Search

We did the work: researched the biggest marches since 2018, built the data, studied what worked and turned it into a practical guide for how to rebuild and scale the movement. The climate majority never disappeared. We need to make it visible again. #TheLoudMajority #ClimateAction #MarchForChange #MovementBuilding #Therearenospecificcountriesmentionedinthetweet.

“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

A GENTE SABE FAZER FESTA! 🎊 Garanta seu ingresso para a maior turnê de verão do país! PRÉ-VENDA ABERTA! 🎭🎟️ https://t.co/LbLgU0xyd9 https://t.co/yCTgDCsixt #Festa #Turnê #Verão

“Russia has turned to a terrifying new tactic in its assaults on Ukraine, launching nonstop waves of armed drones in recent days into busy areas of the capital, Kyiv. The relentless attacks have left residents exhausted and on edge.” @siobhan_ogrady https://t.co/O2jHCcsP5o #Ukraine #Kyiv #Drones #RU #UA

I ACCUSE KENNEDY OF POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF DIỆM Catholic President John F. Kennedy turned against Catholic President Ngô Đình Diệm. Washington encouraged the generals plotting against Diệm, maintained contacts with the coup-makers and ultimately https://t.co/ZX18lNNIyZ #Kennedy #Diệm #Assassination #US #VN

Hvad skete der i Gentofte, da Mærsk døde? Uligheden raslede ned – men blev Gentoftes borgere stillet bedre? Nej, for Mærsk bidrog egenhændigt med svimlende 150 mio. i kommunalskat om året. Og nu skulle kommunen enten hæve kommunalskatten eller skære på udgifterne for at lukke det hul i kommunekassen, som landets rigeste mand havde bidraget med. Jeg savner en mere principiel debat om ulighed. For i dag er det primært populistisk misundelse, der dominerer debatten. Vi har slet og ret ikke nok fokus på, hvordan landets dygtigste og mest hårdtarbejdende bidrager uforholdsmæssigt meget til samfundet. Ikke kun gennem deres skat. Men via flid, gode idéer, nye produkter og flere arbejdspladser, som skaber værdi for os alle. De rigeste 1 % danskere betaler hele 10,8 % af alle skatter og afgifter. Det er 11 gange mere end gennemsnitsdanskeren. Men alligevel skal de straffes med fjollede særskatter. I jantelovens hjemland scorer man ikke sympatipoint på at turnere med den holdning. Men jeg synes, det er et vigtigt perspektiv. For sandheden er, at det her til lands groft sagt ikke længere kan betale sig at være en af dem, der bidrager mere end alle os andre. Måske vi skulle blive bedre til at være taknemmelige overfor de individer, der yder mere end gennemsnittet? #Ulighed #Skat #Gentofte

🚨🇳🇱 Joshua Zirkzee has turned down a move to Fiorentina after €5m loan plus €30m buy option clause proposal sent to Manchester United on Wednesday. Juventus have approached Man United tonight for Zirkzee as they did with Newcastle for Woltemade, in case Jonathan David leaves. https://t.co/OtiBEeOXvz #Zirkzee #TransferNews #ManchesterUnited #NL #IT #GB #IT #GB

🚨 Confiram as datas dos Ensaios da Anitta 2027: 📍09/01 - Belém/PA 📍10/01 - Recife/PE 📍16/01 - Belo Horizonte/MG 📍17/01 - Brasília/DF 📍23/01 - Campinas/SP 📍24/01 - Rio de Janeiro/RJ 📍30/01 - Curitiba/PR 📍31/01 - São Paulo/SP https://t.co/KOcyihfV8p #Anitta #Ensaios #Turnê

❗️Μερικές φορές σταματάς για ένα σκυλί… και τελικά συναντάς ανθρώπους. ❤️🐾 ❗️Την είδα ξαπλωμένη ήσυχα σ’ ένα μικρό στενάκι, κάτω από ένα υπόστεγο. Ηλικιωμένη πια, κουρασμένη, με τα αρθριτικά της… ❗️Σταμάτησα και άρχισα να τραβάω. ❗️Και τότε, εντελώς τυχαία, πέρασε μια κυρία. Σταμάτησε, την πλησίασε, τη χάιδεψε και τη φώναξε με το όνομά της. ❗️Τη ρώτησα αν τη φροντίζει. ❗️«Ναι», μου είπε. «Η οικογένειά μου. Οι γονείς μου μένουν από πάνω και τη φροντίζουμε». ❗️Ξεκίνησαν κάποτε με μια μικρή κουβερτούλα. Και σιγά σιγά αυτό το σημείο έγινε το σπίτι της. Εκεί μένει χειμώνα–καλοκαίρι. Εκεί νιώθει ασφαλής. Εκεί υπάρχουν άνθρωποι που τη γνωρίζουν, τη φροντίζουν και τη χαϊδεύουν. ❗️Και απέναντι; Απέναντι μένει ένα άλλο, μαύρο σκυλάκι. Ο φίλος της. ❤️ ❗️Μέσα σε λίγα δευτερόλεπτα, αυτό που έμοιαζε με μια θλιμμένη εικόνα έγινε μια μικρή ιστορία ανθρωπιάς. ❗️Δεν χρειάζονται πάντα μεγάλα πράγματα. Μια κουβέρτα. Ένα πιάτο φαγητό. Λίγο νερό. Ένα χάδι. Ένας άνθρωπος που νοιάζεται. Κι ένας φίλος απέναντι… ❗️Μπράβο σ’ αυτή την οικογένεια. Μπράβο στους ανθρώπους που δεν προσπερνούν. ❗️Γιατί ο τρόπος που φερόμαστε στα πιο αδύναμα πλάσματα γύρω μας λέει πολλά για την κοινωνία που θέλουμε να είμαστε. ❗️Αν πιστεύετε ότι τέτοιες μικρές πράξεις ανθρωπιάς αξίζει να ακούγονται, μοιραστείτε αυτή την ιστορία. ❤️🐾 ❗️Sometimes you stop because of a dog… and end up discovering the kindness of people. ❤️🐾 ❗️I saw her lying quietly in a small passageway, sheltered beneath a roof. She is old now, tired, and suffering from arthritis… ❗️I stopped and started filming. ❗️And then, completely by chance, a woman walked by. She stopped, approached her, stroked her gently and called her by her name. ❗️I asked if she was the one taking care of her. ❗️“Yes,” she told me. “My family does. My parents live upstairs and we take care of her.” ❗️It all started with a small blanket. Little by little, this place became her home. She stays there winter and summer. It is where she feels safe, surrounded by people who know her, care for her and give her affection. ❗️And across the way? Another black dog lives there. Her friend. ❤️ ❗️Within a few seconds, what at first looked like a sad scene turned into a beautiful little story of humanity. ❗️It doesn’t always take something extraordinary. A blanket. A bowl of food. Some water. A gentle touch. Someone who cares. And a friend across the way… ❗️Well done to this family. And to every person who chooses not to simply walk past. ❗️Because the way we treat the most vulnerable creatures around us says a great deal about the kind of society we want to be. ❗️If you believe these small acts of kindness deserve to be seen, share this story. ❤️🐾 #AnimalLove #KindnessMatters #RespectAnimals #Dogs #Φιλοζωία #Φιλοζωία #Ανθρωπιά #Σκύλοι

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

De senaste dagarna har varit helt galna. Vi bygger en folkrörelse. Tusentals människor har slutit upp bakom Alternativ för Sverige och kommit till våra torgmöten. Och jag stannar på varje ställe tills alla fått träffa mig, ta en selfie, ställa frågor. Så mycket kärlek och energi överallt. Tack! ❤️🇸🇪 Nästa vecka fortsätter valrörelsens hetaste turné, denna gång i Skåne och Halland! Vi ses! 🔥 Se hela schemat på https://t.co/poMhmr2TFY #AlternativFörSverige #Valrörelse #Folkrörelse

How Feminism Turned Government Into a Daycare For decades, we heard “the future is female.” That future is here—if not in the way people expected. The slogan surfaced in the 1970s among feminist and lesbian activists, resurfaced in 2015 after designer Rachel Burks rediscovered a 1975 photo, and then spread through merchandise and mainstream politics. By 2016 it was used by Hillary Clinton supporters; after her loss, Clinton embraced it. But the real story isn’t the phrase—it’s the institutional shift. Helen Andrews, in “The Great Feminization,” notes that feminism is often framed as progress through votes, universities, or jobs. Yet the decisive tipping point came later, especially from 2015 to 2020, when whole institutions began turning female. The numbers show it: in 1974, women were 10% of New York Times reporters; now they’re about 55%. The Atlantic’s editorial staff shifted from 53% male in 2013 to 36% male in 2024. This reaches beyond journalism: medical schools became majority-female in 2019; women formed the majority of the college-educated workforce that year, became a majority of college instructors by 2023, and now make up about 46% of managers. This isn’t just individuals moving into male-coded fields. It’s institutions changing with their demographics—shifting preferences, priorities, and norms. In many ways, feminism has already won access; now the question is what happens when institutions are increasingly shaped by women. We haven’t studied this before. We’re the experiment.

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 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.

GIVE MLADIĆ THE OSAMA FUNERAL. Ratko Mladić must not be turned into a martyr of Serbian nationalism. He was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Europe must make sure that his death does not create a new shrine for genocide denial, nationalist rallies https://t.co/uYWvbxN4IE #Mladić #Genocide #Justice #SR #EU