Search

— Você é comunista? — Sou. — Ah, então por que você tem coisas? — Porque eu vivo no capitalismo. — Mas você tem celular. — Tenho. — E iPhone? — Tenho. — COMUNISTA DE IPHONE! 🤬 — Eu preciso de um celular pra viver, trabalhar, me comunicar… — Mas comunista de verdade é pobre! — Comunismo não é pobreza. Não é voto de pobreza, não é franciscanismo. 😭 — Então por que você não vive sem dinheiro? — Porque o dinheiro é necessário pra sobreviver dentro do sistema em que eu estou inserido. — Mas você compra coisas! — Sim. — E vende coisas! — Sim, porque eu trabalho. — ENTÃO VOCÊ É CAPITALISTA! — Não. Eu sou uma pessoa vivendo sob o capitalismo e tentando transformá-lo. — Mas você usa o sistema! — É literalmente o sistema em que eu vivo. — Comunista de iPhone. — Então, pra ser contra o feudalismo eu precisava morar num castelo? — … — Pra ser contra a escravidão eu precisava ser escravizado? — … — Pra ser contra o capitalismo eu preciso dormir na rua? — COMUNISTA DE IPHONE! 😡📱 #Comunismo #Capitalismo #Sociedade

Austria must not sleepwalk into a new era of political extremism. Today, radical pro-Palestinian far-left activists occupied the Google data-center construction site in Kronstorf. They openly link their campaign to anti-Israel politics, anti-capitalism and militant direct https://t.co/dLeb4rSblx #Austria #PoliticalExtremism #AntiCapitalism #AT

GENTE? Elon Musk ataca e debocha de Billie Eilish, chamando-a de HIPÓCRITA por divulgar seu novo perfume e outros produtos: “Grok, Por favor, critique a hipocrisia da Eilish por criticar o capitalismo e falar sobre ‘terras roubadas’, enquanto vende perfumes e vive no luxo nessa mesma terra.” #ElonMusk #BillieEilish #Hipocrisia

The Left Didn’t Replace Religion… It Became One Many leaders in the West may reject God, but they often believe with near-religious fervor in something else. The progressive worldview mirrors religion: people still crave meaning, so it gets redirected. Science is treated like scripture interpreted by an expert priesthood; capitalism becomes the fallen world; revolution is purification; climate change is apocalypse with repentance; gender identity is the soul, the “true self” trapped in a betraying body. Without metaphysics, evil must be placed in the material world. For many on the left, Hitler functions as a secular Satan, so anything tied to him can be treated as morally contaminated—nationalism, borders, ethnic identity, masculinity, Europeans, industry, and Western traditions. Jung’s “shadow” is projected onto an enemy, letting adherents feel morally pure while avoiding the harder work of facing their own capacity for evil. Where Christianity locates sin inside every heart (“original sin”), the secular version relocates the flaw into the world—into whiteness, the West, nationalism, borders, or any chosen symbol. This framework makes moral judgment easy and singular: if Hitler is evil, then opponents become “fascists,” “Nazis,” or “Hitler.” Disagreement turns from political to moral and existential. This isn’t a claim that progressives can’t see evil elsewhere—it’s that this framework has become an instinctive moral compass. The ruling class isn’t truly secular: it has its own faith, and increasingly expects you to live by it.

Milton Friedman Exposed the Fatal Flaw of Socialism Milton Friedman exposed the fatal flaw in socialism: the assumption that inequality proves capitalism is morally broken. Inequality isn’t automatically injustice—people differ in intelligence, ability, effort, and circumstances—and “greed” isn’t uniquely capitalist. The deeper issue is human nature. Thomas Sowell contrasts visions where humans are inherently self-interested and society must channel those traits through institutions, versus visions where people are malleable enough for experts to remake society. Civilizational breakthroughs rarely come from central planning; central control doesn’t erase flaws, it relocates them. The businessman’s greed can become the bureaucrat’s, and the desire to manage markets can become the desire to dominate whole industries. Hayek warned that central planning tends toward coercion: redistributing wealth requires taking it, and enforcing plans requires people willing to use force. The result can be “mercy” that demands submission—comfort and certainty traded for freedom. The question is simple: where are the angels who will run society for us?

The Tolerance That Censors Institutions preach tolerance, yet disagreement is increasingly punished. As protected classes expand, demands for compliance, surveillance, and reporting grow. A tolerance-saturated society becomes hostile to dissent. Many call it hypocrisy, but the contradiction may be strategy. In 1965, Herbert Marcuse’s *Repressive Tolerance* argued that liberal “equal hearing” can perpetuate oppression. “Liberating tolerance,” he claimed, must discriminate: intolerance toward the Right, tolerance toward the Left. Why? Classical Marxism expected industrial workers to revolt from misery. Instead, comfort increased and revolution stalled. The Frankfurt School offered a remedy: capitalism colonized consciousness, creating “false consciousness.” If factory revolt won’t start, revolution must begin in the formation of minds—culture, education, psychology, entertainment. If so, neutrality becomes the enemy. Free debate spreads the system’s ideas. Elections let prisoners choose their preferred warden. Liberal freedoms act as “steam valves,” releasing pressure to prevent revolt. Tolerance becomes directional: oppressive ideas are suppressed; liberating ideas are amplified. Censorship and punishment are reframed as freedom’s highest expression. Marcuse also recognized liberal resistance to censorship and proposed “emergency” suspensions when oppression is deemed urgent—a logic echoed when speech is treated as harm and coercion as protection. The unsettling possibility is that nothing is malfunctioning: tolerance may function as a weapon. The final stage requires no visible censor—the individual internalizes it, policing their own thoughts.

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.

The Evolution of Modern Leftism Left-wing and woke ideology often presents itself through noble ideas: compassion, justice, equality, and progress. But progress toward what? That question is rarely asked. To understand modern leftism, we must look back nearly 200 years. Ideas evolve like viruses: when society develops resistance to one form, academics modify it until it becomes more contagious, destructive, and difficult to recognize. Hegel proposed the dialectic: opposing ideas—a thesis and antithesis—collide to produce a synthesis. Marx applied this framework to economics through dialectical materialism. He viewed history as a struggle between the “haves” and “have-nots” and predicted that workers would overthrow capitalism and create a communist utopia. When Marx’s vision failed, Lenin reworked it. He argued that workers needed to be led by an elite revolutionary class. This produced the idea of perpetual revolution: after one oppressor is defeated, the next ruling class becomes the new enemy. The struggle never ends. The Frankfurt School later adapted Marxism for the West. It argued that capitalism’s material success had made workers less receptive to revolution, so the focus shifted to culture, education, media, religion, and the arts. The goal became a gradual “long march through the institutions.” Postmodernists expanded the theory further, arguing that power exists everywhere—not only between rich and poor, but also between men and women, racial groups, heterosexual and homosexual people, and colonizers and the colonized. The personal became political. Intersectionality then presented oppression as a matrix in which every identity adds another layer of victimhood and moral authority. At one extreme is the idealized figure of a poor, disabled, rural, transgender lesbian woman from a developing country. At the other is the supposed ultimate oppressor: a wealthy, educated, able-bodied, straight, white, cisgender, Christian, Western man living in a city. Modern progressivism, in this view, is essentially neo-Marxism in drag.

@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

Around the world, we are witnessing disaster capitalism on steroids. It’s no longer just the security-adjacent industries but whole swathes of the corporate sector thriving on increasingly frequent emergencies. @NaomiAKlein saw this coming in Shock Doctrine — a huge inspiration https://t.co/oLaEne2AY7 #DisasterCapitalism #ShockDoctrine #CorporateGreed #Therearenospecificcountriesmentionedinthetweet.Thus #theresponseshouldbe:

O novo remédio para câncer de pâncreas custará US$39,8 mil por mês nos EUA. Esquerdistas sem QI dirão que isso é errado e blábláblá, mas vejam que exemplo belo de capitalismo funcionando: por que alguém pesquisou esse remédio? PARA FICAR RICO. E por que os preços cairão? ESCALA! #Capitalismo #Saúde #Câncer

The article analyzes the current debate on the concept of woke, highlighting how it has been distorted both by the right, which stereotypes it, and by the left, which denies it, and proposing the necessity of distinguishing between the true struggles for civil rights and the problematic dynamics that these have assumed in the context of late capitalism, with particular reference to the moralization of conflicts and their integration into contemporary marketing. (translated)

The article advocates for the need to establish regulatory measures at the global, national, and local levels to reclaim digital and educational sovereignty against digital capitalism, arguing that technological platforms are extracting and commercializing student data, transforming education into an information factory for the benefit of large tech companies. (translated)