Search

Karol Nawrocki oddał pole do orki swojemu rzecznikowi, Rafałowi Leśkiewiczowi. - W Muzeum Polin przerwano spotkanie ws. Heleny Zwolińskiej... - WOLIŃSKIEJ! BRUS! - Czy była zbrodniarką (xD) czy ofiarą? - Zaangażowana w stalinowskie represje. Próba tworzenia jakiegoś sztucznego balansu w historii tej pani jest rzeczą, która w III RP nie powinna mieć. Jeśli będziemy rozgrzeszać komunistycznych zbrodniarzy to dojdziemy do sytuacji takiej jak dzisiaj, że marszałkiem Sejmu jest postkomunista Czarzasty. Jaki Prezydent dumny ze swojego rzecznika xD #PolskaHistoria #Represje #Polityka

Die Medien -Kommunistin Ulrike Hermann sieht die größte Gefahr eines AfD-Siegs in Sachsen-Anhalt für Migranten. Die würden künftig nicht mehr als Deutsche behandelt. Hört endlich auf dieser abartigen Stalinistin eine TV-Bühne zu geben. https://t.co/d3B6ATiLp1 #AfD #Migration #Medien

W Muzeum Polin recenzja ksiażki Katarzyny Kwiatkowskiej-Moskalewicz. "Stygmat Helena Wolińska i Włodzimierz Brus".To właśnie Wolińska czyli Fajgla Mindla odpowiada jako stalinowski prokurator za śmierć Gen.Nila. Na szczęście wjechali chłopaki i pokazali prawdę historyczną. https://t.co/7kz9zthB2U #historia #Polska #recenzja

Uczestnik Campusu Trzaskowskiego zapytał Włodzimierza Czarzastego: "co zrobić, żeby komuniści nie kojarzyli się ze stalinizmem lub reżimem". Marszałek Czarzasty odpowiedział, że "by to odczarować, trzeba czarować". I dodał: "Niech pan popatrzy na mnie". Kino. Absolutne kino. https://t.co/ZD8349P2qK #Polska #Polityka #Film

THE RED TSAR UNLEASHED KIM. 25 JUNE 1950. North Korea invaded South Korea. Kim Il Sung wanted the war. But he could not launch it alone. He went to Stalin. He asked for approval. And in April 1950 Stalin gave the green light. Then came the Soviet support: TANKS. ARTILLERY. https://t.co/Pi7n6YWeXk #KoreanWar #KimIlSung #Stalin #KP #KR #RU

THE RED TSAR TURNED CHINA RED. 1945 changed everything. Stalin’s Red Army smashed Japan’s Kwantung Army and occupied Manchuria. That gave Mao something he had never possessed on this scale before: TERRITORY. INDUSTRY. RAILWAYS. WEAPONS. ARTILLERY. AMMUNITION. A STRATEGIC https://t.co/O9XjdBmzxt #Stalin #China #KwantungArmy #CN #JP

THE RED TSAR WANTED ALL BERLIN. 1945: Stalin reached Berlin. But controlling the Soviet occupation zone was not enough. In 1948, Stalin tried to force the Western Allies out of Berlin. The Soviet Union blocked road, rail and water access to the Western sectors of the city. https://t.co/BfqHAEVtQf #Berlin1948 #Stalin #ColdWar #RU #DE

THE RED TSAR WANTED THE BOSPORUS. 1945: Stalin stood victorious in Berlin. But Berlin was not enough. The old Russian imperial dream remained: THE BOSPORUS. THE DARDANELLES. THE ROAD TO THE MEDITERRANEAN. In 1946, Moscow pressured Turkey for a new regime over the Turkish https://t.co/e49u356BtG #Stalin #Bosporus #History #RU #TR

Why Psychopaths Rise to Power: What Hitler, Stalin & Mao Had in Common Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski argued that in certain conditions, psychologically disordered people can rise through institutions and create “pathocracy,” where pathological personalities gain disproportionate power. He described “negative selection”: upheaval pushes aside those with conscience and competence while manipulative, ruthless figures thrive. At the core are psychopaths, who feel little guilt or empathy and use normal human weaknesses as tools. Around them are schizoids, ideological architects who turn abstractions into systems for managing people. Next are spellbinders, charismatic leaders who frame authoritarian ideas as moral duty. Together they produce “paramoralisms”—moral standards that invert reality: dissent becomes extremism, censorship becomes protection, coercion becomes compassion. Beneath them are true believers and conformists who follow out of conviction or career safety, echoing Milgram’s insight that the key question is who gives the orders. Finally come bystanders, a frightened majority that adapts to avoid trouble until self-policing replaces external coercion. Lobaczewski’s warning: pathological behavior becomes far more dangerous when society mistakes it for morality. The real struggle isn’t left vs. right—it’s whether institutions can preserve truth and resist normalization of destructive behavior.

The Transitional Logic of Political Violence A recurring problem in revolutionary and religious political movements is that violence may be justified as a temporary measure for establishing a new political order, while the institutions created to suppress perceived enemies can become permanent. In Marxist-Leninist theory, the transition from capitalism to communism involved a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The coercive state was ultimately expected to “wither away” once class conflict disappeared. In practice, however, revolutionary governments developed extensive systems of repression. The Russian Revolution was followed by the Red Terror, Stalin’s purges institutionalized persecution of alleged internal enemies, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution demonstrated how political repression could re-emerge long after revolutionary power had been established. A comparable dynamic can be examined in some interpretations of Islamic political thought, although the ideological foundations are different. Ridda (apostasy) has, in certain historical contexts, been associated with both religious and political disloyalty. The early Ridda Wars illustrate how religious and political boundaries could become intertwined. In modern history, the 1988 executions of political prisoners in Iran provide another example of religious or ideological accusations being used to justify state violence. The important question is not whether these traditions are identical—they are not—but whether their political applications can create similar institutional dynamics. When governments define groups as existential threats, extraordinary measures may initially be presented as temporary. Once institutionalized, however, the definition of the “enemy” can expand. The fundamental risk is that a transitional period of coercion may lack a mechanism for returning to normal political conditions. If authorities can continually redefine internal enemies, emergency powers can become permanent. The broader lesson is universal: political systems should be judged not only by the order they promise, but also by the safeguards that prevent temporary coercive powers from becoming permanent.

A Manifesto Written Like Scripture** Marxism is not merely an economic theory; it resembles a religion for those filled with resentment. The Communist Manifesto opens with spiritual language, declaring that “a spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism,” indicating a spiritual war rather than an economic agenda. While supporters claim it seeks to redistribute wealth for equity, the text itself lacks words like “neighbor” or “love” in a positive context. Instead, it frequently uses terms like “violence,” “overthrow,” and “abolish,” emphasizing destruction rather than construction. Marx's concrete proposals focus on seizure and confiscation, with little mention of a classless utopia. He advocated for the “ruthless criticism of all that exists,” suggesting a totalizing worldview that dismisses the possibility of reform. Marxists often argue that true communism has never been realized, yet historical figures like Stalin and Mao embodied the totalitarian ambitions outlined in the Manifesto. Bertrand Russell noted that Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics, quoting Marx like scripture. He drew parallels between Marxism and religion, with Marx as a Messiah and the Communist Party as a Church. The Manifesto states that its goals can only be achieved through the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” indicating a desire to destroy the current world. Interestingly, many Marxist leaders, including Marx himself, came from privileged backgrounds, contradicting the narrative that Marxism serves the oppressed. This pattern continues today, with Marxism appealing primarily to educated individuals from affluent families who face financial stress for the first time. Marxism shifts the concept of sin from individuals to the bourgeoisie, absolving its followers from personal accountability. This doctrine promotes pride, envy, and resentment, elevating hatred of the wealthy as a virtue. It lacks a pathway to forgiveness, viewing class origin as a crime inherited from ancestors. Ultimately, Marxism is not an economic theory but a destructive religion that justifies violence against entire classes in the pursuit of a misguided salvation.

Marxism: A Religion of Destruction and Resentment Marxism is not an economic theory. It is a religion for destructive and resentful losers. The *Communist Manifesto* opens with spiritual language. Marx and Engels declare that “a specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism”—and that “all the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance” to exercise this specter. Academics and useful idiots claim that the doctrine aims to redistribute wealth in order to create a more equitable world, erasing the distinction between the haves and the have-nots. It is all about love and compassion, guys. Yet, in the roughly 12,000 words of the authorized *Communist Manifesto*, Marx does not use these words of positive affirmation. “Neighbor” is not mentioned, “redistribute” does not appear, and “love” is used twice—but not in reference to loving anybody else. Now consider the opposite. “Violent” or “violence” is used seven times; “overthrow,” nine times; “radical,” fifteen times; “force,” “forced,” or “forcible,” forty-seven times; and “abolish” or “abolition,” sixty-one times. The doctrine is presented as something achieved through violence, revolution, and theft. The one place Marx gets concrete is in his list of ten measures, and every one of them involves a seizure, a confiscation, or an abolition. Of the classless heaven that is supposedly meant to follow, he says almost nothing. Rather, writing to Arnold Ruge in September 1843, Marx claims that his program is “the ruthless criticism of all that exists”—that everything is worthy of criticism—and builds his work from there. Perhaps he was echoing a line from Goethe’s *Faust* that had caught his attention: “All that exists deserves to perish,” a line spoken by a devil. This is another pattern in Marx’s thought. He is not a reformer aiming to make a tweak here or there. His language is totalizing: all, every, everything. Marxists constantly claim that real communism has never been tried. They argue that totalitarian psychopaths such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were merely defects or deviations. Yet their attempts to control everything, down to thought itself, echo the dogma of the *Communist Manifesto*.

@pgartzia Hola hippie envidioso. Los que defienden el auténtico socialismo práctico (La URSS de Stalin, la China de Mao o la RPDC), estamos desmontando vuestra manipulación al servicio del capitalismo. Hay 4 campos, tienes total libertad de elección. #socialismo #capitalismo #historia

In 2001, 39% of Russians viewed Stalin positively, while 44% viewed him negatively. According to Levada Center polling, by 2026 the picture has been completely reversed: 59% now view Stalin positively, while only 7% view him negatively. The rehabilitation accelerated after https://t.co/GkmfFpiEsK #Stalin #Russia #Polling #RU

Om jag förstår det rätt är Vs politik att entreprenörer ska tvingas betala skatt på ägande (dvs i många fall genom att likvidera aktier i de företag de äger) för att andra ska kunna köpa pizza? Det är ett fall framåt fr att stödja Stalin. Men det är vansinne förklädd t ideologi. #politik #ekonomi #entreprenörskap