@strakajakub $18B lawsuit settlement - there was supposed to be several weeks of trial - that would show the world on how Meta works internally, with witness testimony prepared from many AGs and states. And they took the easy way out - and its a shame... What was in play was hundreds of #Meta #Lawsuit #Justice #Therearenospecificcountrymentionsinthetweet.
The Pathology of Masculinity and Femininity Without Cultural Restraint Both sexes have evolutionary roles: men developed strength for protection, provision, and competition; women developed beauty and selectiveness for pair-bonding and survival. Culture channels these drives—family structure, dating norms, fatherhood, shame, religion—guiding strength toward building and beauty toward commitment. Remove the norms and the drives seek new avenues. For men, the open channel becomes force: aggression and risk can detach from responsibility, yielding robbery, assault, gang violence, and predation. The shadow side of masculinity is strength used to take rather than protect. For women, the channel shifts to extraction through simulated intimacy: monetized desire via platforms and influencer economies can turn closeness into leverage, often without the pair-bonding or family life it was built to support. The masculine ideal is protector and disciplined provider; its pathology is thug or criminal. The feminine ideal is nurturer and guardian of commitment; its pathology is the seller of simulated intimacy and extractor of attention. Both are corruptions of genuine virtues. Three accelerants intensified these patterns: stigma’s collapse, technology’s scalability of desire, and weakened communities and absent fathers. The root cause is the breakdown of family norms. Men are less destructive when bonded and mentored; women are less exploitative when raised to value enduring commitment. Consequences mirror each other: unchecked male pathology produces violence; unchecked female pathology produces mistrust, loneliness, and demographic decline. Both arise when culture denies that masculine and feminine virtues must be shaped and channeled rather than suppressed.
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.
Where the Money Goes When the Problem Grows The worst evil is identifying a problem—addiction, illness, hatred—then building an industry to “solve” it. Organizations grow, the problem worsens. Many call this wasted money. Some argue for more funding or stricter oversight. After decades of the same results, a reasonable person should ask whether it’s failure—or the system working as designed. Call it the Caretaker’s Incentive. Three conditions keep problems managed forever: status (praise for “tending” the afflicted), money (budgets rise with the problem and shrink when it improves), and conscience (moral framing shields caretakers from questioning their role). Economist Bruce Yandle described a parallel in “Bootleggers and Baptists.” In Prohibition, moral reformers and profitable bootleggers backed the same policy for different reasons, with virtue providing cover. Today, reformers and funded interests may be the same institution, making corruption harder to spot. When the mission is caring for the elderly, it’s easy to hide fraud behind compassion. Costs spread across millions, benefits concentrate among insiders. No one loses enough to unite against it; insiders gain enough to defend it. The people being paid are awake. The people paying are asleep. C.S. Lewis warned in 1948 that torment for “our own good” can continue endlessly because conscience approves. Corruption is dressed as virtue—and those who object are shamed.
Why Weak Societies Choose Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would be a system that allows politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, an eerily relatable dystopian novel, with this idea at the forefront. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, there is no overt oppression. The state does not have to stamp on human faces with its jackboots or erect an inescapable surveillance state. Rather, the people of Brave New World happily chain themselves with meaningless pleasure and distractions. The authorities do not rule through terror and rage, the central elements of 1984, but instead give the people everything they ever wanted. A pharmaceutical called Soma becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, likens it to Christianity without tears. While religion requires years of moral training, Soma allows citizens to achieve peace simply by swallowing tablets. It is the perfect escape from reality, a holiday from the facts. Lenina, the female counterpart to the protagonist Bernard, cannot comprehend why he refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard states, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina sees this as a sort of pathology and repeatedly encourages him to take the wonder drug. Bernard explains, “I want to know what passion is.” He understands that there is more to life than merely being content, craving genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than being emotionally regulated by the World State. Lenina’s bewilderment stems from her conditioning to regard unhappiness as a technical problem, encapsulated in the society’s common saying that “a gram is better than a damn.” The people of Brave New World are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the scientific state, relieving people of the responsibility of parenthood. This grants them the ability to engage in promiscuity, where everyone belongs to everyone else, while filling their free time with cheap entertainment and endless sporting events—what would be referred to as slop today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through the lens of fear, while Huxley saw it through pleasure. There was no need to ban a book in Brave New Worldbecause there was no one who wanted to read one. An abundance of low-quality information rendered censorship unnecessary because no one could hear the truth through all the noise. Huxley threw shade at civil libertarians who passionately opposed tyranny because they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions. Humanity in its rawest form is portrayed by John the Savage, an outsider free from the World State’s conditioning. Upon coming face-to-face with this spiritually neutered society, he completely rejects it: “I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.” Huxley’s dystopia is not imposed on an unwilling population but instead requested by a hollow one. Which leads us to the question: How do people become so weak that they get on their knees and beg for totalitarianism? Good times make bad times possible. Once a certain level of luxury and safety is achieved, people start to resemble the hobbits from the Shire. They are so far removed from evil that they forget it even exists and become defenseless in the face of it. Andrew Lobaczewski, who studied the psychology of totalitarianism from inside Poland’s communist takeover, wrote: “During good times, people progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection. They lose the capacity to differentiate human nature, and emotion begins to dominate intellect. Once a critical mass starts operating on the pleasure principle, any excess mental effort seems like pointless labor.” Lobaczewski warned that it is not as simple as some people losing the ability to think rationally. It is worse, because those people then shame anyone capable of doing so. A clever, liberal, and merry individual is a good sport. A more far-sighted person predicting dire results becomes a wet blanket, a killjoy. The ability to have uncomfortable conversations without emotion taking over is, in Lobaczewski’s view, an indicator of whether a society’s future will be good or bad. It is easier to think about pleasant things. This leads people to eliminate any data or facts that cause them discomfort. That becomes a habit and eventually a custom accepted by society at large. Once the general populace accepts that inconvenient truths should be left unsaid, it becomes incapable of reaching correct conclusions. After all, how could you ever describe a picture that you refuse to look at? “Catastrophe waits in the wings of the communities that lose the capacity for psychological reason and moral criticism,” Lobaczewski wrote. “It is on the other side of this weakening of thought that the processes of the generation of evil are intensified at every social scale until they give rise to bad times.” It is precisely man’s dreams of happiness that can lead to chaos and suffering. This hedonistic view of happiness contains the seeds of misery, feeding the eternal cycle whereby good times give birth to bad times. Friedrich Nietzsche viewed socialism as demanding comfort for the greatest number of people possible. To question whether it is good for the masses to live in comfort has become a form of heresy. This reveals the spiritual atrophy that so many suffer from. Considering only the weak believe comfort to be a virtue, it is what Carl Jung would describe as the infantile dream state of mass dependency: the desire to gently slip back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise of parental care. Except this lack of friction has consequences. The perfect state destroys the soil in which great intellect grows. Genius, struggle, passion, strength, and wisdom are required to build a safe and abundant society. Yet once a certain level of comfort is achieved, it can destroy the very virtues required to obtain it. Nietzsche observed that it is the warmest heart that aims to alleviate suffering and hardship but fails to realize that it thereby wills the destruction of its own foundation. Comfort breeds mediocrity, which is then called good. Small people want one thing above all: that no one hurt them. We have taken this pathology to such a degree that we now obsess over hurt feelings and call this virtue. Pleasure, in its proper place, is a byproduct of meaningful goals, not a goal in itself. Aristotle saw that pleasure and comfort distort perception and proper judgment. While they do not cause us to misjudge something like geometry or mathematics, they can destroy our ability to decide what is worth pursuing and, therefore, what to do. Consider The Odyssey. Homer depicts Odysseus’ men on the island of the Lotus-Eaters, where they taste the fruit and lose all desire to go home. Much like Huxley’s Brave New World, they are not imprisoned. Rather, they simply stop wanting anything more. Odysseus has to drag his men back to the ships while they weep to stay. This is what comfort can do to men. It empties them of purpose. We intuitively understand this but fail to apply it to our own lives. We must make the same choice as Odysseus when he refuses Calypso’s offer of endless comfort and immortality. He knows she is more beautiful than his wife Penelope waiting at home. He knows that he and Penelope will grow old and die, a fate he could avoid by staying with Calypso. No one who reads these stories wishes he had stayed. We want him to choose the hard way home because if he took the offer, he would stop being admirable. Yet staying is exactly what our modern society asks of us. We are told that the island is the good life. But what happens to the man who caves to this temptation? In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche imagines a risk-averse society taken to its logical endpoint. The elimination of all struggle produces a man so diminished that he fails to possess even self-contempt or higher aspiration. Safety and sameness become the highest goals, creating “no shepherd in one herd.” Anyone who seeks to be anything more than normal becomes an aberration to be dealt with. Or, as Nietzsche puts it, they have “made the wolf a dog in man himself, man’s best domestic animal.”
@elonmusk @EricTopol And your shameful campaign against Anthony Fauci makes you even more guilty. Fauci helped save millions of lives. #Fauci #PublicHealth #COVID19 #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.
Kysymys @PetteriOrpo , kun tässä sulla on ollut oikeistohallitus, niin miksi näitä nyt puhuttuja leikkauksia ei ole tehty? Me kaikki kyllä näimme, että erilaiset hallituskumppanin esittämät leikkaukset saivat aikaan Kokoomuksen riveissä ennen näkemätöntä vastustusta. Tuo sama porukka meinaa leikata 8 miljardia? Vaalitappion jälkeen voit sitten tyytyväisenä selittää, että kyllä me olisimme leikanneet vaikka totuuden hetket on käsillä nyt. Se on sinun hallituksesi syy, että seuraava vaalivoitto menee demareille koska et pitänyt lupaustasi ja hallitusohjelmaasi talouden tasapainottamisesta. Ja kaikille, jotka miettivät Orpon johtaman Kokoomuksen äänestämistä: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. https://t.co/AMl8FJbrY4 #Suomi #Politiikka #Vaalit
Eating disorders are not about aesthetics. At the core they are about trauma and control (and shame and dissociation). Trauma is about unsafety, so parts try to find different things to control. They may control others or go inward. You can’t shame people out of feeling ashamed. #EatingDisorders #TraumaRecovery #MentalHealthAwareness #Nospecificcountrycodesarepresentinthetweet.
Interesting that a Cambridge student formulerad the problem that resulted in the Jason Arday scandal better than most others. Academia did not investigate accusations of plagiarism (supported by clear evidence) because the criticism came from “the wrong people”. Shameful #Academia #Plagiarism #JasonArday #Basedonthetweet #therearenospecificcountriesmentioned.Therefore #theresponsewouldbeanemptystring. However #ifyouwanttheformatasperyourrequest: (nocountrycodes)
As part of the second demonstration in Vienna, Austria, focused on raising awareness of violence against women and calling on men to take responsibility, participants symbolically presented themselves in the Walk of Shame and appealed for a change in societal views on male aggression, with strong voices echoing that stopping violence requires active engagement from men as role models for younger generations. (translated)
Det finns två sorters människor: de som aldrig omprövar en åsikt och de som faktiskt tänker. Jag har valt det senare, även när det kostar. Förut höll jag SD, Riks och det många slarvigt kallar “högerextremt” på armlängds avstånd för att skydda mitt varumärke. Jag är moderat, men har röstat SD för att jag tyckt M varit för veka i islamismfrågan. Att gömma det var feghet förklätt till principfasthet. Idag väljer jag sanning framför image, varje gång. Jag är totalt öppen med exakt allt jag tycker, överallt och i alla rum. Noll shame. Att jag röstat SD är inget jag skäms över alls idag. The best mind is the flexible one. Den som aldrig ändrar sig har inte hållit fast vid sina värderingar, den har bara slutat tänka. Jag hoppas fler vågar göra samma resa även om det är obekvämt. #öppenhet #tänkande #politiskdebatt
The kleptocracy that is US First Family and their hangers on stuff their own pockets with a level of greed that would shame a medieval monarch. If you wonder why socialism, of all things, is suddenly on the march in America – that's the answer. By @afneil https://t.co/ucRcpt9unR #Kleptocracy #Socialism #USPolitics #US
Imane Khelif is a man who beat up a series of women before an Olympics audience. It was one of the most shameful incidents of our age #Shameful #Olympics #ViolenceAgainstWomen #Nocountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.
Metaphysics of the Solitary Absolute: Philosophical and Legal Analysis of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality The Thesis of Solitary Amorality, formulated by Tom Nesky under the banner of the Axiom of Relationality of Law and Being, constitutes a radical challenge to classical and contemporary normative theories. Its central premise—stating that law, morality, and the category of crime are not inherent properties of reality, but artificial products of social relations—requires a rigorous deconstruction at the intersection of legal positivism, phenomenological existentialism, ontological anarchism, and monistic metaphysics. This paper attempts a systematic analysis of the intellectual pillars of this thesis, examining its internal coherence, genealogical roots, and consequences for the understanding of freedom and human subjectivity. The Systemic Construction of Crime vs. Pure Theory of Law The first pillar of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality, designated as Nullum Crimen Sine Systema, posits that law does not discover pre-legal categories of evil, but brings them into existence through the very act of establishing a boundary of permissibility. This assertion exhibits a profound convergence with 20th-century legal positivism, particularly with Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law (Reine Rechtslehre). Kelsen advocated for a methodological purification of legal science from ethical, sociological, and political elements, defining law as a normative system founded upon a hypothetical basic norm (Grundnorm). In the Kelsenian view, the legal system functions as a coercive apparatus devoid of inherent moral value. A crucial point of intersection with Nesky's thesis is the elimination of the traditional dualism between acts that are inherently evil (mala in se) and acts prohibited merely by law (mala prohibita). Kelsen argued that an act becomes unlawful solely when a legal norm attaches state-enforced coercion to it. Unlawfulness is not an ontological property of the act, but the result of a relationship of normative imputation. This implies that the law does not penalize an act because it is intrinsically evil; rather, an act is considered evil solely because it has been subjected to systemic penalization. This clash became prominent during the debates surrounding the Nuremberg trials, where positions based on natural law and legal positivism collided. While prosecutors such as Robert Jackson invoked universal moral norms (mala in se) as the basis for punishing criminals despite the previously binding positive law of the Third Reich, Kelsen pointed out the theoretical inconsistency of such an approach. He argued that judging on the basis of retroactive law (ex post facto) constitutes a breach in the systemic coherence of positivism, even if it might be justified by political and historical necessity. Nesky's project imparts an existential dimension of oppression to this structure, bringing it close to the critique of the state formulated by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche famously described the state as "the coldest of all cold monsters," which devours the individual's singularity and imposes herd morality upon them. The gaze of the state, mediated through the Other, paralyzes the sovereignty of the individual and forces them to navigate within arbitrarily designated normative boundaries. Every stroke drawn across the chaos of reality establishes a boundary, and every boundary instantly creates the concept of its transgression. The Paradox of the Systemic Cage and the Limits of Ontological Anarchism The second pillar of the thesis—The Paradox of the Systemic Cage—points to the impossibility of escaping the system through rules alone. Every attempt to negate the existing order, from establishing anarchist structures to escaping into geographical isolation, immediately transforms into a new system whose primary imperative becomes the defense and maintenance of that very absence of rules. This process of structural looping finds its reflection in the current of ontological anarchism formulated by Hakim Bey (pseudonym of Peter Lamborn Wilson). Bey, drawing on a synthesis of Nietzscheanism, Situationist theory of the spectacle, and chaos esotericism, recognized that classical revolutions striving to overthrow the state inevitably reproduce structures of domination, becoming new forms of confinement. As an alternative, he proposed the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ). TAZ is a tactic for creating temporary, non-hierarchical spaces that deliberately evade formal structures of state control. The key element of TAZ is its ephemerality: before the system can map, define, and absorb the autonomous zone, it must dissolve itself and relocate to another point in space-time. Attempts to transform TAZ into Permanent Autonomous Zones (PAZ) immediately encounter the paradox noted by Nesky. The need to defend and codify freedom within a lasting community gives rise to internal rules, mechanisms of exclusion, and hierarchy. For this reason, Murray Bookchin criticized ontological anarchism (calling it "lifestyle anarchism" or "bourgeois anarchism") for its lack of political realism and its flight from systemic struggle against capital and state in favor of aesthetic rebellion. The convergence of these perspectives demonstrates that freedom defined as reactive resistance to a system remains structurally determined by it. The Dissolution of the Relational Mirror: The Existential Gaze and the Collapse of Morality The third pillar of the thesis, designated as The Dissolution of the Mirror (L'Autre), posits that good and evil require the presence of an external witness and judge. This assertion represents a direct application of Jean-Paul Sartre's existential phenomenology, particularly his analysis of the Gaze (le look / le regard) and the relation to the Other (l'Autre) presented in Being and Nothingness. Sartre illustrates the constitutive role of the Other through an analysis of the voyeur's situation. At the moment of complete absorption in the act of peeping through a keyhole, the subject's consciousness is pre-reflective—the voyeur does not reflect on himself; his consciousness completely merges with the act being performed. Only the sudden sound of footsteps in the hallway shatters this unity. The voyeur realizes that he himself is seen, and is instantly paralyzed by shame. For Sartre, shame is not a purely internal emotion; it is shame of oneself before the Other. The Gaze of the Other objectifies the free subject (being-for-itself—pour-soi), freezing them into a specific role and moral evaluation (being-for-others—pour-autrui). As Ellie Anderson points out, Descartes' formula "I think, therefore I am" is replaced in Sartre by "I feel shame, therefore Others exist." The Gaze of the Other marks the birth of social morality, wherein the individual learns to view themselves from a third-person perspective. This existential dynamic corresponds to the Nietzschean genealogy of "bad conscience." Nietzsche demonstrates that morality and guilt are products of the forced internalization of human instincts that could no longer be discharged outwardly due to social barriers. Forced into the constraints of society, man turns against himself, creating an internal judge (conscience) modeled on the external tyrant. This vision also resonates with the classical theory of Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes explicitly declares that in the state of nature, where there is no common power, there is no law, and where there is no law, no notion of injustice exists. Concepts of good, evil, justice, and property are attributes of man living in society, not in solitude. Removing the social fabric reverts the individual to a state in which theft and injury lose their raison d'être due to the absence of relational reference to the Other. #philosophy # metaphysics # thesis # morality
This is it. We cannot trust even the BBC to tell us the truth. It is absolutely shameful, and I cannot believe so many people are going along with it #TrustIssues #MediaBias #ShamefulTruth #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.
I am shocked by this propaganda ‘interview’ made by President Pellegrini. I can only describe it as shameful & unhinged. It goes against our values and national interests, as well as EU & NATO policies & commitments. I will be demanding answers. #Pellegrini #Propaganda #EUvalues #SK #EU #NATO
Wall of Shame: she is the top enemy of democracy in Germany: Lower Saxony's Minister of the Interior Daniela Behrens allows officials from the SPD/Greens opposition parties to ban the election candidacy. (translated)
How utterly, utterly shameful. The department of Justice needs to explain why it is treating holocaust survivors so cruelly. https://t.co/dl2NWh8lIi #HolocaustSurvivors #JusticeDepartment #HumanRights #Thetweetdoesnotmentionanyspecificcountries.Therefore #therearenocountrycodestoreturn.
