Search

Une pétition demande la déprogrammation du banquet du Canon français prévu le 5 septembre à Riorges. L’origine : LFI Roanne, avec le concours habituel de la gauche, des syndicats et des collectifs qui savent mieux que vous ce que vous avez le droit de fêter. Le chef d’accusation est limpide : trop de terroir, trop de drapeau, trop de France. Un banquet devient donc une « manifestation identitaire ». Un fromage, une menace. Un cochon à la broche, presque un putsch. À gauche, le mode d’emploi ne change jamais. On ne discute pas, on crie au fasciste, on pétitionne et on exige l’annulation. Un concert trop à droite ? Déprogrammé. Un journaliste hors clous ? Isolé. Un repas où l’on chante sans leur permission ? Interdit. La liberté d’avoir une autre idée de la France n’existe pas. Seulement la leur. Ils parlent de tolérance. Ils pratiquent l’exclusion. Ils dénoncent le totalitarisme. Ils le mettent en scène à chaque fois qu’un Français ose se réunir sans leur catéchisme. Le totalitarisme, c’est toujours l’autre. Sauf quand c’est eux qui pétitionnent pour interdire, déprogrammer et faire taire. Le danger pour la démocratie n’est pas dans une salle de Riorges. Il est dans ceux qui transforment chaque repas un peu trop français en affaire d’État. #France #Liberté #Identité

DEHORS RADIO-CANADA ET CBC ! Pendant que les tensions commerciales s'enflamment entre Ottawa et Washington, le GOP frappe un grand coup contre le diffuseur public canadien. Le Parti républicain retire les accréditations de CBC et Radio-Canada pour sa convention de mi-mandat à Dallas. En cause : une fuite sur une directive interne restreignant l'usage du mot « terrorisme » pour le 11 septembre. Malgré un retrait rapide de la consigne par CBC, les Républicains ont tranché, qualifiant la présence du diffuseur d'« insulte » aux victimes. Selon moi, à Washington, la tolérance pour le politiquement correct canadien est officiellement tombée à zéro. Cet épisode dépasse largement la simple chicane d'accréditations de presse. C’est un durcissement des relations entre les deux pays et ça démontre à quel point la marge de manœuvre des journalistes canadiens aux États-Unis s'impose maintenant avec de nouvelles règles du jeu, beaucoup facile pour les gauchistes du nord. https://t.co/QSWJDOUfAW #Politique #Canada #Journalisme

Austria must confront Putinism and the Russian “Z” war ideology with the same seriousness it applies to other anti-democratic extremist movements. @_CStocker No tolerance for organizations, propaganda networks or symbols that glorify Russia’s war of aggression, political violence #Austria #Putinism #NoWar #AT #RU

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 Great Feminization, Measured Seventy-two percent of men under thirty hold a positive view of women; among women under thirty, 50% (a 22-point gap). Among women under twenty-five, the share is 35% (a 37-point gap). Where the manosphere and “toxic masculinity” dominate headlines, the data points elsewhere: young women increasingly sort men into the enemy column. The class divide is sharp. Among working-class young women, 61% view men positively; among professional-class women, 36%—a 25-point gap tied to exposure to universities, HR departments, media organizations, and NGOs. The pattern runs through institutional conditioning. Helen Andrews argued this in 2020: between 2015 and 2020 many Western institutions became majority-female, including the New York Times newsroom (2018), law schools (2016), medical schools and the college-educated workforce (2019). Affirmative-action mandates, discrimination settlements, and diversity requirements helped drive the shift. As institutions changed, so did missions: justice increasingly focused on protecting “oppressed” minorities; newsrooms shifted from reporting toward narrative enforcement; universities moved from arguing to “safe spaces.” The result is a “daycare governance model”: infants to be protected (the oppressed), caregivers to provide protection (the allies), and predators to be removed (the dissenters). Research shows the same frame in speech: FIRE’s 2026 college speech rankings found women less tolerant than men across ideologies, including less tolerance for their allies. A woman entering kindergarten in 2005 has spent twenty years inside this system—she didn’t invent it, she inherited it. The 35% figure suggests sorting into victim, ally, and predator, with no grey zones. Working-class women, less conditioned by these pipelines, still view men positively (61–36). None of this is entirely new; Gustave Le Bon described the mechanism in 1895.

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.

When Culture Collapses, the State Takes Over On June 18, the Combatting Hate Act received royal assent in Ottawa; in July it becomes law. Among its provisions, Canada’s Criminal Code will define hatred as an intense and extreme emotion tied to vilification and detestation. Feeling is moving into criminal law. The state has taken on the job of policing it. Supporters cite a reported 169% rise in hate crimes from 2018 to 2024. But such spikes are not random: they follow predictable outcomes of placing groups with long histories of cultural and political conflict together in large numbers while assuming grievances will vanish. “Diversity is our strength” can’t replace shared culture. Shared culture enables voluntary social interaction; without it, cohesion is not automatic—it must be built, and conflict is often the norm. When rapid, large-scale difference is combined with demands for perpetual tolerance, social order weakens. The law then steps in to do what culture once did. This is how multiculturalism can drift toward authoritarianism: institutions empowered to manage social conflict gain authority by promising to solve problems their policies help create. Enforcement is rarely neutral. The same legal mechanisms that target “offensive” speech can also punish individuals harshly, while authorities can remain slow to confront serious harms—raising the question: who decides whose equality matters?

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 Belyaev Fox Experiment: Selective Breeding, Tameness, and Domestication In 1959, Soviet geneticist Dmitry Belyaev began a long-term experiment at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk to investigate how wild animals might undergo domestication. Working with silver foxes (*Vulpes vulpes*) from fur farms, he selected approximately the tamest 10% in each generation as breeding parents. Selection focused mainly on behaviour—reduced fear and aggression and greater willingness to interact with humans—rather than on physical traits. The results were rapid and striking. Within about six generations, some foxes licked researchers’ hands, accepted physical contact, wagged their tails, and actively sought human attention (Dugatkin, 2018). Over time, selection for tameness was accompanied by changes in coat pigmentation, ear and tail shape, reproductive patterns, physiology, and behaviour (Trut et al., 2009). These traits resembled features found in domestic dogs and other domesticated mammals and became associated with the “domestication syndrome,” which includes reduced aggression, increased social tolerance, juvenile behaviours, pigmentation changes, and altered craniofacial development. Belyaev proposed that selection for reduced fear and aggression could affect wider developmental and physiological systems. Later research suggested that changes involving neural crest cells might help explain how behavioural selection could produce multiple physical traits (Wilkins et al., 2014). The experiment also offered a model for dog domestication. Early wolves that were less fearful and aggressive may have remained near human settlements, where they experienced a new selective environment. Over generations, increasing tolerance of humans could have led to further behavioural, physiological, and morphological changes. Belyaev’s experiment remains important because it shows how behavioural selection can rapidly influence development, genetics, and evolution, while also highlighting the need for caution when applying the concept of a universal domestication syndrome. **References:** Belyaev (1979); Dugatkin (2018); Lord et al. (2020); Trut et al. (2009); Wilkins et al. (2014).

You probably caught yesterday's car accident with children... Tolerance for drinking in Czech society can end up like this. I know SO MANY people who get behind the wheel with a leftover drink or even after a few beers and shots. But this is really something - a coach who allegedly had problems with alcohol. (translated)

Vysvětlete prosím někdo tomuto magorovi, který je rudý až na prdeli, že Instagram Moniky Babišové není povinný 👍 Pokud mu nedělá dobře, že tam má paní Monika fotky v drahých plavkách, protože na to má postavu i peníze, zatímco on se svou morbidní obezitou a gynekomastií musí nosit pončo tak ať na to prostě nečumí✌️ #Instagram #Babišová #tolerance

A recent investigation has identified 73 sites of Francoist repression in the Balearic Islands, revealing a network of prisons and concentration camps more extensive than previously known, and highlighting gestures of resistance from prisoners who documented their suffering through drawings, letters, and writings on clothing. (translated)

Danske Gymnasieelevers Sammenslutning har netop lavet en video mod Danmarksdemokraterne og partiets initiativer mod islamisk dominanskultur og social kontrol på uddannelsesinstitutionerne. For at illustrere deres godhed og tolerance har de valgt Imam Ali-moskeen som multikulturelt bagtæppe for videoen. En moské, der er det iranske præstestyres forlængede arm i Danmark, som praktiserer groteske ægteskabskontrakter, kontrollerer eksiliranere og ser stiltiende til, mens tusindvis af iranske demonstranter og kvinder uden tørklæde mærker islamisk dominanskultur i sin reneste form. De får en dumpekarakter af mig. #Danmark #multikultur #politiskdebat

The article provides an overview of how to financially prepare for retirement in the Czech Republic, highlights the decline in the average old-age pension, and recommends utilizing pension savings and long-term investment products to secure income in old age, emphasizing the importance of a sensible investment strategy based on age and risk tolerance. (translated)