Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Control vs freedom

 

Translated from French
The post that inspired my text on wokism, which racked up 80 million views and was picked up by dozens of media outlets around the world—strangely, very few in France—didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from a conversation with a French intellectual, a former minister, extremely intelligent. The question was simple. How could the left have won for seventy years in the West, when we already knew socialism was a disaster? His answer stopped me cold. “It’s very simple. They put Hitler on the far right.” From there, the trap snaps shut on its own. Anyone trying to sell liberalism and freedom ends up, by design, in the opposite camp. And the opposite camp is Nazism. That’s why they call Elon Musk a Nazi. That’s why they stick Javier Milei on the far right. That’s why a Sarah Knafo gets labeled a xenophobe and a racist. They haven’t dared “Nazi” yet: she’s Jewish. If she weren’t, it’d already be done. The sleight of hand is old. We’ve redrawn the map. We slapped the word “right” on the corpse of the 20th century, then declared that anything non-collectivist brushes up against that corpse. That’s why Milei said Hitler was a socialist. That Nazism was national socialism. That fascism, too, is a socialism: “everything in the State, nothing outside the State.” That’s why the AfD leader is now saying out loud that Hitler ran a left-wing policy. That he wasn’t a liberal. That he was the State against the individual. The truth is starting to break through everywhere. Not because some trend has shifted. Because the mental framework that’s held since 1945 is cracking. You can’t shut down the question anymore by yelling “Nazi.” This empire of lies is collapsing. And what will bring it down isn’t clan infighting, it’s restoring the vocabulary. The debts of Western countries aren’t some bump in the road. They’re the bill for decades of policies that promise protection and deliver dependency. Wokism isn’t the heart of the system. It’s the froth. The last layer of moral justification for a collectivism running on fumes. The real divide isn’t left/right anymore, the inheritance from 1945. It’s Control versus Freedom. On one side, all of collectivism, whatever the name: socialism, national socialism, central planning, state wokism. On the other, those who want to let people build. Our enemies aren’t bad people. They’re bad mental maps. Reprogramming is possible. It’s time to reclaim the words. And go build.

https://x.com/brivael/status/2102718664805888013?s=20

Original post:

Translated from French
I want to offer my apologies, on behalf of the French, for having given birth to French Theory (which in turn gave birth to the worst of all ideological monstrosities: wokism). We gave the world Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. And then, in the intellectual ruins of post-1968, we gave Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Three brilliant men who forged, in the elegance of our language, the ideological weapon that today paralyzes the West. We must understand what they did. Foucault taught that truth does not exist, that there are only power relations disguised as knowledge. That science, reason, justice, the medical institution, the school, the prison, sexuality—everything is just a staging of domination. Derrida taught that texts have no stable meaning, that every signifier slips away, that every reading is a betrayal, that the author is dead and the reader reigns supreme. Deleuze taught that we should prefer the rhizome to the tree, the nomad to the sedentary, desire to the law, becoming to being, difference to identity. Taken individually, these are debatable theses. Combined, exported, and popularized, they form a system. And that system is a poison. For here's what happened. These texts, unreadable in France, crossed the Atlantic. The departments of Yale, Berkeley, and Columbia absorbed them in the 1980s. They found fertile ground there that didn't exist among us: American Puritanism, its racial guilt, its obsession with identity. French Theory married that substrate, and the child of that union is called wokism. Judith Butler reads Foucault and invents performative gender. Edward Said reads Foucault and invents academic postcolonialism. Kimberlé Crenshaw inherits the framework and invents intersectionality. At every step, the matrix is French: there is no truth, there is only power, so every hierarchy is suspect, every institution is oppressive, every norm is violence, every identity is constructed and thus negotiable, every majority is guilty. That's how three Parisian philosophers, who probably never imagined their practical consequences, provided the operating software to an entire generation of activists, university bureaucrats, HR managers, journalists, and legislators. That's how we ended up with a civilization that no longer knows how to say whether a woman is a woman, whether its own history deserves to be defended, whether merit exists, whether truth can be distinguished from opinion. It's shit for one simple reason, and it must be stated calmly. A civilization stands on three pillars: the belief that there exists a truth accessible to reason, the belief that there exists a good distinct from evil, the belief that there exists a heritage to be transmitted. French Theory set out to dynamite all three. Not out of malice. Out of intellectual play, fascination with suspicion, hatred of the bourgeoisie that had nurtured them. But the result is there. An entire generation learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. An entire generation knows how to suspect and no longer knows how to admire. An entire generation sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere. I apologize because we French bear a particular responsibility. It's our language, our universities, our publishers, our prestige that gave this nihilism its chic packaging. Without the legitimacy of the Sorbonne and Vincennes, these ideas would never have crossed the ocean. We exported doubt like others export weapons. What is being built now, in Silicon Valley, in AI labs, in startups, in workshops, in all the places where people still make things instead of deconstructing them—that's the response. A civilization is rebuilt by builders, not by commentators. By those who believe that truth exists and is worth devoting oneself to. By those who embrace a hierarchy of the beautiful, the true, the good, and who are not ashamed to pass it on. So, sorry. And back to work.

_____

Apparently re-written:


Translated from French
Today I’m going to explain to you how the international left pulled off the greatest heist in human history. And how it all hinges on a single word. “Far right.” It’s not an insult. It’s an electric fence. Once planted around Hitler’s corpse, it sterilized for seventy years the only camp truly capable of resisting him: the one that refuses to let the State decide in place of the people. The post that inspired my text on wokism—80 million views, picked up everywhere except, strangely, in France—didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from a conversation with a French intellectual, former minister, extremely intelligent. The question was simple. How was the left able to win for seventy years in the West, when we already knew socialism was a disaster? His answer stopped me cold. “It’s very simple. They put Hitler on the far right.” From there, the trap snaps shut on its own. Anyone who wants to sell liberalism and freedom ends up, by design, in the opposing camp. And the opposing camp is Nazism. Elon Musk is a Nazi. Milei is far right. Sarah Knafo is xenophobic. They haven’t dared “Nazi” yet: she’s Jewish. If she weren’t, it’d already be done. The sleight of hand is old. We redrew the map. We stuck the word “right” on the corpse of the 20th century. Then we declared that anything non-collectivist brushed up against that corpse. It took time to set this up. It didn’t fall from the sky in 1945. First, the Frankfurt School. Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse. Brilliant Marxists who saw, as early as the 1930s, that revolution through the factory had failed in the West. So they shifted the front line. No more proletarian against bourgeois. Culture against civilization. The family, school, reason, norms, heritage: everything becomes “domination.” It’s no longer an economic theory. It’s a suspicion machine. Marcuse would turn it, in the 1960s, into the software of the New Left. The “long march through the institutions” isn’t a legend. It’s an assumed strategy: take the university, the press, the school, the bureaucracy, and install suspicion as a virtue. May ’68 isn’t a student party. It’s the moment this software enters the elites. In France, it then marries up with Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. I’ve talked about it before. We exported doubt like others export weapons. An entire generation learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. The Club of Rome arrives right after, in 1968, and publishes *The Limits to Growth* in 1972. New layer. After cultural suspicion, moral rationing. Growth becomes guilty. Abundance becomes violence. The planner regains a “scientific” justification for telling people what they no longer have the right to want. Degrowth wasn’t born in a forest. It was born in a report. And it gave collectivism its last virtue: protecting the planet by administering life. There remains the most important lock. The historians. Not “all evil.” Many are honest, scholarly, useful. But the center of gravity in their profession, after 1945, shifted left. Anti-fascism became the moral sesame of the Western university. Sticking Hitler on the far right isn’t just a thesis. It’s a career. It’s protection. It’s the right to keep teaching collectivism after Auschwitz, after the Gulag, after Mao, after Pol Pot, by pretending the absolute evil lived on “the other side.” The incentive is crystal clear. If Hitler is right-wing, socialism remains a generous idea poorly applied. If Hitler is a racial socialist—planning, price and wage controls, nationalizations, total State, scapegoat, “everything in the State, nothing outside the State”—then the 20th century is no longer a duel between progressive Good and reactionary Evil. It’s a civil war within collectivism. National or international. Racial or class-based. Same method. Same result: the State deciding who deserves to live. That sentence couldn’t be allowed to circulate. So we made it unsayable. We stuck the word “right” on the corpse. And we sterilized the camp of freedom. For seventy years, wanting less State, more property, more individual responsibility meant “brushing up against.” Brushing up against Hitler. Brushing up against 1933. Brushing up against the monster. Everything we’ve observed since flows from this map. Wokism isn’t the heart of the system. It’s the froth. The last layer of moral justification for a collectivism running out of steam. Western debts aren’t an accident. They’re the bill from decades of policies that promise protection and deliver dependence. Calling Milei far right, Musk a Nazi, the AfD a brown resurgence: that’s not analysis. It’s the survival reflex of a mental map that’s cracking. Because it is cracking. Not because a fad changed. Because you can no longer ban the question by shouting “Nazi.” Milei says it out loud: Hitler was a socialist. The AfD now says it in Germany, in the very land of the taboo. X has broken the local narrative monopoly. An argument that took ten years to cross a faculty now circles the world in ten minutes, and gets publicly annotated. They held for seventy years. Now it’s blowing up everywhere. They have two ways out. The first is total war as a smokescreen. Re-gluing the “Good” camp through existential urgency. When the vocabulary collapses, the last lever is fear. I’m frightened enough to see NATO doing propaganda with white faces to go “save a Europe in danger.” Not because Europe doesn’t deserve defending. It does. But because I recognize the ploy: we pull out the 1945 map, we designate a monster, and we shove everyone asking for accountability—on debt, borders, school, energy, freedom of speech—into the camp of treason. In this logic, war no longer needs to be won to be useful. It just needs to be moral enough to ban the conversation. The second way out is the collapse of the frame. X is one vector. Not a party. A public square where the word “Nazi” wears out from being stuck on everything that doesn’t obey. Musk broke the media bottleneck. Milei proved you could win an election by saying socialism is a poverty machine, including in its national version. The AfD, whatever one thinks of this or that line, dared a sentence Germany had banned for three generations: Hitler ran a left-wing policy. He wasn’t a liberal. He was the State against the person. This isn’t a fad. It’s the restoration of vocabulary. The real divide is no longer left/right inherited from 1945. It’s Control versus Freedom. On one side, all of collectivism, whatever the name: socialism, national socialism, planning, state wokism, administered degrowth. On the other, those who want to let people build. Our enemies aren’t bad people. They’re bad mental maps. Conversion is possible. Many of those shouting “far right” today simply inherited a rigged compass in school. We don’t hate them. We’re giving them back their words. It’s time. And to go build.


Tuesday, September 22, 2026

Communism’s True Core: The Systemic Lie

The whole thread is worth reading.

"The Systemic Lie is what holds the mechanism together. Not ordinary propaganda – something more total: a managed reality in which the categories of thought themselves are corrupted.

Productivity is renamed exploitation.

Order is renamed fascism.

Resistance is renamed hate.

The Systemic Lie does not merely mislead – it destroys the conceptual tools by which people would otherwise identify what is being done to them. A population that cannot name extraction cannot resist it. That is the design, not a side effect."



https://x.com/Kristof_Poland/status/2064309615651668179?s=20

What the West Still Doesn’t Get It: Communism’s True Core: The Systemic Lie Most people in the West think they understand communism. They picture bread lines, gulags, failed five-year plans, and the collapsed Soviet Union. They treat it as a discredited economic theory – an experiment that proved that abolishing private property doesn’t work. Case closed, history moved on. This misunderstanding may be the most dangerous intellectual failure of our time. Communism was never primarily an economic system. Economics was the surface. Beneath it lay something far more insidious: a total, systemic, institutionalized commitment to lying. Not occasional dishonesty. Not spin or propaganda in the ordinary sense. Something deeper – a civilizational war against truth itself, waged through every institution, every classroom, every newspaper, every conversation, until reality itself became negotiable and the lie became the air people breathed. The Words We’re Missing The Polish language, forged by decades of living under this system, produced words for this phenomenon that English simply cannot match: ZakÅ‚amanie [zah-kwah-MAH-nyeh] – a state of total, pervasive, socially embedded falsehood, a condition in which an entire society is saturated with lies so thoroughly that truth becomes almost inaccessible. ObÅ‚uda [ob-woo-dah] – a deep, performative hypocrisy, the gap between what is proclaimed and what is actually practiced, the mask worn so long it begins to feel like a face. These are not words for individual liars. They describe a system – a mode of social organization built on organized mendacity, where the lie is not the exception but the foundation. English has no single word for either concept, and that linguistic gap is not a coincidence. It reflects a gap in experience. Cultures that did not live under communism lack the vocabulary because they lack the wound. And because they lack the vocabulary, they struggle to recognize the thing when it reappears in new clothing. The Continuity: Communism, Leftism, Wokeism What we call wokeism today, or the broader radical left, is not a new phenomenon. It is the same operating system running on updated hardware. The specifics have changed – instead of the proletariat, we have marginalized identity groups; instead of bourgeois class enemies, we have racists and transphobes; instead of socialist realism, we have DEI statements. But the deep structure is the same. That deep structure is this: truth is not discovered, it is assigned. Reality is not something to be understood honestly but something to be narrated strategically. Language is not a tool for communication but a weapon of power. And anyone who resists the approved narrative is not simply wrong – they are dangerous, and must be silenced, shamed, or destroyed. This is zakÅ‚amanie in its modern form. This is obÅ‚uda wearing a human rights badge. The same movement that insists men can become women will insist, with equal fervor, that questioning this is an act of violence. The same institutions that claim to champion free inquiry systematically suppress dissent. The same people who invoke tolerance as their highest value are among the most intolerant forces in public life. The contradiction is not accidental – it is structural. It is the system working as designed. Why the West Still Doesn’t Get It People who grew up in freedom tend to assume, at some level, that bad actors know they are lying. That somewhere behind the ideological performance, there is a cynical operator who privately acknowledges reality. This assumption is wrong, and it is why Westerners consistently underestimate what they are dealing with. The totalitarian lie, at its mature stage, is not cynical. It is believed. Or rather, it creates a condition in which the distinction between belief and performance collapses entirely. People learn to say things they do not believe so fluently, and for so long, that they lose access to what they actually think.



This system does not just produce liars – it produces people who can no longer clearly distinguish truth from the narrative they have been trained to emit. This environment also produces a kind of cognitive adaptation often described as doublethink – the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, and to accept both as true when required. It is not merely lying to others, but a learned internal tolerance toward contradiction itself, where inconsistencies are tolerated because survival depends on it.
Literally twisting the minds. Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and others who lived through this recognize the pattern immediately when they see it in Western institutions today. The show trials of Twitter mobs. The compelled speech. The ideological litmus tests for employment. The memory-holing of inconvenient facts. The ritualistic confessions of privilege. To a post-communist eye, it is unmistakable. To eyes that have only known freedom, it looks like a passionate, if misguided, social movement. That gap in perception – between those who have vocabulary for zakÅ‚amanie and those who do not – may be one of the most consequential fault lines in the Western world today. Because you cannot fight a disease you cannot name. And you cannot name what your language was never built to describe. The first task, then, is translation – not just of words, but of the lived understanding those words carry. The lie is not a bug in this system. It is the system. Until that is understood, the West will keep arriving, perpetually surprised, to find that the institutions it trusted have been quietly hollowed out from within.


Demoralization and the Legacy of the Lie Within systems built on institutional falsehood, something happens to people that goes far deeper than political disagreement or economic hardship. A process of demoralization sets in – and this word must be understood in its fullest sense. Not merely disappointment. Not discouragement. But the systematic erosion of the moral infrastructure that holds a person, and a society, together: trust, integrity, the shared assumption that truth is real and that it matters. People learn, through accumulated experience, that honesty costs. They watch colleagues who speak plainly get passed over, demoted, or destroyed. They watch those who perform loyalty – regardless of whether they believe a word of it – advance. The lesson is absorbed not as ideology but as survival knowledge: say what the system wants to hear. After enough repetition, this stops feeling like compromise. It becomes instinct. Negative Moral Selection The result is one of the most destructive and least discussed phenomena of institutional life under such systems: negative moral selection. The term deserves to be used widely, because the process it describes is precise and devastating. In a healthy institution, the qualities that get rewarded – competence, honesty, independent judgment, willingness to deliver unwelcome truths – are roughly the qualities that make institutions function well. The selection pressure, however imperfectly, tends to elevate people worth elevating. Under a system of institutionalized lying, the selection pressure inverts. What gets rewarded is the willingness to subordinate truth to narrative, to signal loyalty over competence, to manipulate rather than inform. And crucially, those most willing to do this – whether out of opportunism, cowardice, or genuine ideological capture – rise. Those least willing to do it are sidelined, pushed out, or in harder cases, destroyed. Over time, the institution fills, top to bottom, with people selected specifically for their unreliability. The honest are gone. The competent who refused to play along are gone. What remains is a self-reinforcing culture of cynicism and mutual complicity – everyone knowing, at some level, that the whole structure rests on a lie, and everyone invested in maintaining it because the lie is now the source of their position. This is not merely inefficiency. It is institutional rot at the genetic level. The Social Aftermath Beyond the institutions themselves, something corrodes in the broader social fabric. Public life becomes performative theater. Language decouples from meaning – words are uttered not to convey reality but to signal allegiance, deflect suspicion, or accumulate social capital. Truth inverts: the more emphatically something is proclaimed, the more suspicious a rational person learns to be. People adapt. They develop a kind of split consciousness – participating in the public rituals because refusal carries costs, while privately withdrawing all genuine trust from the system. They say the words. They attend the meetings. They sign the statements. And inwardly, they check out entirely. This is doublethink not as a dramatic Orwellian act of self-violation, but as a mundane daily habit. A way of moving through the world. And like all habits, it shapes the person who practices it – often in ways they do not fully recognize. The Habit That Outlasts the Lie Here is perhaps the most important and least understood dimension of this entire phenomenon: the habit persists even after the specific lie is gone. When communism formally collapsed in Central and Eastern Europe, there was a widespread assumption in the West – and to some degree among the people themselves – that the pathologies would dissolve along with the system that produced them. Remove the oppressive structure, introduce free markets and democratic institutions, and the culture would normalize. It did not. Or at least, not nearly as quickly as hoped. 1/2

The Merchants of Chaos — The Core of Communism Communism no longer comes for your property directly. It comes for your reality. Its instrument today is not confiscation but chaos – deliberately manufactured, strategically amplified – because chaos is what communists thrive on, what they use for control, and what they convert into profit and power for themselves. The mechanism that makes this possible, the fuel that runs the entire engine, is the Systemic Lie. That lie is not a feature of communism. It is its core. What has changed is the method, not the logic. The twentieth century version required tanks, gulags, and the literal seizure of property – crude, visible, and ultimately self-defeating, because it destroyed the productive base it fed on. The twenty-first century version is more subtle and pernicious. It does not confiscate. It destabilizes. It does not seize your business. It makes owning it too costly, too regulated, too risky – until you comply or collapse. The transfer of power happens without a single deed changing hands by force. Chaos is the new collectivization. Every manufactured crisis – racial, climatic, epidemiological, institutional – follows the same structural logic: disorder is produced or amplified, fear is maximized, and in the ensuing panic, transfers of power occur that would have been politically impossible in calm times. Emergency powers. Regulatory capture. The slow erasure of the boundary between public and private. You do not notice the expropriation because you are too busy surviving the emergency they built for you. This is not coincidence. It is rational strategy. Chaos redistributes – not randomly, but toward those who anticipated it, positioned for it, and in many cases quietly produced it. Some benefit in absolute terms: assets acquired at collapse prices, power seized in the vacuum, information asymmetries converted into control. Others benefit only relatively – they simply outlast the rivals the chaos destroyed. Both kinds of beneficiary draw from the same account. Yours. The Systemic Lie is what holds the mechanism together. Not ordinary propaganda – something more total: a managed reality in which the categories of thought themselves are corrupted. Productivity is renamed exploitation. Order is renamed fascism. Resistance is renamed hate. The Systemic Lie does not merely mislead – it destroys the conceptual tools by which people would otherwise identify what is being done to them. A population that cannot name extraction cannot resist it. That is the design, not a side effect. This is why communism survives every empirical refutation. It was never a falsifiable theory. It doesn’t care about the truth – it only seeks power.
It is a coordination technology for extraction, wrapped in moral language sufficient to paralyze its opponents. Strip away the egalitarian vocabulary and what remains is a system perfectly engineered for the few to live at the expense of the many – while the many are kept too confused, too divided, and too guilty to see it. The lie is not incidental to the project – it is central. The chaos and the lie are the project. Name them. The naming is the resistance.


Control vs freedom

  Brivael Le Pogam @brivael Translated from French The post that inspired my text on wokism, which racked up 80 million views and was picked...