Saturday, July 11, 2026

Newspeak in Europe

 



Translated from French
“Democracy is the foundation of our freedom.” This sentence is fascinating. Not because democracy isn’t important. But because today, some political leaders seem to have reversed the meaning of words. Orwell called this Newspeak. The principle is simple: when those in power change the definition of words, they gradually change what people accept as normal. Censorship becomes the “protection of democracy.” Restrictions on certain freedoms become the “defense of liberty.” The centralization of power becomes the “protection of citizens.” Criticism becomes “disinformation.” The more words lose their meaning, the harder it becomes to have an honest debate. Democracy is not a slogan. It is the ability to challenge power, to debate freely, and to change leaders. Orwell wasn’t afraid of words. He was afraid of the day when leaders would no longer hesitate to make them say exactly the opposite of what they mean. 1984 was a warning, not a how-to guide.


Not just reversing the meaning of words, but the words in sentences. Freedom is the foundation of democracy There, I corrected it.


Europe never recovered from 2008. In 2008 the EU economy was larger than America’s. Today the US produces nearly 50% more than the entire European Union combined with per capita GDP almost double Europe’s average. America chose innovation, energy abundance, and growth. Europe chose regulation, green self-sabotage, and welfare bloat. The gap is now a canyon, and it’s still widening. So don’t Europize America.

Friday, July 10, 2026

Mass unconsciousness

 

Translated from French
I've rubbed shoulders with tech billionaires, high-flying politicians, leaders in wildly different fields. The greatest disappointment isn't the one you'd think. It's not cynicism. It's not corruption. It's unconsciousness. In the vast majority of cases, these people have no idea of the effects of their actions. No one wakes up in the morning thinking, "I'm working for a system that produces mass immigration, hence insecurity." No one makes the connection. No one traces the causal chain back. Why? Because they lack historical culture. Economic culture. They optimize their career, their status, their next step, without ever seeing the system they're part of. They're not evil. They're lost. The true cynics do exist; I've crossed paths with them. But they're rare. The banality of evil isn't villains plotting. It's smart, ambitious people, deeply unconscious, who execute without understanding. That's far more frightening than a conspiracy. A conspiracy, you can fight. Mass unconsciousness, though, reproduces itself on its own.


Warning about communism

 

Why Trump Is Right To Warn Americans About Communism

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jul 11, 2026 - 05:10 AM

Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Early this month, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered increasingly forceful warnings about what he sees as a growing communist threat within the United States.

During what will be his final years in office, Trump appears more determined than ever to defend the principles of American liberty against the influence of Marxist ideas. Employing rhetoric reminiscent of the Cold War, he declared on July 3: “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land.”

On Independence Day, the president reinforced his message, stating:

“The communist system is the opposite of the American system, and the communist system has never worked.

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen. It’s like a cancer—you’ve got to cut it out, you’ve got to cut it out fast.”

Predictably, Trump’s remarks were greeted with widespread cynicism by political opponents and media pundits. For decades, establishment intellectuals have dismissed concerns about communism as misguided rhetoric designed only to gin up a public reaction. Some implied that Trump was stoking ideological division and indiscriminately branding progressives, social democrats and advocates of government intervention as communists. Others argued that there is no significant communist movement in America and that the real threat to democracy is the president himself.

Yet dismissing Trump’s warnings would compel us to ignore some of the most important lessons in modern history.

First, communism has the worst human rights record of any political ideology in the world. From the Soviet Union to the Republic of China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and elsewhere, communist regimes have imprisoned, tortured, and executed millions of their own citizens.

Repression of political opponents was not just an unfortunate side effect of the transition to communism; it became an essential feature of regimes that concentrated absolute power in a single party. Recent episodes of political violence in the United States should remind us that revolutionary transformation is not necessarily a peaceful process.

Second, socialist economic systems have consistently failed to produce prosperity. Karl Marx envisioned a society in which the abolition of private ownership would eliminate exploitation and create abundance.

The historical record tells a very different story. Central planning repeatedly produced shortages, inefficiency, and stagnation. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed under the weight of its own economic contradictions. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward contributed to one of history’s worst famines. Even today, North Korea remains among the poorest and most isolated countries on Earth.

Third, Marxist ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the liberties guaranteed by the American Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, private property, an independent judiciary, and a free press all place limits on state power.

Classical communist theory, by contrast, envisions a society in which the state ultimately controls the major institutions of economic and social life. History demonstrates that governments seeking such control rarely tolerate independent churches, schools, universities, newsrooms, enterprises, or political opposition.

Fourth, failed communist ideas are constantly reintroduced wearing attractive new clothes. Few progressives openly advocate establishing a Soviet-style state. But fashionable concepts, such as capitalist exploitation, class struggle, revolutionary transformation, and the unfair division of society between oppressors and oppressed, have enormous influence in American schools and universities.

Marxist critical theory should shape intellectual debates in ways that require careful examination rather than automatic assent.

Fifth, experience shows that free societies become most vulnerable when they forget history. As the generation that experienced the Cold War dies away, younger Americans have little knowledge of communist repression. To many students, communism appears to be an interesting philosophical theory rather than a tyranny that governed one-third of humanity throughout the twentieth century.

Surveys have suggested that younger people often express favorable attitudes toward socialist ideas with almost no knowledge of the record of communist governments. A society that fails to gain insight through history always risks repeating it.

Finally, strong warnings against communism have seldom come from play-it-safe Western politicians. More often, it is people who lived under communist rule who have been willing to speak out. Soviet and Eastern European dissidents, Cuban refugees, survivors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and victims of the Chinese Communist Party’s takeover of Hong Kong have all described similar experiences: censorship, fear, corruption, economic hardship, and the destruction of civil society.

Perhaps better than anyone, the late Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn understood the essential paradox of communism. Reflecting on its horrors, he observed, “To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good.” The architects of communist regimes never thought of themselves as villains. They believed history was on their side, and that any sacrifice—including the lives of ordinary people—was justified in pursuit of a utopian future.

History has taught us that destructive ideas must be exposed, explained, understood, and confronted. Trump has been one of the few Western leaders willing to take on this task.

Communists promise equality, fairness, and liberation, but they have always delivered power into the hands of a political elite. The 20th century demonstrated that communist systems consistently produce political repression, economic failure, and immense human suffering. These lessons should not be forgotten simply because they are coming from a man who is particularly unpopular in progressive media and academic circles.

The U.S. president has often employed provocative language, and reasonable people might disagree with his style or some of his policies. But common sense requires us to separate the message from the messenger. As ideas rooted in Marxist ideology gain increasing influence in Western cultural and political life, Americans would be wise to examine the well-documented horrors of communism with open minds.

The resurgence of what the late American scholar Lionel Trilling once called an “adversary culture” warrants more serious attention than Trump’s critics are willing to admit.


Thursday, July 9, 2026

When the monopoly on narrative disappears

 

Translated from French
For decades, many believed that the left had won because its ideas were inherently superior. In reality, it mainly won because it controlled the main arenas of narrative production. The school. A large part of the media. Part of the academic world. Part of the senior administration. A large part of the cultural apparatus. By repeating the same interpretive frameworks for forty or fifty years, they eventually came to appear as self-evident truths rather than as political choices. We were told that more state was necessarily more moral. That more redistribution was necessarily more just. That control was a form of protection. That bureaucracy was synonymous with progress. And, gradually, any questioning of this model became suspect. Then social media arrived. For the first time in a long while, the monopoly on narrative began to crack. Anyone can now publish an idea, challenge a statistic, share an experience, or dismantle propaganda without going through traditional filters. This doesn’t mean that everything circulating is true. It simply means that the power to define what can be said no longer belongs to a handful of institutions. That’s precisely why some see this evolution as a threat. When the monopoly on narrative disappears, debate reemerges. We then observe an interesting phenomenon: many ideologies that seemed inseparable from modernity are increasingly contested. Globalism, wokism, certain forms of identity-based activism or neofeminism are no longer perceived as self-evident by a growing portion of the population, but as political projects among others, which it is legitimate to criticize. The result is visible in several democracies. In South America, in North America, movements more favorable to market economics, to sovereignty, or to reducing the role of the state have gained influence. What seemed impossible a few years ago has become an electoral reality. Europe is probably not immune to this dynamic. Ideas often take years to cross borders, but they generally end up doing so. For a long time, we were presented with one camp as naturally that of the good, of morality, and of progress, while any opposition was caricatured as retrograde or dangerous. Today, more and more citizens are challenging this representation. They no longer see only the promises; they also look at the results: an ever-heavier bureaucracy, stagnant growth, massive public debt, a loss of confidence in institutions, and permanent polarization of public debate. The paradox is that many people sincerely convinced of defending the weakest sometimes end up, unwittingly, defending structures that thrive on this permanent fragmentation of society. The more citizens are divided into opposing groups, the more those who administer, regulate, and arbitrate concentrate power. Yet a prosperous society is not built on permanent competition between population categories. It is built on the creation of value, individual responsibility, freedom to enterprise, trust, and cooperation. History is never written in advance. But it seems to me that we are witnessing a change of cycle. And this time, the monopoly on narrative is disappearing.

 


Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Fixing US campaign finance laws

 

Did the Supreme Court Steal the Midterm Elections?

Restrictions on party committees violated the Constitution—and gave Democrats an advantage.

Allysia Finley

ET


Can you believe it? The MAGA Supreme Court just rigged the November midterm election for Republicans. Or so goes the story in the liberal press last week after a 6-3 majority struck down federal limits on the amount of money that party committees can spend in coordination with candidates in National Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission.

Reporters spilled little ink on the majority’s legal analysis, which detailed how spending limits violate the First Amendment’s protection of core political speech. Who cares about the Constitution when an election is around the corner?

“The Supreme Court Just Gave the G.O.P. a New Midterm Edge,” read a New York Times headline. According to Bloomberg News, the ruling by a “Republican-appointed supermajority gives the GOP a financial boost this campaign season” and “may have smoothed the way for Republicans to keep control of Congress in what would otherwise have been a difficult year.”

If Republicans keep control of Congress in November despite long odds, expect Democrats to blame the court’s conservatives rather than acknowledge that nominating and embracing socialist candidates hurt their party.

The justices and their liberal critics agree on one point: The removal of the longstanding limit on coordinated party spending will make campaigns more efficient and effective. Both parties will benefit from being able to better coordinate messages and ads. That should reduce political spending, not increase it as the left claims.

Democrats say the GOP will benefit more from the ruling, since Republican party committees are sitting on twice as much cash as Democratic committees. That also means that the status quo ante benefited Democrats. “We have to really take seriously the fact that we just lost a major advantage that the Democratic Party has had in the last decade,” Danielle Butterfield, president of Democratic super PAC Priorities USA, told Politico.

Republicans funnel more money to party committees, while Democrats give more to candidates. Because federal law and regulations require cable and broadcast TV stations to offer lower ad rates to candidates for public office—but not super PACs or party committees in the 60 days before a general election—Democrats have enjoyed an advertising advantage.

After the ruling, GOP candidates are likely to spend more of their war chests on TV ads while letting party committees focus on get-out-the-vote efforts. This could help Republicans—though mainly by neutralizing an advantage the unconstitutional regulation conferred on Democrats.

Still, if money could buy elections, Michael Bloomberg—who dumped $1.12 billion into his presidential campaign in 2020—would have been the Democratic nominee that year. Andrew Cuomo would be mayor of New York. And billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer would be the California governor in waiting, rather than an also-ran.

In the case of Mr. Steyer, who spent $216 million and finished third, political spending after a certain point (like tax rates on the Laffer curve) probably yielded negative returns as voters tired of his ads. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani showed how social media can be a more effective medium to reach and galvanize young voters.

Left-wing insurgents demonstrated again in Colorado’s Democratic primaries last week that grassroots organizing and social-media prowess can make up for a financial disadvantage. Socialist Melat Kiros ousted Rep. Diana DeGette even though the 30-year incumbent and super PACs supporting her spent three times as much.

All that said, the court’s ruling could over time strengthen parties and help them quash primary challengers who hurt the party’s reputation and general-election prospects. More money may flow at the margin to party committees rather than super PACs, though federal limits on contributions to the former remain.

The liberal justices claim the NRSC v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) turbocharge political spending and invite opportunities for quid pro quo corruption. That’s hard to figure. Since Buckley v. Valeo (1976), candidates have been able to spend unlimited amounts of their own money. Citizens United merely allowed corporations, including nonprofit advocacy groups, and unions to do so as well.

What has turbocharged political spending is the massive expansion of government, which raises the stakes of every election. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in a concurring opinion last week, citing an alphabet soup of federal agencies, “a business out of favor with the party in control of the White House might be able to stave off an FCC investigation. But can it survive a subsequent FTC rule declaring unlawful one of its longstanding trade practices? What about an in-house adjudication by OSHA? Or a prosecution for a new crime the SEC announces?”

Businesses donate to curry favor with the overlords who can make or break them (and their competitors). The left lambastes corporate spending, but their socialist agenda will encourage more of it.


Envy – the Engine of Socialism.

  Krzysztof Szczawinski @Kristof_Poland Envy – the Engine of Socialism. Envy is not wanting what your neighbor has. That would be desire – ...