK2QSw https://t.co/YKbgfMOxH0 #GeorgeOrwell #History #HumanRights

Sono andati in crisi. Dall'altra parte dell'oceano è arrivato l'ordine di abbandonare il woke. Ma come farlo senza ammettere l'esistenza del woke stesso? Cortocircuito totale e bipensiero orwelliano: il woke continua a non esistere ma va abbandonato. Che spettacolo! #Woke #Cultura #Società

In the summer of 1937, just before the celebration of St. John, George Orwell experienced a dramatic escape situation from Barcelona after the legalization of POUM, when he successfully disguised himself as a bourgeois tourist to survive the pursuit by the police and spies, influenced by the loss of his friends and disillusionment with ideologies. (translated)

-sos ingles -la policia te quiere meter preso por andar en scooter eléctrico sin licencia para scooters -te escapas -tu perro se alia con la policia, marca tu direccion y te entrega -vas 3 meses preso Ni George orwell se imaginaba una distopia asi jsjs https://t.co/AkYAKPSUs0 #Distopía #Policía #ScooterEléctrico

"...produces a cognitive adaptation called doublethink: the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accept both as true when the system demands it. It is no longer just lying... It is learning to tolerate the contradiction within oneself, because survival depends on it." (translated)

Orwell kirjoitti 1984:ssa, että juuri nuoret naiset olivat totalitaarisen puolueen innokkaimpia kannattajia. He toistivat iskulauseita, vahtivat muita ja olivat herkkiä huomaamaan ympärillään ”väärinajattelua”. Nykyään tuo kohta kuitataan helposti naisvihamielisenä. Että Orwell muka sanoi naisten olevan idiootteja, jotka uskovat kaiken mitä heille syötetään. Mun mielestä siinä on paljon kiinnostavampi ajatus. Propaganda ei koskaan myy itseään propagandana. Kukaan ei sano sulle: ”Luovu vapaudestasi ja anna valtiolle enemmän valtaa.” Sen sijaan sanotaan: Ajattele heikoimpia. Pidetään kaikki turvassa. Suojele vähemmistöjä. Ole empaattinen. Ole suvaitsevainen. Ole hyvä ihminen. Eli vedotaan asioihin, jotka kuulostavat lähtökohtaisesti hyviltä. Ja juuri tässä vasemmisto on ollut erityisen hyvä. Lähes kaikki pystytään paketoimaan empatian, turvallisuuden, huolenpidon ja muiden suojelemisen ympärille. Ei siis ihme, että tällainen viestintä näyttää vetoavan erityisen hyvin naisiin. HS:n gallupissa SDP:n arvioidaan saaneen noin 59 000 naisäänestäjää lisää samalla kun kokoomus on menettänyt noin 64 000. Tutkija selittää kasvavaa sukupuolieroa koulutuseroilla ja sosiaalisen median logiikalla. Varmasti niilläkin on merkitystä. Mutta ehkä pitäisi uskaltaa kysyä myös se ilmeinen kysymys: Miksi juuri vasemmiston viesti vetoaa naisiin niin paljon? Jos sulle kerrotaan vuodesta toiseen, että juuri meidän puolemme ”välittää”, ”suojelee heikoimpia” ja ”pitää ihmisistä huolta”, politiikasta tulee helposti osa omaa moraalista identiteettiä. Et enää vain kannata tiettyä politiikkaa. Koet olevasi hyvä ihminen, koska kannatat sitä. Ja siinä kohtaa vastapuolta ei tarvitse enää voittaa argumenteilla. Riittää, että siitä tehdään kylmä, itsekäs, suvaitsematon tai paha. Mutta tässä ei ole kyse siitä, että naiset olisivat tyhmiä. Miehiin on käytetty ihan samaa temppua kautta historian. Miesten haluun suojella omiaan, taistella, olla rohkea ja puolustaa maataan on vedottu, jotta miljoonat miehet on saatu lähtemään sotiin ja jopa kuolemaan päätöksistä, jotka joku muu on tehnyt turvallisesti kaukana rintamalta. Onko mies silloin tyhmä? Ei. Hänen vahvuuksiaan on vain osattu käyttää hyväksi. Sama perusmekanismi toimii kaikkien kohdalla. Toiselle myydään empatiaa. Toiselle kunniaa. Toiselle turvallisuutta. Toiselle kapinaa. Hyvä propaganda löytää sen napin, jota juuri sinussa kannattaa painaa. Ja tässä tulee mun mielestä Orwellin kiinnostavin opetus. Totalitaarinen järjestelmä ei pysy pystyssä vain poliisien ja väkivallan avulla. Se tarvitsee tavallisia ihmisiä valvomaan toisiaan. Naapuri vahtii naapuria. Työkaveri työkaveria. Lapsi vanhempiaan. Mitä enemmän ihmiset alkavat ajatella, että väärän mielipiteen omaava on moraalisesti huono ihminen, sitä helpommaksi myös toisten kontrollointi muuttuu. Siksi vahvat ihmisten väliset siteet ovat tärkeitä. Perhe, ystävät ja oma yhteisö ovat paikkoja, joissa ihmisen ei pitäisi joutua ajattelemaan koko ajan poliittisten leimojen kautta. Tämä ei tarkoita, että nykyinen Suomi olisi Orwellin 1984. Mutta mekanismi kannattaa ymmärtää. Propaganda toimii parhaiten silloin, kun se ei tunnu propagandalta. Kun se tuntuu välittämiseltä. Velvollisuudelta. Oikeudenmukaisuudelta. Hyvyydeltä. Ja tässä koko ilmiö tiivistyy aika täydellisesti: ✨ kinda chic äänestää vasemmistoa ✨ Kun politiikasta tehdään osa identiteettiä, estetiikkaa ja hyvän ihmisen imagoa, argumentteja ei enää edes tarvita. Pitää vain näyttää siltä, että on oikealla puolella. #propaganda #politiikka #identiteetti

Today marks exactly 80 years since Orwell's Animal Farm was first published. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." For example, when someone has to go to court for subsidy fraud and another secures immunity and impunity from the government with extremists. Does this remind you of something? 🤔 (translated)