Search

Estamos a assistir aos últimos dias de Pedro Sánchez. A esquerda europeia está em pânico com a possibilidade do seu nome maior estar a viver o seu fim. O rosto do socialismo vai cair e vai cair com estrondo. https://t.co/AZE0KT4Iyi #Política #Socialismo #PedroSánchez

Het antwoord is: voor Klaver, voor een socialist, is het nooit genoeg. Vind de beschrijving van de Verzorgingsstaat veel te positief. Die is al te ver doorgeschoten. Veel te veel mensen zijn afhankelijk van de overheid. En dat is immoreel en asociaal. Voor veel politici is de Verzorgingsstaat heilig. Wat mij betreft is de Verzorgingsstaat het probleem en de achterliggende gedachte dat de overheid ieder ongemak voor iedereen moet wegnemen, voor werk moet zorgen, voor je opleiding, je huis, een veilig klimaat, voor je gezondheid , je kinderen moet opvangen en opvoeden, enzovoort. Een steeds kleinere groep mensen moet dit allemaal betalen, want de overheid heeft geen eigen middelen. #Verzorgingsstaat #Socialisme #Overheid

229 champagnesocialister och kommunister som kandiderar för sina partier är multimiljonärer med välfärdsbolag. Samtidigt kritiserar de vinster i välfärden. Socialisthyckleriet... 💁🏽😆💁🏽 https://t.co/dpgCFWC6DP #socialism #välfärd #politik

“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

In queste ore penso ad Alessandro #DiBattista e, prima ancora di ogni considerazione politica, gli auguro sinceramente di rimettersi. Da quello che è stato riferito, tutto sarebbe iniziato con un fortissimo mal di testa, seguito da un grave malore e dalla perdita di conoscenza. Tra le ipotesi c’è quella di un ictus, anche se al momento non risulta una diagnosi definitiva resa pubblica. Non sono un neurologo e non mi permetto quindi di fare diagnosi. Ma proprio per questo credo sia importante ricordare una cosa molto semplice: di fronte ai sintomi di un possibile ictus, il tempo è fondamentale. Riconoscere rapidamente i segnali, chiamare immediatamente i soccorsi e arrivare il prima possibile in una struttura adeguata può cambiare radicalmente la prognosi. Un forte mal di testa improvviso, una perdita di coscienza, difficoltà nel parlare, alterazioni della forza o della sensibilità, problemi alla vista o all'equilibrio non sono sintomi da sottovalutare. E questa vicenda porta inevitabilmente anche a parlare di Cuba. Per decenni la sanità cubana ha rappresentato, nonostante le enormi difficoltà economiche, un caso di grande interesse internazionale: una forte rete di medicina territoriale, un numero elevato di medici, una tradizione importante nella prevenzione, nella formazione e nella ricerca biomedica. Oggi, però, quel sistema è sottoposto a una crisi profondissima. Mancano farmaci, materiali sanitari, anestetici, ossigeno e persino risorse energetiche essenziali. Le conseguenze sulla capacità degli ospedali di garantire cure tempestive e complesse sono ormai documentate. E sarebbe ipocrita ignorare una delle cause: l'embargo/sanzioni statunitensi hanno contribuito pesantemente a rendere fragile l'approvvigionamento cubano, anche attraverso le difficoltà di accesso a farmaci, tecnologie, componenti e finanziamenti internazionali. Questo non significa negare le responsabilità del governo cubano e delle sue scelte economiche e politiche: significa semplicemente riconoscere che la realtà è più complessa dello slogan "Cuba è povera perché il socialismo non funziona". La Cuba di oggi non è quella di qualche decennio fa. E sarebbe sbagliato raccontare la sanità cubana come se nulla fosse cambiato. Ma sarebbe altrettanto sbagliato cancellare ciò che Cuba ha saputo costruire. Pensiamo alle vaccinazioni pediatriche. Cuba ha sviluppato una propria capacità scientifica e produttiva nel campo dei vaccini e ha raggiunto livelli di copertura molto elevati. Durante la pandemia è arrivata persino a vaccinare i bambini a partire dai 2 anni con vaccini sviluppati sull'isola, diventando il primo Paese a farlo. Su prevenzione, vaccinazioni e organizzazione della sanità pubblica, Cuba ha insegnato qualcosa al mondo e può ancora insegnare qualcosa a molti Paesi, compresi gli Stati Uniti. Si può criticare il governo cubano senza negare i risultati storici della sanità cubana. Si può denunciare l'embargo americano senza trasformare Cuba in un modello perfetto. Si può difendere il diritto alla salute senza fare propaganda per nessuno. E soprattutto, in questo momento, si può parlare di tutto questo senza dimenticare la cosa più importante: Alessandro, forza. Speriamo davvero che tu possa tornare presto. #Cuba #Sanità #Salute

Ordené como jefe de Estado devolver 2 aviones estadounidenses llenos de colombianos y colombianas que llamaban ilegales a Estados Unidos y que venían con cadenas frente a sus hijos e hijas, hombres y mujeres en sus sillas que iban encadenados y creyeron falsamente que el mundo era libre, no admito que me regresen colombianos que son libres encadenados en aviones. Yo abrí con Venezuela las fronteras. Duque cerró las fronteras y hasta el corazón entre los colombianos y los venezolanos. Recibimos millones de venezolanos y muchos fueron hacia el sur de América, y luego devolvieron hacia Estados Unidos el paso del Darién colombiano, donde no pasaron un millón de personas, allí asesinaron a muchas mujeres y hombres y niños y niñas, usaron los migrantes como esclavos, trata de cuerpos, porque bloquearon económicamente a Venezuela y una persona que se creía socialista creyó que se podía ser socialismo sobre el petróleo y el dólar y se equivocó el socialismo es la hermandad de los pueblos trabajadores del mundo por el bloque- por el bloqueo de se originó el hambre en Venezuela, en medio de su propia riqueza sus tierras fértiles y sus angustias abundantes, pero la codicia se prefiere el petróleo y el petróleo ha sido de la maldición de Venezuela. Los pueblos deben ser libres y Venezuela debe ser libre y si somos un mismo pueblo, colombiano, venezolano, y ecuatoriano, y panameño, somos un mismo pueblo latinoamericano en el Pacífico, en el Andino con muchos llanos, selvas y aguas que son nuestras riquezas, la joya de la riqueza es el trabajo humano diario, cotidiano, ninguno, ninguna política tiene derecho a quebrantar. No usen gases, no usen escudos, no usen armas, no violenten al pueblo colombiano, que no es así, la policía enfrentará a su propio pueblo, padres, madres e hijos Venezuela recogió a Colombia y Colombia recogió a Venezuela, la época de oro del petróleo y fue la época... dondecuatro millones de colombianos hacia Venezuela hoy en día tienen hijos, nietos y fueron allí. Bien, bienvenidos. Ahora por órdenes extranjeras, ponen policías colombianos a golpear hombres, mujeres venezolanos, y lo que están es golpeando a Bolívar. Ahora, un empresario amigos del gobierno de Estados Unidos cerró al petróleo de Venezuela, parte de sus reservas. Yo detuve el éxodo del pueblo venezolano sin violencia. Y ya, no hay más éxodo. Yo no provoqué el éxodo, sino que detuve la sabiduría, no es golpear al venezolano, es embrazarlo como hermano o hermana Estos señores policías es inhumano, y va contra los derechos de la humanidad, y es mancha institucionalidad y al orden. No levanten sus armas contra su pueblo, porque serán malditos, dijo Bolívar. No deben confundir el pueblo con la deincuencia. Se necesita inteligencia para ello, no se necesita violencia entre humanos. #Libertad #PuebloUnido #DerechosHumanos

¡A la calle, a la calle! La crisis de Ceuta es nacional, puesto que afecta a la soberanía española quebrada por el régimen teocrático de Marruecos o, cuanto menos, vista con satisfacción. Es una crisis de Estado con consecuencias humanitarias porque el Gobierno ha sido incapaz de gestionar o porque, en algún momento, vio una oportunidad de aprovecharse de ella dado su vacío ético y de gestión. Es patente la incapacidad del Gobierno para defender nuestras fronteras y, lo que es igual de grave, para preservar el orden público, la seguridad y la libertad de los españoles de Ceuta. La gravedad de lo que ha sucedido no interpela sóloa los partidos políticos. También a cada uno de los ciudadanos españoles. No debemos cerrar los ojos cuando comprobamos la posición ancilar de nuestro Gobierno ante el régimen marroquí, que no respeta los derechos humanos de su población y que los utiliza como carne de cañón para sus intereses. No debemos dar la espalda a los ceutíes que han sorprendido a todos (especialmente al Gobierno) defendiéndose con valentía, dignidad y una flor en la mano. La primera responsabilidad de un Gobierno es la defensa de sus ciudadanos. Si no lo hace, si es incapaz, si tiene miedo, debe irse y dejar que los españoles decidan. Mientras esto no suceda, todos somos responsables de lo que suceda en Ceuta. No es un problema de izquierdas o derecha, del PSOE o del PP. Es una crisis nacional que exige nuestra determinación individual. Se han convocado concentraciones en todo España. Los que son ciudadanos españoles antes que afiliados o simpatizantes de un partido deben estar con los ceutíes, por su derecho a ser libres, a circular con seguridad por sus calles y a que sus hijos puedan ir al colegio. Yo soy de izquierdas. No soy progresista ni sanchista, porque nunca fui de caudillo. Y mi identidad, con la que hago política, es mi ciudadanía española. Y yo que soy de izquierdas, y que no me pueden dar lecciones ni Zapatero ni Sánchez, ni sus padres, ni sus abuelos, ni sus suegros de socialismo democrático, digo que estaré en la manifestación con los españoles orgullosos de serlo. No quiero sentir vergüenza mañana cuando la crisis se convierta en un agujero negro de nuestra historia. Serán concentraciones positivas, pacificas, cívicas, a la que asistirán los que creen en la Constitución del 78, los que defienden los derechos fundamentales de los españoles en Ceuta. En definitiva, los que creen en la España democrática y segura que nació ahora hará 50 años. #Ceuta #España #CrisisNacional

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.

The Deadly Seduction of Democratic Socialism Young people are being urged to support “democratic” socialism—ideas blamed for tens of millions of deaths in the last century—promising that consent will make it work this time. But consent cannot make an economic system wise. A ballot cannot set the right prices for wages, goods, or services, nor prevent shortages, repression, or famine. This isn’t fringe. New York elected Zohran Mamdani, who says there should be no billionaires and backs rent freezes, state-run grocery stores, free CUNY, and higher taxes. Polling shows strong support for socialism and communism among Americans under 30. The core error is believing resources can be taken from creators and transferred without losing the knowledge that made them productive. Mao’s China illustrates the outcome: land reform dispossessed and killed landowners, production collapsed as local expertise was treated as an enemy, and grain seizures during the Great Leap Forward worsened a catastrophic famine. The lesson: destroying incentives, property rights, and local knowledge destroys production itself. Envy is often disguised as justice. Communist regimes cultivated resentment and turned grievance into political energy, making societies less focused on creating wealth and more focused on making others lose it. Even when central planners tried to subordinate families to the state, people preserved knowledge through markets, private plots, and community practice. Civilization isn’t a machine bureaucrats can redesign. Take away property and you don’t automatically transfer knowledge—abundance can vanish with it. Redistribution may promise equality, but if it destroys the people, incentives, and knowledge that produce abundance, the result is a hungry one.

The Victimhood Economy: Why Young People Prefer Socialism Western civilization is increasingly shaped by entitlement and a culture that rewards displays of victimhood. At elite universities, disability claims have risen: 18% of male and 22% of female undergraduates report a disability, and 54% of non-binary students, with higher rates at some wealthy schools than at community colleges. The issue isn’t genuine disability; it’s what happens when accommodations become status and advantage. Extra time, separate housing, and exemptions can turn diagnosis into leverage. When weakness is rewarded, some will learn to perform it. This matters because today’s students become tomorrow’s institutional elites. If grievance produces rewards, the lesson may spread into journalism, government, HR, academia, and business, letting beneficiaries inherit the power to expand the system. Research on victimhood signaling raises uncomfortable questions: people who habitually emphasize victim status, on average, show higher narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—not to say genuinely suffering people are manipulative, but that systems rewarding victimhood create incentives for manipulators to exploit the category. Rob Henderson describes this as a status game: in elite institutions, grievance can become the currency of virtue signaling. For some, the rational strategy is to manufacture grievance and convert it into status. Nietzsche similarly argued that displays of helplessness can become covert power, while pity can create moral superiority for the caregiver. The danger isn’t compassion; it’s a culture that turns suffering into currency and teaches ambitious people that the easiest route to power is to claim they are powerless.