Search

Sander Sassen asked the police in Utrecht why, in his opinion, Hamas sympathizers were given space, while Jigal Krant was forcefully removed after they had physically assaulted him. He wondered if there was a disparity in police actions and wished Krant strength. #Hamas #Politie #Utrecht (translated)

Swedish Gripen fighters will again support the protection of Polish airspace as part of the NATO Air Policing mission, which will begin in October and last for two months, in response to violations of the airspace of Alliance countries and to protect logistical support for Ukraine. #Gripen #NATO #bezpieczeństwo (translated)

Swedish Gripen fighter jets will once again protect Polish skies. 🇵🇱🇸🇪 From October, Sweden will deploy its combat aircraft for participation in the NATO Air Policing mission and for strengthening the protection of the Eastern flank of the Alliance. I thank the Swedish government for this important decision in light of the difficult security situation and the repeated violations of NATO airspace. @PlJonson thank you for your support. We are working for our security. Together we are stronger! 🇵🇱🤝🇸🇪 #NATO #bezpieczeństwo #polska (translated)

Niemcy wysyłają cztery Eurofightery do Łotwy w ramach wzmocnionej misji NATO Air Policing North w odpowiedzi na prośbę o dodatkowe wsparcie dla zabezpieczenia przestrzeni powietrznej przed wyborami parlamentarnymi, obawiając się zagrożeń związanych z obcymi dronami. #NATO #Łotwa #bezpieczeństwo

Robert Hamill was brutally murdered amidst the toxic sectarianism surrounding Drumcree. His family were then failed by an RUC whose collusion with loyalist paramilitaries has been extensively documented. Today’s report exposes a catalogue of policing failures, negligence & #Drumcree #Sectarianism #JusticeForRobert #GB

Leszek Kołakowski: Marxism, Historical Truth, and the Dangers of Political Absolutism Kołakowski was a major intellectual figure because he combined serious philosophical training, firsthand experience of communism, and the courage to revise his own convictions. He was not an anti-communist attacking Marxism from outside. He had once believed in Marxism and understood its appeal from within. After the 1956 thaw, he initially tried to recover a more humane Marxism based on freedom, dignity, and opposition to bureaucratic tyranny. His later criticism therefore carried unusual weight: it came from someone who had taken the doctrine seriously and tried to save it. His importance also lies in the distinctions he made. He did not simply equate Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every form of socialism. In *Main Currents of Marxism*, he traced the development of Marxist ideas and examined how concepts such as historical necessity, class conflict, ideological truth, and the revolutionary party could encourage political intolerance. His central warning was that a movement claiming privileged access to historical truth may eventually treat disagreement not as legitimate opinion but as error, reaction, or treason. Once one party claims to represent history or humanity, it can justify controlling the press, courts, universities, civil society, and private life. This helps explain why communist regimes so often produced censorship, one-party rule, political policing, and coercive social transformation. My evaluation is that Kołakowski identified a genuine danger in Marxist political theory: the tendency to subordinate individual freedom and institutional pluralism to an allegedly necessary historical goal. His critique also makes the phrase “that was not real Marxism” inadequate on its own. Kołakowski’s greatest achievement was therefore not proving that “Marxism equals terror.” It was showing why a doctrine promising total liberation can become dangerous when it also claims total knowledge and gives one political organization the authority to impose that promise.

Leszek Kołakowski: Marxism, Historical Truth, and the Dangers of Political Absolutism Kołakowski was a major intellectual figure because he combined serious philosophical training, firsthand experience of communism, and the courage to revise his own convictions. He was not an anti-communist attacking Marxism from outside. He had once believed in Marxism and understood its appeal from within. After the 1956 thaw, he initially tried to recover a more humane Marxism based on freedom, dignity, and opposition to bureaucratic tyranny. His later criticism therefore carried unusual weight: it came from someone who had taken the doctrine seriously and tried to save it. His importance also lies in the distinctions he made. He did not simply equate Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every form of socialism. In *Main Currents of Marxism*, he traced the development of Marxist ideas and examined how concepts such as historical necessity, class conflict, ideological truth, and the revolutionary party could encourage political intolerance. His central warning was that a movement claiming privileged access to historical truth may eventually treat disagreement not as legitimate opinion but as error, reaction, or treason. Once one party claims to represent history or humanity, it can justify controlling the press, courts, universities, civil society, and private life. This helps explain why communist regimes so often produced censorship, one-party rule, political policing, and coercive social transformation. My evaluation is that Kołakowski identified a genuine danger in Marxist political theory: the tendency to subordinate individual freedom and institutional pluralism to an allegedly necessary historical goal. His critique also makes the phrase “that was not real Marxism” inadequate on its own. Kołakowski’s greatest achievement was therefore not proving that “Marxism equals terror.” It was showing why a doctrine promising total liberation can become dangerous when it also claims total knowledge and gives one political organization the authority to impose that promise.

Jeszcze dla tych, którzy pochwalają korzystną dla Rosji deklarację Mariusza Błaszczaka i Przemysława Czarnka, przypomnę, jak to wyglądało za rządów PiS. W praktyce np. w 2019 r. Błaszczak jako.ówczesmy szef MON zapewne podpisał dokument zgody na wysłanie komponentu obrony wybrzeża (systemy NDR/MJR z pociskami NSM) do Estonii (https://t.co/dt9pjUhoF0). Powtórzono to potem w 2021 r., z więc za MB (https://t.co/l9WJeVQNnY) i już za WKK/nowego rządu w 2024 r. (https://t.co/fk6nrosZMB). Ponadto w 2022 r., a więc także za zgodą MB, ćwiczono przerzut 6. Brygady Powietrznodesantowej na Łotwę w trybie alarmowym (https://t.co/f4rpNoAtEW). Innych okazji szukać mi się nie chce, ale może były. Może było ich więcej. Ponadto od lat na Lotwie stacjonuje niewielki polski pododdział pancerny w ramach eFP jako PKW Łotwa (https://t.co/oa8K0neSQl). Dodatkowo Siły Powietrzne regularnie brały (także za bytności MB na stołku MON) i biorą udział w Baltic Air Policing (https://t.co/hfrko93qUG), chroniąc niebo nad Bałtami. Ergo, domaganie się wycofania z tej aktywności: 1. Jest szkodliwe dla Polski, bo ogranicza potencjalną skuteczność odsunięcia frontu od naszych miast, wsi, fabryk itd. 2. Prowadzi do kursu kolizyjnego z polityką państw NATO biorących faktyczny udział w podobnych inicjatywach. 3. Stanowi bezpośrednie uzasadnienie dla prorosyjskich partii na Zachodzie do pytania o to, czy warto bronić Polski. 4. Stanowi wreszcie zaprzeczenie własnej polityki Mariusza Błaszczaka (bo Przemysława Czarnka, jako zasiadającego w innym resorcie, liczymy ciut inaczej). Fot. SZ RP #Polska #NATO #Bezpieczeństwo

🇮🇳 EXINDIA? MODI, STOP POLICING FAITH. India is strongest when it is pluralist, constitutional and free. I fully support tough punishment for: forced conversion, threats, coercion, fraud and deception. But I reject laws that use vague concepts such as “allurement” or “undue https://t.co/g2CKgVqkXT #India #Pluralism #ReligiousFreedom #IN

Why Psychopaths Rise to Power: What Hitler, Stalin & Mao Had in Common Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski argued that in certain conditions, psychologically disordered people can rise through institutions and create “pathocracy,” where pathological personalities gain disproportionate power. He described “negative selection”: upheaval pushes aside those with conscience and competence while manipulative, ruthless figures thrive. At the core are psychopaths, who feel little guilt or empathy and use normal human weaknesses as tools. Around them are schizoids, ideological architects who turn abstractions into systems for managing people. Next are spellbinders, charismatic leaders who frame authoritarian ideas as moral duty. Together they produce “paramoralisms”—moral standards that invert reality: dissent becomes extremism, censorship becomes protection, coercion becomes compassion. Beneath them are true believers and conformists who follow out of conviction or career safety, echoing Milgram’s insight that the key question is who gives the orders. Finally come bystanders, a frightened majority that adapts to avoid trouble until self-policing replaces external coercion. Lobaczewski’s warning: pathological behavior becomes far more dangerous when society mistakes it for morality. The real struggle isn’t left vs. right—it’s whether institutions can preserve truth and resist normalization of destructive behavior.

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.

Francouzské stíhačky v rámci mise NATO Baltic Air Policing identifikovaly ruský letoun s registrací RA-64534, variantu Tupoleva Tu-214PU, určenou pro přepravu vysoce postavených představitelů FSB, která byla překvapivě vybavena pokročilým laserovým obranným systémem LSZ-100, což není obvyklé pro běžné dopravní letouny. #FSB #Tupolev #NATO

Spoke by phone today with my Spanish counterpart @jmalbares, first and foremost to thank Spain for its concrete contribution to 🇷🇴 and Allied security. Last night, a Spanish Air and Space Force F-18 flying NATO Enhanced Air Policing from Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, working in #NATO #Security #Spain #RO #ES

Something is happening in New York that should worry everyone who cares about democracy. Mayor Zohran Mamdani refused to condemn “globalize the intifada,” calling that “policing speech.” He then named a judicial panel he called “truly representative” of the city. Not one Jewish https://t.co/Y0gztLeQ7N #NewYork #Democracy #Intifada #US

La gestione della sicurezza urbana a Trieste ovvero il fallimento strutturale del populismo penale e la distorsione delle risorse pubbliche... Propongo una riflessione sociologica della situazione a Trieste, città che da storico crocevia multiculturale, si ritrova adesso a fare i conti con fenomeni di insicurezza, intolleranza, chiusura umana, politica e sociale. La trasformazione delle dinamiche di sicurezza nel contesto triestino evidenzia una profonda divergenza tra la percezione politica della minaccia e la reale evoluzione della criminalità urbana. Negli ultimi anni, a partire dall'idea di un muro lungo il confine della regione fino alla recinzione di Piazza Libertà, la gestione dell'ordine pubblico locale ha registrato un costante orientamento delle risorse operative verso il contrasto dei flussi migratori transfrontalieri, affrontati mediante logiche emergenziali anche in assenza di riscontri oggettivi circa una loro pericolosità sociale intrinseca. Tale focalizzazione simbolica non è priva di effetti, anzi, il principale è quello che ha generato il ridimensionamento dei presidi di vigilanza e di controllo all'interno del tessuto cittadino, favorendo l'insorgere di fenomeni di microcriminalità, degrado materiale e devianza diffusa nelle aree centrali e periferiche del territorio urbano. La risposta proposta dalle amministrazioni nazionali, regionali e locali di orientamento conservatore e di destra si è concentrata sulla progressiva marginalizzazione delle politiche di prevenzione sociale, preferendo l'adozione di misure coercitive e l'inasprimento della risposta sanzionatoria. Questa impostazione poggia sul paradigma dell'efficacia della deterrenza penale, un modello teorico ampiamente decostruito dalla ricerca criminologica e giuspenalistica contemporanea. L'evidenza scientifica attesta da tempo che l'aumento della severità delle sanzioni e la repressione meramente reattiva non generano una riduzione della frequenza dei reati, provocando piuttosto lo spostamento della criminalità verso zone meno presidiate e l'incremento dell'insicurezza percepita dalla cittadinanza (Pratt et al., 2006; Tonry, 2018). L'adozione di modelli riconducibili al populismo penale (Wacquant, 2009) risponde all'esigenza di catalizzare il consenso attraverso la costruzione simbolica di una minaccia esterna, incarnata dalla figura del migrante alla frontiera, invece di affrontare la complessità dei problemi sociali urbani. Le analisi empiriche confermano che gli interventi basati esclusivamente sulla militarizzazione e sulla punitività ignorano i fattori causali fondamentali della devianza, quali l'isolamento sociale, la carenza di reti educative territoriali e l'abbandono degli spazi pubblici (Currie, 2007). L'allontanamento delle forze dell'ordine dal controllo capillare del centro urbano triestino in favore del pattugliamento di confine configura, di conseguenza, un fallimento strategico privo di fondamento scientifico. La costruzione di una sicurezza reale ed effettiva richiede l'abbandono della retorica emergenziale, a favore di interventi integrati incentrati sulla prevenzione socio-strutturale, sulla riqualificazione urbana e sulla coesione sociale. Per chi volesse approfondire i temi, leggete: Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality: For a critical criminology of violence. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 175-190. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (A cura di), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367-395). Transaction Publishers. Tonry, M. (2018). An honest and sane approach to policing and crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4), 781-789. Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press. #Trieste #sicurezza