Search

MAGA – RUSSIA LINKS: THE KREMLIN IS SAYING THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD. Kirill Dmitriev openly tries to sell Putinism to MAGA as an alliance of “Christianity,” “traditional values,” “strong borders” and “truth.” So I ask him directly: MR KIRILL DMITRIEV — HOW CHRISTIAN IS YOUR https://t.co/BxC6Dr3Lm2 #MAGA #Putinism #Christianity #RU

“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

🚨 Sont évoquées en interne 3 raisons majeures pour lesquelles le PSG s'est efforcé à (bien) vendre cet été : ◽ QSI injecte moins d'argent qu'auparavant et il faut donc équilibrer le budget autrement ◽ Luis Enrique ne veut garder que des joueurs à "150%" concernés par le projet. Plus personne n'est retenu comme ça avait pu être le cas à l'époque (les joueurs parlaient même entre-eux du « Prison Saint-Germain ») ◽ Ce même projet qui se concentre sur un recrutement d'éléments âgés de 16 à 25 ans (sauf exceptions), et qui sont donc plus faciles à revendre quelques années plus tard, avec des plus-values à la clé 🗞️ @lequipe #PSG #transferts #football

Luxembourg stands in full solidarity with its neighbor, EU partner and NATO ally Germany. The Leipzig incident is another example of Russia’s hybrid warfare against Europe and the values it stands for. It seeks to erode Europe’s unity, undermine our resolve and weaken our #Solidarity #HybridWarfare #EuropeUnited #LU #DE #RU #EU

PPC Energie has officially launched its national campaign, "Photovoltaic Panels for Schools, Energy for You." This initiative turns invoice digitalization into renewable energy for schools across Romania. Run in partnership with the Association for Values in Education (AVE), the project guarantees the installation of solar panels and storage batteries in at least 15 public schools, a number that could scale up to 20 depending on customer participation.https://infoenergynews.blogspot.com/2026/09/green-energy-for-schools-ppc-energie.html

How Did a Democracy Vote Itself Out of Existence? — The Birth of “Streitbare Demokratie” One of the most important questions in modern democratic history is: How can a democracy use democratic procedures to destroy itself? This question became central in Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Founded in 1919, Weimar Germany was a democratic state with universal suffrage, including voting rights for women, and strong civil liberties. Yet, within fourteen years, democracy had been replaced by Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship. The Nazi rise to power was not simply a military coup. The Nazi Party gained influence through elections, propaganda, and political negotiations. In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor, and his government used legal mechanisms, including the Enabling Act, to remove parliamentary control and dismantle democratic institutions from within. The lesson for post-war Germany was clear: a democracy can be destroyed not only by external enemies, but also by political movements that use democratic freedoms to eliminate democracy itself. When West Germany created its new constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), in 1949, its founders developed the concept of “Streitbare Demokratie”—a democracy capable of defending itself. The idea was that democracy should not be completely neutral toward forces that seek to abolish democratic rights. A democratic majority cannot legitimately remove the foundations that make democracy possible. Therefore, the Basic Law introduced several safeguards: Political parties that seek to undermine the democratic constitutional order can be banned. The Federal Constitutional Court was given strong powers to protect constitutional principles. Core values such as human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law were given special protection and cannot easily be removed. “Streitbare Demokratie” reflects a difficult balance. Democracy requires freedom of speech, political competition, and tolerance of different opinions. However, history showed Germany that unlimited tolerance toward movements committed to destroying democracy can allow democracy itself to disappear. The central question remains: How tolerant should a democracy be toward those who are intolerant of democracy? Germany’s answer after 1945 was that democracy must defend the principles that make freedom possible. A democracy is not preserved only through elections; it is preserved when citizens and institutions protect the foundations that allow free elections to exist.

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.

The Three Roads to Evil We live in an age of unlimited access to information. Most of it is a gift, but it also gives us an unbroken view into horror—images on screens, the Epstein files, and constant stories once confined to nightmares. Some shut it off; others stare until it stares back, leaving them cynical. But it has always been this way. Long before Epstein, there was Caligula—years of sadism and cruelty on Capri. In every era, there have been people whose evil makes rationality struggle to explain it. I see three roads to evil: worshipping the wrong things, succumbing to ideology, and becoming so bitter you resent life itself. First: worshipping wrong values. Some make wealth, lust, power, or status their highest good. They lie, cheat, and steal to obtain it, then declare morality and law for the weak. Everyone else becomes an instrument. Second: ideology. When someone abandons a religious worldview, they may fill the vacuum with an ideology that claims to explain everything and promise a perfect world. Communists reduce history to class struggle; Nazis to racial struggle. The ideologue believes society can be remade by controlling causes and effects—people become cogs, sacrificed for utopia. Third: resentment. Those who see themselves as helpless victims can come to hate life itself. They treat hardship as injustice and life as something done to them. Their values invert: strength becomes evil, weakness virtue; love is attacked while lust is celebrated; wealth is theft—and criminals become victims while their victims are the privileged. These roads always exist, and always will. You can’t stop others from walking them. But it’s your responsibility not to.

The Fracture That Kills the Family The West’s deepest divide may not be left versus right, but whether young men and women still share a vision of the good life. The nuclear family is society’s foundation, yet households struggle to form when the sexes view each other as opponents. Many women see marriage as patriarchal; many men see women as manipulative or exploitative. Relationships shift from mutual union to zero-sum power struggles. Christianity framed marriage as union—two people becoming one. Nietzsche warned the death of God would remove a shared moral foundation, leaving society vulnerable to nihilism and fragmentation. We are living that fragmentation. Young men often retreat into pornography, gaming, and prolonged adolescence. Young women increasingly frame sexual liberation as empowerment. Both chase proximate pleasures while losing ultimate purposes: family, responsibility, continuity, and creating life. Dating data reflects the fracture: among unmarried Americans aged 22–35, only 26% of women and 36% of men are actively dating. Ideology filters matches too—Gen Z and young millennials cite political compatibility far more than Boomers. Research also finds a mismatch: only 0.6 single liberal men per single liberal woman, and only 0.5 single conservative women per conservative man. Cross-ideological pairing has risen from 6% in the 1970s to 22% today. The consequences extend beyond dating: fertility has fallen below replacement across much of the West, and 42% of American adults were unpartnered in 2023. Policy responses—tax incentives, parental leave, baby bonuses—miss the deeper cultural and spiritual problem: you can debate taxes, but it’s hard to build a family when you disagree on masculinity, whether marriage is oppressive, or whether family is worth sacrificing for. The values gap is the disease. The political divide is the symptom. The household is the casualty—and when it cracks, everything built above it loses stability. The question is whether a civilization can survive when the two people it most needs to unite can no longer agree why they should.

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.

The Austrian Critique of Marx followed a line from value theory to economic coordination. 1) **Menger:** Value is **subjective**. People value goods because they think they satisfy wants; water in a desert can be far more valuable than water at home, with production labor unchanged. 2) **Böhm-Bawerk:** Marx’s surplus value is flawed. **Time and capital** matter: wages and costs are advanced before revenue arrives, so interest/profit reflect time preference, risk, and production structure—not unpaid labor. 3) **Transformation problem:** Marx’s labor-values should imply different surplus values by industry, but competition pushes toward equal profit rates. Marx tried to convert values into **prices of production**, yet the inconsistency with his earlier theory remains debated. 4) **Mises:** The key issue is whether socialism can **calculate**. Rational planning needs prices for **capital goods**, which only markets under **private ownership** can generate. 5) **Hayek:** Knowledge is **dispersed** and local. **Prices** transmit that information so coordination can occur without everyone knowing the full cause. 6) **Rothbard:** Profit isn’t necessarily exploitation. Capitalists bear uncertainty, organize production, and pay wages upfront; workers get an agreed wage, while profit is what remains if the venture succeeds. So the deepest split is not only about profit source, but about coordination: Marx asks who appropriates value; Austrians increasingly ask how millions coordinate exchange, knowledge, and expectations at all.

Why Therapy Culture Is Making Us Weak Why, despite unprecedented mental-health awareness and therapy language, does mental health seem to worsen? If both “the cure” and “the disease” expand together, we should ask what culture produces them. Modern therapy culture often teaches us to prioritize feelings, explain flaws through trauma, and treat negative emotions as reactions to others. Carl Jung proposed a different order: consciousness—judgment, values, and will—should govern the unconscious, including instincts and emotions. Health means understanding these forces without letting them rule. Today that hierarchy is frequently reversed: emotion outranks reason, and “lived experience” can outrank evidence. Jung warned this resembles “psychological Bolshevism,” where lower impulses overthrow higher faculties in the name of freedom. Nietzsche cautioned that “for every drive wants to be master.” The key question isn’t only where feelings come from, but whether we govern them. Therapy culture can also weaken self-criticism, treating conscience, guilt, and shame as oppressive rather than corrective. With “concept creep” (trauma/harm expanding to cover normal discomfort), personal agency can shrink: if everything is done to us, responsibility becomes harder to exercise. This can spread socially: victim identities bond through grievance, replacing judgment with collective resentment. History shows where that leads. The defense is older than therapy: govern yourself before demanding the world be changed.

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.

A monk was shot dead inside a monastery in Ukraine. His last words: “I am a monk.” I have written to @kajakallas demanding accountability. Kyiv cannot keep invoking European values while turning a blind eye to violence against Orthodox clergy. This must end now. https://t.co/YHQQEnp1hc #Ukraine #OrthodoxClergy #Accountability #UA

🚨🇫🇷💰 ALERTE INFO ! SCANDALEUX : PLUS DE 13 000 MILLIONNAIRES NE PAIENT AUCUN IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU EN FRANCE 🤯 13 335 foyers disposant d’au moins 1,3 million d’euros de patrimoine immobilier n’ont payé AUCUN impôt sur le revenu en 2024, selon une note INÉDITE de Bercy. 👉 Parmi les foyers soumis à l’impôt sur la fortune immobilière (IFI), près de 10 % ne paient aucun impôt sur le revenu. Parmi les 4 144 foyers possédant plus de 7,3 millions d’euros de patrimoine immobilier, près de 15 % ne paient aucun impôt sur le revenu. Un foyer possédant 142 MILLIONS D’EUROS de patrimoine immobilier ne paie même aucun impôt sur le revenu. 😨 Bercy a également identifié plusieurs "mécanismes abusifs" permettant à certains hauts patrimoines de contourner certains impôts, notamment grâce à des holdings. 👉 Dans certains montages, Bercy estime que des plus-values pourraient, de report en report, ne jamais être soumises à l’impôt sur le revenu. (Le Monde / Bercy) #France #Impôts #Richesse

On Ukraine’s Independence Day, we celebrate 🇺🇦 people’s unwavering determination to defend their freedom and shape their own future. Europe stands with you, today and every day, and will continue to support you in protecting the values we all share 🇪🇺🇺🇦 Slava Ukraini! ✊🏻 https://t.co/DfxMtWFg6z #StandWithUkraine #IndependenceDay #FreedomForUkraine #UA #EU

Ορισθείσα Πρέσβης του @IsraelinGreece κ. Πνινάτ Γιανάι: «Το Ισραήλ και η Ινδία μοιράζονται πολλά περισσότερα από κοινά συμφέροντα - με την πάροδο των ετών, οι δύο χώρες έχουν οικοδομήσει μια ισχυρή, βαθιά και στρατηγική φιλία, βασισμένη στην εμπιστοσύνη, τις κοινές αξίες και την εκτεταμένη συνεργασία σε πολλούς τομείς. Ήταν ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον να ανταλλάξουμε απόψεις, να ακούσω από την εμπειρία του Πρέσβη Ravi Shankar και να συζητήσουμε τις προκλήσεις και τις ευκαιρίες που μοιραζόμαστε. Η διπλωματία ξεκινά μεταξύ των χωρών, αλλά οι πραγματικές σχέσεις χτίζονται και μεταξύ των ανθρώπων. Ανυπομονώ για τη στενή συνεργασία εδώ στην Αθήνα, στο πνεύμα της ιδιαίτερης φιλίας μεταξύ του Ισραήλ και της Ινδίας». 🇮🇱🤝🇮🇳 Ambassador designate of Israel in Greece Ms. Pninat Yanay: “Israel and India share much more than common interests — over the years, our two countries have built a strong, deep and strategic friendship, based on trust, shared values and extensive cooperation across many fields. It was fascinating to exchange thoughts, learn from Ambassador Ravi Shankar’s experience, and discuss the challenges and opportunities we share. Diplomacy begins between countries, but true connections are also built between people. I look forward to close cooperation here in Athens, in the spirit of the special friendship between Israel and India”. 🇮🇱🤝🇮🇳 #Diplomacy #Israel #India

Ορισθείσα Πρέσβης του @IsraelinGreece κ. Pninat Yanay: Ένα νέο ταξίδι ξεκινά. Από το Ισραήλ στην Ελλάδα - δύο χώρες που συνδέονται με ιστορία, φιλία και κοινές αξίες. Ανυπομονώ να χτίσουμε γέφυρες και να ενισχύσουμε τους δεσμούς μας φέρνοντας τους λαούς μας ακόμα πιο κοντά. 🇬🇷🙏🏻💙 Ambassador designate of @Israel in Greece Ms. Pninat Yanay: A new journey begins. From Israel to Greece - two countries connected by history, friendship and shared values. I look forward to building bridges and enhancing our bonds by bringing our people even closer. 🇬🇷🙏🏻💙 #Israel #Greece #Diplomacy