The author described the figure as having been known for erratic and paranoid behaviour, allegedly bankrupting the state with lavish projects, humiliating the senatorial class and becoming tyrannical. They identified him as Caligula.
Why the world is run in an insane way. The notion that power is inherently good while liberalism is bad is utterly perverse. Narcissists, megalomaniacs, windbags, pathological liars, adventurers, and individuals with criminal tendencies all crave tyranny, oligarchic fascism, and one-man dictatorships. They harbour but a single dream: absolute, unassailable power and boundless privilege. Any consolidation of power—regardless of how it is marketed—inevitably leads to economic contraction, a halt in development, and a deterioration in the quality of life for the majority. Worse still, it intensifies military confrontation and fosters a readiness to engage in protracted conflicts. A state of peace—hitherto a paramount priority—gives way to a state of war, claiming victims from all walks of life. The rigid, linear mindset and behavior characteristic of those in power are manifestations of stupidity. Life is inherently contradictory; it thrives on equilibrium and balance and does not submit to commands—save for in appearance or through folly. This severely limits the efficacy of resolving problems via coercion, which rapidly devolves into entropy and systemic collapse. Within the corridors of power, rational individuals are sidelined; perceived as indecisive and wavering—aware as they are of life’s inherent contradictions and the fact that problems are often intractable or insoluble—they lack the appeal that breeds popularity. Instead, the spotlight falls on narcissists, megalomaniacs, arrogant windbags, pathological liars, and figures from the criminal underworld—individuals who transform the exercise of power into a mafia-like enterprise. They always display determination and convey the impression that problems are easily solvable—and that they possess both the knowledge and the ability to resolve them; this is precisely what appeals most to people and generates popularity. Yet, such public popularity is highly deceptive. It is profoundly artificial, hypocritical, and detached—a theatrical role-play designed to maintain the image and ratings of a public star, manifesting nothing but boundless narcissism. There is no intelligence in this, only madness. These are madmen who believe they can do whatever they please. The character of all such politicians—who have lost all sense of proportion—bears a resemblance to that of Hitler. Защо светът се управлява по безумен начин. Идеята, че властта е нещо добро, а либералзма е нещо лошо е напълно извратена. Всички нарцисисти, грандомани, празнодумци, патологични лъжци, авантюристи, хора с криминални наклонности искат, тирания, олигархичен фашизъм, еднолична диктатура. Те имат само една мечта абсолютна несменяема власт и безгранични превилегии. Всяко усилване на властта, независимо как се представя ще води до свиване на икономиката и прекратяване на нейното развитие и до влошаване на живота на мнозинството от хората.Нещо по-лошо то ще усили военното противопоставяне и лесното прибягване до конфликти, които ще бъдат продължителни. Мирното време, което досега беше висш приоритет ще се замени с военно време, на което всички ще станат жертви.Праволинейното мислене и поведение, свойствено на властта, е проява на глупост. Животът е дълбоко противоречив. Той съществува чрез равновесие и баланс и не се подчинява на заповеди, освен привидно и по глупост. Това определя крайно ограничените възможности проблемите да се решават с принуждение. То бързо се превръща в ентропия, разрушаване на системата.В властта разумните хора се пренебрегват, защото те са нерешителни и колебаещи се, знаещи, че животът е дълбоко противоречив и проблемите се решават трудно или са въобще неразрешими и това не се харесва и не създава популярност . Издигат се нарцисисти, грандомани, самонадеяни празнодумци, патологични лъжци, хора от криминалния свят, които превръщат властта в мафия. Те винаги показват решителност, внушават че проблемите са лесно разрешими и те знаят и могат да ги разрешат и точно това най-много се харесва и създава популарност. Публичната популярност обаче е много измамна. Тя е дълбоко фалшива, лицемерна, отчуждена, игра на роля като в театъра, с която се поддържа имидж и рейтинг на публична звезда, изразяваща безгранична самовлюбенест и нищо повече. В това няма никаква интелигентност, а само безумие. Това са безумци, които си мислят, че всичко им е позволено. Характерът на всички самозабравили се политици е подобен на характера на Хитлер.
S
233
Can You Resist Tyranny? The average person today is incapable of governing themselves, which is why so many yearn for a new “system.” They desire an external imposition of control to order their lives in a way they feel incapable of doing for themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts their resentment as righteousness. Loneliness drives them to find a herd to become one with. Internal chaos creates a demand for imposed order. When you tell people that the answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction, they often mistake this for rolling over and accepting defeat. But chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, “Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think about every hero story you’ve ever admired. The hero doesn’t take to the streets and try to convince everyone of his cause. Rather, he confronts evil head-on and puts himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. A single competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and value than a mob of NPCs. As Carl Jung said, “a million zeros do not add up to one.” Nor does being well ordered mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. Such a person must possess strength, aggression, ambition, judgement, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and the desire for achievement. The question is what these qualities serve. Money, power, and lust, or love, family, and God? If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or State will fill the vacuum externally. No one looking for a solution to increasing social insanity can afford to overlook it. All others are contingent on it. The answer is not to dissociate from the world and simply pull yourself together. It is that a disordered individual cannot possibly bring order to his environment. By becoming a man of virtue, he can then carry that order into the roles individuals occupy: father, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbour, police officer, and citizen.
S
466
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.
S
466
The Erosion of Western Civilization’s Social Fabric It is hard to fathom how much of Western civilization’s social fabric has eroded in just a single decade. No healthy society debates whether “the system” is to blame for a child murderer’s crimes and then expresses support for the monster. Such a society certainly does not celebrate the assassinations of moderate and respectable political figures, nor does it allow repeat violent offenders back onto the streets to terrorize the general public. The best explanation I have heard for this phenomenon of macrosocial insanity is *Political Ponerology* by Andrew Lobaczewski—the study of how pathological personalities infiltrate and transform social institutions. This process does not require an entire population of psychopaths. In fact, it is often only a small minority that forms the core of the pathological movement. A relatively small party or group is led by psychopaths, who are natural experts at manipulation, deception, intimidation, and ruthlessness. The ideologues are the ones who design the system. They create abstract ideologies, often criticizing reality for falling short of their arbitrary expectations. Human beings become nothing more than nodes in a network, to be organized and managed by supposedly more intelligent minds. Then there are the spellbinders, who serve as the movement’s salespeople. They package tyranny as safety, envy as justice, and coercion as compassion. Their primary tool of persuasion is emotional alignment rather than truth or logic. These three types rely on three other groups to normalize their totalitarian system: the spellbound, adapted conformists, and bystanders. The spellbound are true believers who experience participation in the movement as a kind of moral crusade. Adapted conformists support the system because of the security, status, or comfort it provides—or because they fear ostracism. Bystanders are generally aloof and avoid conflict at all costs, believing that ignorance and cowardice will spare them.
S
349
The Individual as an Antidote to Tyranny The average person today is incapable of governing himself, which is why so many yearn for a new system. They desire external control to order their lives in ways they feel unable to manage themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts resentment as righteousness, while loneliness drives them to join a herd. The answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction. Chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “Madness is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think of every hero story you admire. The hero does not retreat from danger or surrender to evil. He confronts it directly and places himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. One competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and provide more value than a mob. As Carl Jung said, “A million zeros do not add up to one.” Being well-ordered does not mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. It means possessing judgment, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and a desire for achievement. The question is what those qualities serve: money, power, and lust—or love, family, and God? This kind of person is an antidote to tyranny. If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or state will fill the vacuum from the outside. The well-ordered individual is not incapable of rage, vanity, resentment, cowardice, or cruelty. Awareness of these shadow aspects helps prevent ideological capture and frees him from the seductive belief that “they are evil and we are good.” Anyone seeking a solution to increasing social insanity must recognize that a disordered individual cannot bring order to his environment. By becoming a person of virtue, he can carry that order into every role he occupies—as a parent, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbor, police officer, or citizen.
BELARUS: AFTER THE FALL OF TYRANNY — LEAVE BRICS. JOIN NATO. 🇧🇾🇪🇺 Belarus is a European country. Its future should not be permanent dependence on Moscow, dictatorship, repression and political isolation. When the Lukashenko system ends, a free Belarus should make a historic https://t.co/69PyFXlSTj #Belarus #NATO #Freedom #BY #EU
S
699
The Erosion of Western Civilization’s Social Fabric It is hard to fathom how much of Western civilization’s social fabric has eroded in just a single decade. No healthy society debates whether “the system” is to blame for a child murderer’s crimes and then expresses support for the monster. Such a society certainly does not celebrate the assassinations of moderate and respectable political figures, nor does it allow repeat violent offenders back onto the streets to terrorize the general public. The best explanation I have heard for this phenomenon of macrosocial insanity is *Political Ponerology* by Andrew Lobaczewski—the study of how pathological personalities infiltrate and transform social institutions. This process does not require an entire population of psychopaths. In fact, it is often only a small minority that forms the core of the pathological movement. A relatively small party or group is led by psychopaths, who are natural experts at manipulation, deception, intimidation, and ruthlessness. The ideologues are the ones who design the system. They create abstract ideologies, often criticizing reality for falling short of their arbitrary expectations. Human beings become nothing more than nodes in a network, to be organized and managed by supposedly more intelligent minds. Then there are the spellbinders, who serve as the movement’s salespeople. They package tyranny as safety, envy as justice, and coercion as compassion. Their primary tool of persuasion is emotional alignment rather than truth or logic. These three types rely on three other groups to normalize their totalitarian system: the spellbound, adapted conformists, and bystanders. The spellbound are true believers who experience participation in the movement as a kind of moral crusade. Adapted conformists support the system because of the security, status, or comfort it provides—or because they fear ostracism. Bystanders are generally aloof and avoid conflict at all costs, believing that ignorance and cowardice will spare them.
S
700
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.
🎙️ TWO PODCASTS. TWO STANDARDS? Ukraine: The Latest is excellent journalism. It names the aggressor, defends the victims and confronts tyranny with moral clarity. But Iran: The Latest is a profound disappointment. In my assessment, its coverage is virulently anti-Israel and https://t.co/ZE3bErXYPn #Ukraine #Iran #Journalism #UA #IR #IL
S
938
Daycare Governance and the Tyranny of Compassion Something sinister can hide behind compassion. Caring is virtuous, but it becomes pathological when institutions gain power by expanding the number of people who need care. Munchausen syndrome by proxy shows how: a caregiver fabricates or induces illness in a dependent person, then gains sympathy by performing devotion. The sickness is manufactured, but the care is real. The claim: modern society can scale this into governance. Call it the daycare governance model: (1) victims to protect, (2) caregivers to provide protection, (3) dissenters to remove. Health, therapy, NGOs, academia, media, and bureaucracy gain prestige, funding, and moral authority by managing ever-expanding categories of suffering. It unfolds in two stages. First, the victim class expands: “trauma” drifts from specific, severe harms to everyday experiences, lowering the threshold for suffering until demand is nearly limitless. Second, the perpetual patient forms: ordinary difficulties are medicalized—strength as toxicity, sadness as disorder, restlessness as pathology—creating a cycle where caretakers and victims gain status or protection. This drives a crisis of competence. Victimhood can shield accountability, and institutions are rewarded for treating problems rather than eliminating the need for themselves. Plato warned against doing for people what they can do for themselves: removing every burden removes the reason to grow stronger. True care aims to make itself unnecessary. That’s the difference between a good mother and a poisoning one: one allows appropriate hardship to build independence; the other denies it. Failing to distinguish these forms of care makes the pathology hard to recognize—and easy to applaud.
S
1172
What Chairman Mao and Dolores Umbridge Have in Common In Harry Potter, Dolores Umbridge is a more realistic villain than Voldemort: she gains power through titles, loyalty, conformity, and paperwork, not competence. She weakens Defense Against the Dark Arts by replacing practical preparation with Ministry-approved theory—her real talent is playing the institutional game. This echoes Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil,” where ordinary people advance by obeying and enforcing a system. When loyalty matters more than ability, institutions start selecting for mediocrity. The parallel with Maoist China is stark. During the Cultural Revolution, Zhang Tiesheng was celebrated for submitting a blank exam and attacking “bookworms.” Despite poor results, political loyalty earned him a seat in the National People’s Congress. Mao’s promotion rule was effectively “red and expert”: political reliability outweighed competence. The consequences were catastrophic. Honest reporting was punished, so officials produced what Mao wanted to hear. False harvest data drove unrealistic targets and helped fuel the Great Leap Forward famine, which killed tens of millions. Education was politicized too: the Gaokao was abolished in 1966, and when admissions resumed, scores were replaced by class background, manual labor experience, and Party recommendations; the national exam returned only in 1977. Totalitarian systems don’t just remove capable people—they select for those politically reliable and morally compliant. Mediocrity shields leaders from rivals; reduced conscience makes coercion easier. Psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski called this pathocracy: rule by the pathological disordered, where normal institutions lose their ability to distinguish honest from manipulative. The system keeps its name and stated purpose while serving something else. The lesson: tyranny doesn’t require everyone to become evil. It requires enough people to stop recognizing the pathological. Once that moral filter disappears, institutions become vulnerable to exploitation—how psychopaths take over a society.
S
469
Why Good Times Make Weak People The pinnacle of tyranny is a society in which people are controlled without force because they love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World explored this idea. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, its citizens are controlled not through terror but pleasure. Soma provides instant relief from discomfort—a “holiday from the facts.” Huxley’s people are not prisoners but satisfied customers: the State produces children, promiscuity is normalized, and entertainment fills every empty moment. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell feared that truth would be hidden from us, while Huxley feared that we would become so distracted that we would no longer care about it. The Softening of Man Good times can make bad times possible. When safety and luxury become normal, people can lose sight of the struggles that created them. Andrew Lobaczewski argued that prosperity can weaken profound reflection. Pleasure becomes dominant, while uncomfortable truths are dismissed because thinking about them requires effort. Those who think critically may even be ridiculed. This creates a dangerous cycle: societies lose the capacity for psychological reasoning and moral criticism, allowing catastrophe to develop unnoticed. Sterilizing Genius Nietzsche understood that comfort, elevated above all else, can destroy the qualities that made civilization possible. Struggle, ambition, discipline, passion, and courage helped create prosperity—but prosperity can weaken the virtues that produced it. The Odyssey illustrates this. The Lotus-Eaters simply lose the desire to return home. Odysseus must drag his men back while they weep to remain. He rejects Calypso’s offer of immortality and endless comfort, choosing the difficult path home. We admire that choice because comfort without purpose is not a life worth admiring. Nietzsche imagined the endpoint in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a society where safety and sameness become the highest ideals, producing “no shepherd, and one herd.” Anyone who seeks greatness becomes an aberration.
S
1055
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.”
S
938
The Pinnacle of Tyranny The pinnacle of tyranny would allow politicians, elites, and bureaucrats to control a population without force or coercion—because the people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World* explores this idea through an eerily relatable dystopian society. Unlike Orwell’s *1984*, Huxley’s world contains no obvious oppression. The state does not need to “stamp on a human face—forever.” Instead, citizens willingly chain themselves to pleasure and distraction. Authorities do not rule through terror, but by giving people everything they think they want. Soma, a government-approved drug, becomes the opiate of the masses. Mustafa Mond, the World Controller, compares it to Christianity without the suffering. By swallowing a few tablets, citizens can escape reality—a temporary holiday from the facts. Lenina cannot understand why Bernard refuses Soma, preferring discomfort to something that can remove it. When Bernard says, “I’d rather be myself, myself and nasty, not somebody else, however jolly,” Lenina views his desire for authenticity as a kind of illness. Bernard wants to experience passion and recognizes that life involves more than contentment. He craves genuine experience, including suffering and intensity, rather than emotional regulation by the World State. Lenina’s confusion results from her conditioning, which teaches her to view unhappiness as a technical problem. This belief is captured by the saying, “A gram is better than a dam.” The citizens of *Brave New World* are not captives but satisfied customers. Children are produced by the state, relieving people of the responsibilities of parenthood. Their free time is filled with promiscuity, cheap entertainment, and endless sporting events—what might be called “slop” today. As Neil Postman observed, Orwell saw totalitarianism through fear, while Huxley imagined a society where oppression would be unnecessary because people would willingly surrender themselves to pleasure. There would be no need to ban books, because no one would want to read them. An abundance of low-quality information would make censorship unnecessary; the truth would be drowned out by noise. Huxley warned that people’s “almost infinite appetite for distractions” could make tyranny not only possible, but welcome.
How life manifests itself as an insoluble contradiction. Slavery, the desire for dominance in relations between men and women, the commission of murders, violence and criminal acts occur as a result of an irresistible desire on the part of the perpetrators. The desire on the part of the victims and their attempts to counteract them turn out to be unattainable desires. Violence is a manifestation of sadism. It is caused and its level is determined by the level of the male sex hormone testosterone. It leads to violence on the one hand, and on the other hand determines the possibility of fertilization of female individuals and the continuation of life by creating offspring. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALLY INSOLVABLE CONTROVERSY THAT AFFECTS AND DETERMINES THE WHOLE OF LIFE. PEOPLE CANNOT BELIEVE, UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THIS FACT. THEY DEEPLY BELIEVE THAT CONTROVERSIES ARE NOT INSOLVABLE AND THAT THERE ARE SOLUTIONS FOR THEM. THEY ARE ENDLESSLY DISCUSSED, TRYING TO APPLY THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT LIFE AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF HUMANITY. And all this turns out to be vain efforts, ineffective, fruitless, fruitless. The ingenious explanation, opening everyone's eyes to the truth is the understanding that THESE RELATIONS ARE ALWAYS ON THE EDGE OF CONFLICT, THAT THEY ARE TOLERANCE OF THE INTOLERABLE. All attempts to overcome slavery are illusory. Attempts to create a socialist and communist society, to present slavery as part of family relations, as paternalism, that it can be replaced by democracy, that slaves can become wage workers and their interests can be effectively defended by protest actions, strikes, and trade unions are fruitless delusions. Man with his whole nature strives for slave ownership. Slave owners are sadists who kill slaves in case of disobedience. They have power over their lives and this creates in them a sense of superiority, of a chosen higher caste, a natural selection of the smartest, the most capable. eternal holders of sacred power given by God, a manifestation of higher justice and harmony. This is a delusion that completely blinds the mind. The truth is that slave ownership stems from cannibalism and they cannot realize this, understand that this is the truth. In Bulgaria, the slave-owners are called chorbadjii-izednicy, that is, cannibals, and this is not idle talk, but a very accurate definition of things. Slaves are masochists, weak, helpless to defend themselves. They are completely blocked by the power structures of the slave owners. In antiquity, they were usually soldiers, punished to be slaves because they tried to kill the slave owners. Relations between men and women are also on the verge of conflict, tolerance of the intolerable. They have a completely unacceptable, contradictory nature and this is an objective fact. The similarity that they are the same people, regardless of the different sex, is an illusion, self-deception. They are totally different and their relations are based on reconciliation or dominance, tyranny of one sex over the other. Violent, criminal manifestations have the same nature as slavery and relations between the sexes. All attempts to eradicate them are fruitless. They cannot even be limited.
I endorse for Brazil @FlavioBolsonaro to end Tyranny of @LulaOficial King of BRICS Allied with our enemy Genocidal Putin I call all people of Free World Let us break Brazil out of BRICS hostage misery Brazilians, Freedom is possible If you do not break from BRICS We will #FreeBrazil #EndTyranny #BreakBRICS #BR #BY
| JULY 2026 | The Guard State How the largest Arab nation became a security contractor at the gates of its own people By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands In June 2025, hundreds of activists from forty countries landed at Cairo airport. Doctors from France, lawyers from Australia, students from the United States, pensioners from the Netherlands. They carried no weapons and no banned slogans; they carried backpacks, walking shoes, and a single intention: to march from Arish to the Rafah crossing — entirely on Egyptian soil — to demand that food be allowed through to a people starving behind the gate. Not one of them reached Rafah. More than two hundred were detained before the march could begin. Around five hundred foreign nationals were deported from airports, hotels, and checkpoints. Passports were confiscated, activists were pulled out of downtown Cairo cafés, and the Global March to Gaza was cancelled on 16 June without taking its first step. And the world watched. This was no secret operation in a dark basement; it happened in the open, documented by the deportees’ own phone cameras, carried by every international news agency. The world watched an Arab state arrest Europeans, Americans, and Africans for wanting to walk towards Palestine. A state guarding the gate of a siege — from the side that was supposed to be the side of rescue. Hold that image, because it is the key to everything that follows. This was not an aberration in Egyptian policy, nor an isolated security decision. It is the function — the complete function around which the Egyptian state has been redefined over the past decade, and which it is time to call by its proper name: the Guard State. I. The Name — What Do We Mean by the Guard State? Political economy has long described states that live off the rent of their location rather than the production of their people. But what has crystallised in Egypt over the past decade goes beyond traditional geographic rent — the Suez Canal, say — into something far graver: the conversion of sovereignty itself into a commodity for hire. The Guard State does not sell its location; it sells its function. It collects its wages not for what it produces, but for what it prevents: it prevents the refugee from reaching Europe, the activist from reaching Gaza, its own people from reaching politics, and the resistance’s weapons from reaching their destination. Four gates, guarded by a single machine, whose wages are paid in loans, deposits, and perpetually renewed rescue packages. This is not a rhetorical metaphor; it is an economic structure with numbers attached. When the Egyptian economy collapsed in 2024, it was rescued not by productive reform but by a single deal whose subject was location: Ras el-Hekma — thirty-five billion dollars for a stretch of coastline. And whenever negotiations with the IMF stall, the tranches are unlocked by explicit European pressure whose subject is migration: nine billion euros from the European Union in the 2024 “Strategic Partnership,” whose own documents place “migration management” at its core. Europe does not pay Egypt to prosper. It pays Egypt to guard. Thus the model is complete: income in exchange for prevention, external legitimacy in exchange for guarding, and international silence about domestic tyranny in exchange for keeping the gates controlled. To see how the model works on the ground, consider the bloodiest gate of all: the gate of Gaza. II. The Gaza Gate — The Guard Who Is Himself Searched The first paradox must be nailed down with facts: Egypt is not a sovereign guard of its own crossing; it is a searched guard. Egyptian relief trucks — ninety-two thousand food parcels in a single convoy this month — are subject to Israeli inspection before entering the Strip: from Egyptian soil, through a crossing that bears an Egyptian name. The state that guards the gate does not hold its key. It owns the threshold, but not the door. Then the October 2025 truce added a new layer to the function. Under the fifteen-point roadmap sponsored by the international envoy together with the “guarantor states” — Egypt foremost among them — Cairo is to train the civilian police force that will replace Hamas in administering the Strip, under the slogan of “one authority, one law, one weapon.” Let us call things by their names: the state that could not — or would not — deliver a loaf of bread without Israeli permission is now qualifying to graduate the security apparatus that will oversee the disarming of the resistance. From guarding the siege to administering what comes after the siege — a promotion within the same project. And meanwhile, what is happening behind the guarded gate? Since the truce, more than one thousand one hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire — the latest, just two days ago, a ten-year-old boy named Motaz Abu Shaar, carried to his grave in Khan Younis by his mother, Warda. A United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel is “deliberately targeting children in an ongoing genocide.” This is what the guarantors’ official language calls a “ceasefire.” What meaning is left in the word “guarantor”? A guarantor that the gate stays firmly shut — however high the dead pile up behind it. III. The Mediterranean Gate — The Guard Europe Pays For The second gate faces north. Since 2016, Cairo has boasted — through its officials at every European forum — that “not a single irregular migration boat has departed from Egyptian shores.” This is very nearly true. But the forbidden question is: at what political price has this “efficiency” become an instrument of mutual blackmail? Europe — which condemns Egypt’s human rights record in its parliamentary resolutions — is the same Europe that signed the nine-billion-euro partnership, and the same Europe that stays silent about sixty thousand political prisoners because the alternative, in its calculations, is boats that never stop. And Cairo understands the game and has mastered it: whenever human rights pressure intensifies, the official discourse turns up the volume on “Egypt hosts millions of refugees” and “the last line of defence.” The result is a perfect structure of mutual blackmail: Europe buys its conscience’s silence, the regime sells its location, and the people — Egyptian and refugee alike — are the commodity in the transaction. The democracies that lecture on values are financing the guard who keeps the victims from knocking on their doors. This is not passing hypocrisy; it is a structural partnership in the Guard State model — one that makes Brussels and Berlin shareholders in everything this state produces, from domestic repression to external siege. IV. The Interior Gate — Guarding the People Against Politics But the most dangerous gate is not on any border; it is inside. The Guard State cannot perform its external function unless it first guards an internal gate: the people’s gate to politics. The function requires a people that does not ask: why are we guarding the siege of our brothers? Why are our trucks searched on our own soil? Why are guests deported for coming to walk in peace? To guarantee the question is never asked, the largest silencing machine in the country’s history was built: sixty thousand prisoners of opinion, a press ranked 166th out of 180 worldwide, and a state security case number waiting for anyone who writes. I write these lines from experience, not from reading reports. When I continued writing from my Dutch exile, the machine reached me across continents: accounts shut down by coordinated mass-reporting campaigns, documented threats, a family harassed inside Egypt as leverage — and my name entered into Case 1282 of 2024, not for any act I committed, but for opinions written from free European soil. This is not a personal complaint; it is a job description: the Guard State guards even beyond its borders, because the free word — wherever it is written — threatens the entire contract of guardianship. The logic is perfectly self-consistent: a regime that sells “stability” abroad cannot tolerate a voice revealing that the stability on offer is the stillness of graveyards. This is why the arrest of the foreign activists in June 2025 was inevitable, not incidental: a peaceful march reaching Rafah would have revealed, before the world’s cameras, that the gate opens when it is wanted open — and that the one keeping it shut is a partner, not a mediator. V. What Has Egypt Lost? — The Guard’s Bill An apologist might argue: what is the harm? A state monetising its location as Norway monetises its oil. The answer lies in the essential difference: Norway sells a resource; Egypt leases its will. And the difference between the two is the difference between trade and bondage. Let us tally what Egypt has paid for this model, in bare facts. It lost its water sovereignty: the Renaissance Dam was completed and filled without the state — owner of “the largest defence headquarters in the world” — daring anything beyond statements of concern; for the guard does not make trouble for the international order that employs him. It lost its regional standing: in the Iran–America war halted just weeks ago, Cairo was neither party nor mediator nor even consultant — Pakistan brokered the deal, while Egypt absorbed the economic shrapnel of Hormuz’s closure like a bystander caught in a battle whose parties it does not know. It lost its place in the conscience of its nation: the state that liberated its land in 1973 and led the Arab world for a century has become, in the eyes of the Arab street from the Atlantic to the Gulf, the gatekeeper of the siege. This loss, specifically, no loan or deposit can repay — because it is the only capital that cannot be printed. And it lost — here is the crux — the very national security in whose name the guarding is justified. The model proved its fragility at the moment of testing: when Israel feared an Iranian response last year, it cut off Egypt’s gas by unilateral decision within hours. The guard who believed himself a partner discovered he was merely a hireling whose wages stop the moment danger arrives. VI. The Alternative Is Not a Slogan — It Is the Recovery of the Original Function I will not close with an essay on “the solution lies in Arab unity”; worn-out words kill more surely than silence. The alternative is specific, and it begins with redefining the function. The state is not a guard; the state is the agent of its people’s will. Every foreign policy not derived from that will is — by definition — functional servitude, however it is wrapped in the language of wisdom and moderation. And the Egyptian will is known and needs no referendum: no people in this region accepts that its country serve as warden of the siege of Gaza, or as Europe’s border post. Practically, the recovery begins with three measurable steps. Open the Rafah crossing fully and sovereignly, by purely Egyptian decision — that alone would overturn the equation of the siege. Break the negotiating bondage by linking any cooperation on migration to concrete European positions on Palestine, not statements of concern. And open the interior gate — release the prisoners and lift the hand from the written word — because a state that fears an article will never dare face an occupier. I know the current regime will do none of this; guarding is its founding contract and its financial artery. But this article is not written for the regime. It is written for memory, and for the generation that will inherit the gates — so that it knows that what is presented to it today as “the fate of geography” is no fate at all. It is an employment contract, signed by a regime without a mandate from its people. And contracts, however long they run, end when one of their parties does. And the world — I return to where I began — is a witness that requires no further proof. It watched the deportees at Cairo airport; it watched the searched trucks; it watched Warda Abu Shaar carry her son to his grave behind a firmly guarded gate. The question is no longer: what is happening? The only question left is: who dares to name it? This article is a naming. Adham Hasanin is an Egyptian journalist and political writer based in the Netherlands, covering Arab and European political affairs.
