Bavaria‘s state criminal investigator (Landeskriminalamt) tells me the complex houses several defense companies. They believe it was a politically motivated attack but do not believe Rohe & Schwarz was the target. They believe another company may have been the target but did not #Bavaria #DefenseIndustry #PoliticallyMotivatedAttack #DE
You can treat trans people with dignity while defending women’s sex-based rights. You can believe adults should live however they choose while opposing the medicalisation of children. Those positions aren’t contradictory. They’re what a liberal middle ground looks like. #TransRights #WomensRights #LiberalDialogue #Nospecificcountrycodesarepresentinthetweet.
If you’re an intellectual and believe certain things about the use of military force in foreign policy and about unregulated markets in economics, and both of them lead to big disasters, you ought to rethink some of those assumptions By @fukuyamafrancis https://t.co/f6FiqJMALV #ForeignPolicy #MilitaryForce #Economics #Thetweetdoesnotmentionanyspecificcountries #sotherearenocountrycodestoreturn.
“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
🚨⚠️ Folarin Balogun’s move to Everton is in jeopardy after medical tests. Everton medical staff believe he’s not 100% fit, as @FabriceHawkins reported. AS Monaco and player’s camp insist Folarin is ready to play and there are no issues. https://t.co/mzUtda4P1y #FolarinBalogun #Everton #TransferNews #GB #FR
Reporting on Germany blaming Russia for the August 4th drone attack at Leipzig airport. Germany’s interior minister saying he believes Germany is under sustained hybrid attack. Russia’s FM spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accusing Germany of manufacturing a “pretext” and “stoking” the https://t.co/L1uuhU8Wmt #Germany #Russia #DroneAttack #DE #RU
We believe that the organisation can play a role not only in ensuring peace and stability, but also in establishing uninterrupted and secure transportation corridors, which are vital for the prosperity of our peoples, and in areas such as energy supply security. As Türkiye, we are taking responsibility for resolving conflicts around us through dialogue and diplomacy.
NUESTRO PRIMER ESTADIO ‼️ Hemos soñado y trabajado tanto para llegar a este momento que todavía no podemos creer que por fin se esté haciendo realidad ❤️🔥 ¡Nos vemos en el Estadio GNP Seguros el próximo 5 de febrero del 2027! 🏟️ GRAN VENTA HSBC + Paquetes VIP 📅 9 y 10 de septiembre | 11 AM Preventa Patreon + Paquetes VIP 📅 9 de septiembre | 11 AM Preventa de Artista 📅 10 de septiembre | 11 AM Regístrate aquí: https://t.co/QfOPr3PI5C Venta General 📅 11 de septiembre | 11 AM ⋆⭒˚.⋆ OUR FIRST STADIUM ‼️ We’ve dreamed and worked so hard to get to this moment that we still can’t believe it’s finally becoming a reality ❤️🔥 See you at Estadio GNP Seguros on February 5th, 2027! 🏟️ HSBC GRAN VENTA + VIP Packages 📅 September 9 & 10 | 11 AM Patreon Pre-Sale + VIP Packages 📅 September 9 | 11 AM Artist Pre-Sale 📅 September 10 | 11 AM Sign up here: https://t.co/QfOPr3PI5C General On-Sale 📅 September 11 | 11 AM #thewarning #EstadioGNP #VentaDeBoletos #EventoEnVivo
❗️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 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 Downward Spiral of Gender Polarization The growing divide between men and women resembles less a debate than a divorce involving millions. Both sides escalate, talk past each other, and blame the other gender amid a mental-health crisis. Depression among Americans under thirty has doubled in eight years, while anxiety continues to rise. Each gender has failure modes and one successful path. Carl Jung called it individuation; a simpler term is integration. The integrated are not leading the conversation. The disordered are. Every man carries an inner feminine—the part that feels, intuits, and creates meaning. Jung called it the anima. Cut off from it, he becomes cold and contemptuous; overwhelmed by it, passive and moody. Every woman carries an inner masculine—the part that decides, asserts, and holds the line. Jung called it the animus. Cut off from it, she defers to stronger people; possessed by it, argumentative and rigid. I believe the four failure modes pair off. The cold, contemptuous man finds a timid woman who cannot challenge him; the red-pill industry calls this manhood. The passive man finds a domineering woman who can run his life; the feminist industry calls this liberation. A 2025 Nature Human Behaviour study of 14.8 million people in Taiwan, Denmark, and Sweden found that disordered individuals consistently marry one another across cultures and generations dating back to the 1930s. My theory is that integrated people increasingly date within a pool dominated by the disordered. They try, fail, and get hurt, then drift toward the same patterns. The pool corrupts those who might have healed it, creating a feedback loop. We are in a downward spiral: integrated people encounter disordered partners and become disordered themselves, while the already disordered grow worse. Reversal requires enough people to reject cynicism. When every encounter feels like proof that the other gender is broken, our own drift toward disorder begins to feel justified.
The Pathology Behind Compassion Something sinister can lurk behind compassion. Caring for others is noble, but when institutions are rewarded not for reducing suffering—only for managing it—care can become pathological. Munchausen syndrome by proxy shows the logic: a caregiver fabricates or induces illness in someone dependent on them to gain sympathy and attention. The caregiver looks devoted; the “sickness” is manufactured. In that sense, devotion can hide control. I call this the Daycare Governance model: society splits into infants to be protected (oppressed), caregivers who provide protection (allies), and predators to be removed (dissenters). Caretakers gain prestige, funding, and moral authority by managing suffering. Many may believe sincerely, yet incentives can overpower intentions—if status and resources grow with the number of “vulnerable” people, the system has reason to expand the victim class. It does so via concept creep (“trauma” broadens until ordinary difficulty counts), and by creating the perpetual patient, where normal sadness becomes pathology and struggle is rebranded as dysfunction. Care institutions and “victims” then reinforce each other. Dependency costs competence. True care prepares people to stand alone; pathological care keeps them dependent. Endless expansion of victimhood risks producing more dependency. We call it compassion—but compassion without boundaries can become control.
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 Sweetened Lie I once dated a girl who said she’d go along with “2+2=5” if someone truly believed it—she wouldn’t correct them if it might upset them. In her mind, sharing a delusion was safer than truth and conflict. This mirrors what’s happening in the West: we’re losing the capacity to seek truth. Two forces may play roles: declining testosterone among young men and the feminization of institutions. Testosterone is linked to assertiveness and resistance to social pressure, and research suggests it can reduce short-term deception and conformity to group norms. Testosterone has also fallen in men across wealthy nations since the late twentieth century, making pressure easier to accept. Meanwhile, healthcare, universities, media, and other institutions are increasingly female-dominated. Critics argue that female-led cultures may prize consensus and harmony, making dissent costlier. Combined with less internal resistance, external penalties for resisting pressure can produce enforced conformity. Jung warned that failing to integrate the “masculine” side of the psyche can lead to rigidity and ideological capture. Arendt noted that totalitarianism doesn’t require belief in lies—only behavior that acts as if one believes. My ex embodied that dynamic. Nietzsche argued strength is tolerating truth, while the weak require truth diluted and sweetened. The first step is personal: refuse to participate. Accept the cost of nonconformity, build physical strength to support mental strength, and above all, refuse to tell the lie.
The 7 Types of People Who Create Evil Societies Andrew Łobaczewski, a psychiatrist who lived under Nazism and Communism in Poland, proposed political ponerology: pathological personalities and social dynamics can generate totalitarian systems. He describes seven recurring types: 1) **Psychopaths**: power seekers who gain control via coercion, intimidation, and violence. 2) **Schizoids**: ideological engineers who craft abstract systems and utopian theories; if reality conflicts, they rationalize more rather than revise. 3) **Spellbinders**: propagandists who convert ideology into slogans, moral stories, and emotional appeals that sort “good/evil” and define the in‑group. 4) **The Spellbound**: true believers who absorb the message and enforce it socially, driven by moral certainty; they often recruit through institutions and peer networks. 5) **Adapted Conformists**: quiet enablers who comply from fear and self‑preservation, often within bureaucracy (“I’m just doing my job”). 6) **Resistors**: a moral minority who refuse cooperation and prioritize conscience, often paying costs like isolation or punishment. 7) **Bystanders**: a passive majority who stay silent through fear, confusion, and disengagement. Together: psychopaths hold power; schizoids supply ideology; spellbinders publicize it; the spellbound enforce it; conformists administer; bystanders tolerate; resistors challenge. Crucially, totalitarianism doesn’t require everyone to be fanatical—enforcers and ideologues can pressure the wider population to comply. It can arise under many systems (communist, fascist, theocratic, etc.), not just left vs right.
When Pathology Takes Power If the last decade in the West felt unstable, you’re not imagining it. Andrew Lobaczewski studied how psychological pathology can spread into politics and produce “pathocracy”: societies where disordered personalities gain disproportionate power. He argued that revolutionary upheaval drives “negative selection.” Healthy people are pushed out or leave; manipulative, lying, and ruthless personalities rise through institutions. The system keeps its name and funding, but its character changes. At the top are essential psychopaths—empathy- and guilt-free exploiters. Beside them are schizoids who treat people as data and design control systems from abstract theories. Next come spellbinders: charismatic figures who package authoritarian ideas in the language of compassion, using invented moral standards for convenience. Then the spellbound: true believers. Around them gather conformists who comply to protect careers, while resisters are targeted and bystanders adapt to avoid trouble. Lobaczewski estimated a small minority builds the system, a larger group serves it, and most merely adjusts. Over time, society becomes the censor: truth turns dangerous, sanity is labeled extremism, and resistance is punished. The point isn’t only that bad ideas harm. It’s that pathological personalities can exploit good intentions, ideology, and institutional power—so the real conflict is psychological health versus pathology, and healthy institutions must be able to recognize the difference.
When Morality Becomes a Weapon Having the “correct” opinion doesn’t make you a good person. Our age is increasingly ruled by those who believe it does. In *The Brothers Karamazov*, Dostoevsky shows this through the Grand Inquisitor, who imagines Christ returning during the Spanish Inquisition. He arrests Him for threatening an institution that claims to represent Him. The Inquisitor argues people don’t truly want Christ’s freedom; they want bread, certainty, and someone to carry the burden of choice. He eventually admits they don’t need Christ’s teachings—only His moral authority. Dostoevsky reveals how power works: dominators can hide behind morality, while the dominated may trade freedom for the comfort of having others decide. Later, Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski observed communism invoking “the people” to justify terror and execution. He argued that a small minority without conscience can rise during revolutionary upheavals, with ideology serving as moral camouflage. The lesson: moral language can be weaponized by those lacking moral character. Words like justice, equality, safety, harm, care, and compassion can become tools of control. Return to Aristotle’s view of virtue: virtue isn’t a belief you hold but a habit you practice. We become just by repeatedly doing just things; bravery comes from doing brave things. No slogan can replace character.
The Psychology Behind Political Violence Political life carries an appetite for violence beneath the surface. A shooter leaves a manifesto; supporters celebrate; online strangers justify killing over insults, misgendering, and fantasies of execution. We’re told these are separate phenomena—different ideologies, grievances, causes—but they’re deeply connected. The murderer, the celebrant, and the online fantasist share one conviction: blood will build a better world. We often assume ideology comes first, violence second—radicalization infecting an otherwise ordinary person. But corrupted people may seek ideologies that rationalize what they already want to believe. Feeling comes first; philosophy follows. Nietzsche called this *ressentiment*: not ordinary anger, but enduring resentment rooted in surrendered agency and perpetual victimhood. Ressentiment is creative: it turns grievance into virtue and revenge into justice. That’s why movements can sound humanitarian while obsessing over enemies. They promise liberation but focus on who must be eliminated; they call violence self-defense while celebrating destruction. Notice the imbalance: energy goes to identifying who deserves punishment, not to explaining how their better society would work. This is the difference between genuine grievance and pathological ressentiment. Genuine grievance seeks repair; ressentiment seeks subtraction. Its “solutions” are fantasies of punishment—heads cut off, privilege liquidated, wrong pronouns punished. These aren’t coherent doctrines of stability; they’re rationalizations for resentment. Ressentiment also despises self-improvement because it requires admitting agency. Its worldview depends on locating suffering outside oneself. The deepest enemy of these movements, then, is not any specific ideology. It is agency itself.
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.
