rob942 retweeted
Why did God create evil? The answer struck me to the core of my soul!
A professor at the university asked his students the following question:
Everything that exists was created by God?
One student bravely answered:
Yes, created by God.
Did God create everything? - a professor asked.
"Yes, sir," replied the student.
The professor asked :
If God created everything, then God created evil, since it exists. And according to the principle that our deeds define ourselves, then God is evil.
The student became silent after hearing such an answer. The professor was very pleased with himself. He boasted to students for proving once again that faith in God is a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said:
Can I ask you a question, professor?
"Of course," replied the professor.
A student got up and asked:
Professor, is cold a thing?
What kind of question? Of course it exists. Have you ever been cold?
Students laughed at the young man's question. The young man answered:
Actually, sir, cold doesn't exist.
According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is actually the absence of heat. A person or object can be studied on whether it has or transmits energy.
Absolute zero (-460 degrees
Fahrenheit) is a complete absence of heat. All matter becomes inert and unable to react at this temperature.
Cold does not exist. We created this word to describe what we feel in the absence of heat.
A student continued:
Professor, does darkness exist?
— Of course it exists.
You're wrong again, sir. Darkness also does not exist. Darkness is actually the absence of light. We can study the light but not the darkness.
We can use Newton's prism to spread white light across multiple colors and explore the different wavelengths of each color. You can't measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into the world of darkness and and illuminate it. How can you tell how dark a certain space is? You measure how much light is presented. Isn't it so? Darkness is a term man uses to describe what happens in the absence of light.
In the end, the young man asked the professor:
Sir. does evil exist?
This time it was uncertain, the professor answered:
Of course, as I said before. We see him every day. Cruelty, numerous crimes and violence throughout the world. These examples are nothing but a manifestation of evil.
To this, the student answered:
Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist for itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is like darkness and cold—a man-made word to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not faith or love, which exist as light and warmth. Evil is the result of the absence of Divine love in the human heart. It's the kind of cold that comes when there is no heat, or the kind of darkness that comes when there's no light.
The student's name was Albert Einstein.
rob942 retweeted
There was once a shepherd who found a wolf caught in a snare at the edge of his pasture.
The wolf begged to be freed.
“I was hungry,” it said. “That is all. Spare me, and I will remember your mercy!”
The shepherd cut the rope.
The next night, three lambs were gone.
Again the shepherd found the wolf. Again it pleaded. Again the shepherd convinced himself that mercy was proof of his goodness.
By winter, half the flock was dead.
An old farmer finally asked him, “Why do you keep freeing it?”
The shepherd answered, “Because I refuse to become cruel.”
The farmer looked at the empty field and said, “Then understand what you have done. You were not merciful to the wolf. You were cruel to everything that trusted you to keep them safe.”
That’s the lesson.
Mercy without judgment isn’t virtue. When someone openly intends to destroy what has been entrusted to you, endless forgiveness doesn’t make you righteous. It makes everyone behind you pay for your vanity.
rob942 retweeted
FOR THE FIRST TIME, AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS TOOK IN MORE THAN $1 TRILLION IN A YEAR. THEY STILL SPENT MORE THAN THEY COLLECTED.
We keep hearing there isn't enough money. So I went to the Bureau of Statistics' own tables for 2024-25, every level of government: federal, state and council.
The tax. $839.0 billion. That's 30.2% of the whole economy, the highest share since 2007-08. Federal took $675.2 billion, the states $140.7 billion and councils $24.6 billion.
Per person.
The Bureau puts it at $30,633 in tax for every man, woman and child in the country. About $589 a week.
Where it comes from.
Personal income tax $316.2 billion, plus $25.7 billion in Medicare levy. Company tax $143.7 billion. GST $94.8 billion. Stamp duty on homes $34.4 billion. Payroll taxes $41.7 billion. Council rates $25.1 billion. Gambling taxes $10.0 billion.
On top of tax.
Another $183.4 billion from fees and charges, royalties, interest, dividends and other revenue. Total: $1,022.4 billion. The Bureau says it's the first time revenue has passed a trillion dollars.
And they still came up short.
Spending was $1,030.5 billion. Interest costs alone were $47.4 billion, nearly double ten years ago.
Ten years ago the tax take was $463.7 billion. It's up 81%.
Same standard.
That decade covers Coalition and Labor governments in Canberra and both sides in every state. Nobody gets to blame the other lot for this.
In fairness, those are dollar figures, not adjusted for inflation, the population has grown, and part of the tax is paid by companies, not households. Spending grew a little slower than revenue over the decade.
But governments have never taken in more of your money. When they say there isn't enough, the problem isn't how much they collect. It's what they do with it.
Same standard, every side.
Cold Hard Facts. Corrected when wrong. No misinformation.
What's your thoughts…?
Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺
Sources:
ABS, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2024-25, released 21 Apr 2026, Tables 1 and 10; ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Annual, 2024-25, released 21 Apr 2026, Table 939 (Table 1, operating statement, all levels of government); ABS, Insights into Government Finance Statistics, Annual, 2024-25; ABS taxation data via The Nightly, 21 Apr 2026. Ten-year changes and weekly figure: author's calculation.
rob942 retweeted
If roles were reversed, and it were a male politician making this face whilst a woman was addressing the parliament, it would kick off an "urgent national conversation" about how disrespectful Australian men are to women, misogyny, the political boys club, male entitlement, the manosphere, rape culture, how this perpetuates male violence against women, and on, and on, and on. Albanese would probably order a Royal Commission. When @sarahinthesen8 does it to @senatorbabet there's crickets.
rob942 retweeted
It makes you want to vomit.
Jacinda Ardern has been gifted a privileged position at Sydney University as a “professor of practice”.
The University released a statement:
“Her work will focus on empathetic leadership, social cohesion and civic trust; further developing new approaches to global and values-based leadership, as well as exploring new ways to address global health challenges centred on equity, inclusion and wellbeing.”
This has to be some type of sick joke.
“Empathetic leadership – equity and inclusion” – this from a woman that smirked about dividing society into two classes of people.
“Civic trust” – from a woman who destroyed civic trust and will be remembered by history as saying “we will be your single source of truth” – and then proceeded to tell lie after lie about the so-called vaccine.
The only university Ardern is fit to lecture at is one in North Korea or Cuba.
But her appointment only confirms what we already know – our universities are no longer places of education and learning – they are Marxist indoctrination camps, so Ardern will fit in well.
Just another reason to vote One Nation.
rob942 retweeted
You might want to open a history book before embarrassing yourself with another political meme.
The original Ku Klux Klan emerged during Reconstruction and was closely aligned with Democrats. Its members targeted Black Republican voters *and* Republican officeholders while resisting efforts to establish equal citizenship.
That’s documented American history, not Republican propaganda.
And here’s another inconvenient fact: At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, opposition to an explicit anti-Klan resolution helped prevent its adoption.
Now, historical accuracy also requires acknowledging that the Klan of the 1920s had supporters in both political parties, depending on the state.
But posting a century-old photograph and declaring it a MAGA rally doesn’t establish the political affiliation of anyone pictured.
History deserves more than partisan obfuscation. If you’re going to invoke the Klan, tell its history accurately, including its documented connections to the Democratic Party.
#AStoneGroove #SilentMajoritySpeaks
rob942 retweeted
#News Hillary Clinton is claiming that the Trump family is profiting off the presidency in a way that costs ordinary Americans support for food and other needs.
"The corruption that is putting money in Trump's pockets is costing all of us."
🔥Fast Fact: President Donald Trump continues to donate his $400,000 presidential salary and takes only a symbolic $1 per year, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
So the president is working for the country for free.
Some of the gains Clinton points to are court settlements he won against media companies that defamed him, such as '
🔵ABC/Disney:
Settled before inauguration for about $15–16 million
donated to Trump’s presidential library foundation + $1 million in legal
🔵X: February 2025
About $10 million. The money went to his presidential library and legal fees.
🔵Paramount/CBS: July 2025
$16 million to Trump’s future presidential library.
🔵YouTube/Alphabet: September 2025
$24.5 million in total. President Trump donated $22 million to the Trust for the National Mall (a nonprofit supporting National Mall restoration and the White House State ballroom project.)
The remaining $2.5 million went to other plaintiffs (including the American Conservative Union and Naomi Wolf).
Critics point out that while President Donald Trump works for free and donates nearly all the money he receives in settlements,
Hillary Clinton’s net worth went from $697,000 before Bill took office in 1992, to $120 million today.
Both Bill and Hillary accepted their full paychecks when working as the President and Secretary of State.
She then claimed,
"You're wasting your tax money. The corruption is rising. It's undermining government services, even our national defense, and it is hurting people who should be able to get some support because of their, you know, needs for food or their need to pay their bills."
Clinton failed to mention the $9-$18 billion in welfare fraud by Somali Migrants in Minnesota under the watch of Gov. Tim Walz and Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Accusations were made that Walz retaliated against those who reported fraud, while
Omar championed a bill in Congress that removed safeguards, which then enabled the massive fraud in her district.
She failed to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud discovered in Los Angeles, the rampant fraud in the homeless industrial complex and the amount of money she herself has been accused of “mishandling."
#christinaaguayonws
rob942 retweeted
Capitalism didn't create your need to work to survive. Nature did.
An employer doesn't impose that necessity upon you. He offers you an opportunity to satisfy it through voluntary exchange.
Socialism doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. It merely transfers authority over production to politicians or the collective.
Under capitalism, you're free to change employers, negotiate wages, work for yourself, or establish a cooperative. None guarantees success, but the freedom exists.
And here's where your moral superiority becomes particularly ridiculous.
You condemn people for offering employment on terms others are free to reject, yet consider yourself morally entitled to dictate how they must use their property, run their businesses, and compensate others.
You call voluntary agreements exploitation while presenting coercion as compassion.
Your objection isn't that people are being forced to serve others. It's that they aren't being forced to serve others on your terms.
And somehow, you've convinced yourself that makes you the moral one.
After reading the replies to my original post, I've learned that some libertarians have a much bigger problem than their understanding of economics. Their complete lack of empathy is fucking astonishing.
I suggested that paying half your income in rent because the alternative is sleeping in a freezing car isn't exactly a wonderful example of economic freedom. The responses were an extraordinary collection of lectures about voluntary exchange, personal responsibility, property rights, and why homelessness is apparently just another consumer preference.
Here are the five most common arguments.
1. It's voluntary because nobody is forcing you.
Apparently, choosing between unaffordable rent and sleeping in your car is the expression of liberty. Sure, nobody is holding a gun to your head. But someone with $500 in the bank doesn't have the same bargaining power as someone with $10 million in property. A decision made under financial desperation is still a decision. That doesn't mean the person has meaningful economic freedom. If your definition of liberty includes celebrating someone's choice to freeze in their car, perhaps your philosophy needs some fucking work.
2. Just move, get roommates, buy a house, or sleep in your car.
This was my favorite. One person suggested getting a gym membership so you could sleep in your car and still shower. Others recommended second jobs, roommates, or simply buying a house. Fucking brilliant. But what happens when millions of households simultaneously move somewhere cheaper? Demand increases, and those locations become less affordable unless housing supply expands. What works for one individual doesn't necessarily work for everyone. It's called the fallacy of composition. An entire housing crisis cannot be solved by giving millions of people individual financial advice. Yet apparently, sleeping in a Toyota Corolla now constitutes a comprehensive economic policy.
3. Government regulations and central banks caused expensive housing.
This was actually a reasonable argument, at least initially. Restrictive zoning and excessive development regulations absolutely can contribute to expensive housing. But blaming government for every undesirable market outcome is just ideological laziness. Housing prices also depend on incomes, credit conditions, construction costs, land values, population growth, speculation, and investment expectations. Developers build when they expect sufficient profits, not simply because people need somewhere to live. Removing bad regulations can improve housing supply. It doesn't magically eliminate every other economic problem. An economy is an interconnected system, not a fucking supply-and-demand diagram.
4. The landlord provides a mutually beneficial service.
Several people argued that rental transactions must benefit both parties because otherwise they wouldn't happen. Yes, someone facing homelessness might prefer paying half their income in rent to sleeping outside. Congratulations. You've established that people prefer shelter to freezing. But that doesn't prove the housing market is competitive, affordable, or producing desirable outcomes. People routinely accept terrible arrangements because their alternatives are worse. Individual rationality doesn't guarantee desirable outcomes for society. The existence of a transaction isn't proof that the economic system is working particularly well.
5. You aren't entitled to someone else's property or labor.
And naturally, someone had to start screaming about communism. Apparently, suggesting that people shouldn't have to sleep in freezing cars is now revolutionary Marxism. I support private property, competitive markets, and private enterprise. But supporting capitalism doesn't require celebrating every outcome it produces. Property rights don't automatically guarantee affordable housing, economic efficiency, or an equitable distribution of resources. You can defend private property without treating human suffering as an acceptable demonstration of economic liberty.
Now, here's what genuinely disturbed me.
I expected arguments about economics. What I didn't expect was how enthusiastically some people recommended homelessness. Sleep in your car. Get a gym membership. Work three jobs. Move away. Stop complaining. These weren't hypothetical responses. People actually suggested these things. Imagine seeing someone struggling to afford shelter and immediately explaining why they should be grateful to their landlord. What kind of fucking worldview produces that reaction?
Markets are supposed to serve human beings. Human beings aren't supposed to suffer simply to validate someone's economic philosophy. I'm a supporter of free markets, but I don't believe that requires abandoning basic human empathy. The irony is that people who constantly preach individual liberty seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the economic circumstances that restrict it.
If your response to someone facing homelessness is to congratulate them on having the freedom to sleep in their fucking car, perhaps you've spent too much time defending capitalism and not enough time interacting with actual human beings.
rob942 retweeted
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has sensationally pulled out of Senate Estimates today, despite being scheduled to appear this morning.
Senators were only notified after business hours on Friday. This left no opportunity to challenge the decision before today’s hearings.
This is the organisation that helps set the direction of our energy grid. Its decisions affect your power bills, and its subsidiary assesses renewable energy projects that use your tax dollars for deals whose contract prices and expected taxpayer costs remain secret.
A body with that much power should not be dodging parliamentary scrutiny. The government is not being straight with the Australian people about the cost of its net zero agenda.
This is why One Nation has called for a Royal Commission into Australia’s energy transition and the institutions driving it.
Australians deserve to know what has been promised in their name, what it will cost and who benefits.
The Albanese Labor government needs to open the books and answer these questions.
rob942 retweeted
If anyone believes this nonsense, here are the facts he is counting on you not knowing.
The deal did not end Iran's nuclear program. It rented a pause. Iran kept its centrifuges, kept Fordow buried in a mountain, kept enriching to 3.67%, and the key restrictions came with expiration dates. The sunset clauses began lifting in 2025. Obama's own answer at the time was that breakout time "would have shrunk almost down to zero" as the deal expired. His deal scheduled the problem for his successors.
The regime lied its way into the deal. The JCPOA was premised on Iran coming clean about past weapons work. In 2018 Israel pulled Iran's own nuclear archive out of a Tehran warehouse: tens of thousands of documents on the Amad Project, a crash program to build nuclear weapons, preserved and hidden while Iran certified it had no such program. The IAEA later found uranium traces at undeclared sites Iran never explained.
The deal paid for terror. Sanctions relief unfroze roughly $100 billion and the US delivered $1.7 billion in cash. That money flowed to the IRGC, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Diplomacy with a regime at war with you is financing, not peace.
And the result? By 2025 Iran was enriching to 60%, a short technical step from weapons grade, with enough material for multiple bombs and the IAEA declaring it in violation of its obligations. That is what required military force this year. Iran marched to the threshold under the deal's cover and after it.
"I didn't have to fire a missile" is true. He handed the regime money, legitimacy, and a timetable, and left the missiles to be fired a decade later by someone else. Appeasing a dictatorship doesn't buy peace. It buys the dictatorship time.
rob942 retweeted
My post about Hitler and the far right got millions of views. Clearly, it hit a nerve. So today I'm going to show you, step by step, why the notion of "far right" as it's used in France makes almost no sense. And why the people who wield it are usually the last ones who should be lecturing anyone.
Let's start with the only question that matters: what makes a political system work or fail? To a very large extent, it's the economy. A country that produces wealth, that lets its citizens create, trade and build, stays standing. A country that destroys that collapses, no matter how beautiful its slogans are.
And in economics, there are really only two worldviews.
The first is collectivism. The idea that the State knows better than you. That it must plan production, set prices, run companies, decide what you earn, what you buy, and eventually what you think. The individual is just a cog serving a grand collective project: the class, the nation, the race, the people.
The second is freedom. Capitalism, property, individual liberty, individual responsibility. The idea that millions of people creating value for one another produce infinitely more prosperity than an office of planners, however brilliant they may be.
Now look at the list of the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Stalin: total planning, forced collectivization, millions dead. Mao: the Great Leap Forward and the deadliest famine in human history. Pol Pot: money abolished, cities emptied, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population exterminated. Mussolini, the man who coined the word fascism: "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." And Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, whose program proclaimed "the common good before individual good." He subjected the entire German economy to State plans: the Four-Year Plan, frozen prices and wages, unions dissolved into a single state labor front, industrialists producing whatever the regime decided.
Their flags were different. Their designated enemies were different. But the machinery was the same: the individual doesn't exist, only the collective matters, and the State decides everything.
Why does it always end in totalitarianism? Because collectivism doesn't work. And when a system doesn't work, it has only two options: admit failure or force people. They always choose force.
Ludwig von Mises proved it as early as 1920: without free prices, without a market, a planner simply cannot know what to produce, how much, or at what cost. He is flying blind. A planned economy isn't a less efficient version of the market. It's an impossibility.
Friedrich Hayek drew the political conclusion in 1944 in The Road to Serfdom, a book he dedicated "to the socialists of all parties." One chapter is titled "The Socialist Roots of Naziism." Another, "Why the Worst Get on Top." For Hayek, controlling the economy isn't controlling one sector among others. It is "the control of the means for all our ends." Whoever controls your bread controls your life. Then your speech. Then your thoughts.
Milton Friedman put it his own way: a society that puts equality before freedom ends up with neither.
So we know exactly what works. It's not an opinion. It's a century of real-world experiments. Listen to the Austrian school, Mises and Hayek, with Friedman from Chicago alongside them: economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility.
And this is where we get to the great accusatory inversion. Part of the left-wing press spends its time screaming fascism. Why? Because the fascism fantasy is the best way to never talk about the track record of their own ideas. Deep down, they know: if their collectivist program were applied all the way, it wouldn't work, because a collective economy cannot work. And an economy that doesn't work always ends up having to coerce, surveil and ban. In other words, it becomes exactly what they claim to be fighting. The real heirs of totalitarian logic are not the ones being pointed at.
So who gets called "far right" in 2026? People who want safe cities. People who want to keep their culture. People who just want to live a peaceful life, raise their kids, and not have to board up their shop every weekend. People who want the law to apply to everyone.
If that's the far right, then the word no longer means anything. And maybe that was the point.
rob942 retweeted
2,400 years ago, Plato diagnosed our exact civilizational moment with clinical precision.
We are constantly lectured that tearing down objective truth, family hierarchy, and legal borders is "progress." The ancients knew better. They recognized it as the terminal stage of democratic decay:
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."— Plato, The Republic, Book VIII
Plato warned that when a civilization abolishes discipline and demands radical, boundary-free license, the social fabric dissolves into anarchy. Teachers begin to fear their students, parents cater to their children, criminals mock the law, and competence is condemned as oppression.
The tragic irony of history remains undefeated: once total disorder paralyzes a nation, the exhausted public inevitably begs for a tyrant to restore basic stability.
What the modern West is living through is not an enlightened awakening. It is the predictable, textbook collapse of a society trading timeless virtue for self-destructive decay.
rob942 retweeted
Every one of us started out as a mental communist.
A very small child believes that wishing makes it so. The world revolves around him. Food appears, toys appear, someone else pays for everything. When reality says no, he cries: "It's not fair!" And when something breaks, it's someone else's fault.
Normally, children figure out around four that it isn't so. The mental communist doesn't.
The rest of us learn it from reality. The stove is hot. The toy breaks. The friend leaves. Wishes don't move the world; work does. Freud called it the passage from the pleasure principle to the reality principle. It is called growing up.
The mental communist never made that passage. He is fifty years old, and still four.
Why? Because he was protected from reality for too long. A comfortable home, endless studies, a job in an institution where being wrong costs nothing, and a state that plays the parent. Peter Pan was the boy who wouldn't grow up. Today Neverland has a campus, a newsroom and a ministry.
And so the fantasies became delusions.
A child's fantasy is soft. It gives way when reality pushes. A delusion is hard. It survives every piece of evidence – that is what makes it a delusion.
You recognize the grown child easily. The tantrum when reality says no – today we call it outrage. Rights without duties. Someone else always pays – only the parent has become the state. Every failure is someone else's fault: he started it. And the imaginary friend – "humanity," "the people," "history" – who always agrees with him.
Here is the danger. A child's fantasy is guarded by his parents. A grown man's delusion is guarded by power – and paid for by everyone else.
What grows people up is what it always was: consequences, work, responsibility for someone other than yourself. And nothing ends a fantasy faster than your own baby crying at three in the morning.
A civilization is built by adults. It cannot be run from Neverland.
Mental Communism – How to Recognize It.
You don't need a party card to be a communist anymore. You don't even need to have read Marx. Mental communism is not an ideology. It is a way of thinking – and you meet it every day: in the office, in the newsroom, at the dinner table, in the ministry.
Here is how to recognize it.
1. Words before things. Rename a problem and it's solved. Insecurity becomes "a feeling of insecurity." Rioters become "youths." Censorship becomes "fighting disinformation."
2. Intentions before results. A policy is good because it means well and sounds good. That it failed is a detail – usually someone else's fault.
3. Humanity before people. He loves humanity. He can't stand his neighbor.
4. The model before reality. When the world doesn't fit the theory, the world must change. A new law, a new program, a bigger budget.
5. An enemy for every failure. The plan never fails. It is sabotaged – by the rich, the speculators, the "far right," the weather.
6. Appearances before reality. Poses before acts: the flag in the profile picture, the slogan at dinner, the open letter signed with a hundred others. Then nothing.
7. Rights for me, rules for you. Free speech for his side, "hate speech" for yours. Private schools for his children, public ones for yours.
8. He never pays. Being wrong costs him nothing – he moves on to the next cause, the next post, the next promotion.
9. Consensus instead of evidence. "Experts agree." "Studies show." "Everyone knows." Ask which study, and you become the problem.
10. No exit. Ask him what would prove him wrong. Silence – or outrage.
Poles recognize it instantly. We lived inside it for forty-five years: the meetings where everyone knew and nobody said, the newspapers reporting record harvests, the slogans on the walls. The regime only partly fell. The habit stayed. And in the West, it never even needed a regime.
What unites all ten? One thing. For the mental communist, reality doesn't exist – only his wishes, his words, his poses, and the power to impose them. Every sign is the same gesture: putting something in reality's place. Words instead of things. Intentions instead of results. A model instead of the world. An enemy instead of a mistake. A pose instead of an act. Consensus instead of evidence. That is also why he never pays and never admits he was wrong: you cannot be wrong about a world you don't believe exists.
Like children living in their fantasies. Children believing that wishing makes it so – except these children have power.
The good news: a habit of mind can be broken. It starts with one sentence, said out loud: the world doesn't work like that.
rob942 retweeted
Mental Communism – How to Recognize It.
You don't need a party card to be a communist anymore. You don't even need to have read Marx. Mental communism is not an ideology. It is a way of thinking – and you meet it every day: in the office, in the newsroom, at the dinner table, in the ministry.
Here is how to recognize it.
1. Words before things. Rename a problem and it's solved. Insecurity becomes "a feeling of insecurity." Rioters become "youths." Censorship becomes "fighting disinformation."
2. Intentions before results. A policy is good because it means well and sounds good. That it failed is a detail – usually someone else's fault.
3. Humanity before people. He loves humanity. He can't stand his neighbor.
4. The model before reality. When the world doesn't fit the theory, the world must change. A new law, a new program, a bigger budget.
5. An enemy for every failure. The plan never fails. It is sabotaged – by the rich, the speculators, the "far right," the weather.
6. Appearances before reality. Poses before acts: the flag in the profile picture, the slogan at dinner, the open letter signed with a hundred others. Then nothing.
7. Rights for me, rules for you. Free speech for his side, "hate speech" for yours. Private schools for his children, public ones for yours.
8. He never pays. Being wrong costs him nothing – he moves on to the next cause, the next post, the next promotion.
9. Consensus instead of evidence. "Experts agree." "Studies show." "Everyone knows." Ask which study, and you become the problem.
10. No exit. Ask him what would prove him wrong. Silence – or outrage.
Poles recognize it instantly. We lived inside it for forty-five years: the meetings where everyone knew and nobody said, the newspapers reporting record harvests, the slogans on the walls. The regime only partly fell. The habit stayed. And in the West, it never even needed a regime.
What unites all ten? One thing. For the mental communist, reality doesn't exist – only his wishes, his words, his poses, and the power to impose them. Every sign is the same gesture: putting something in reality's place. Words instead of things. Intentions instead of results. A model instead of the world. An enemy instead of a mistake. A pose instead of an act. Consensus instead of evidence. That is also why he never pays and never admits he was wrong: you cannot be wrong about a world you don't believe exists.
Like children living in their fantasies. Children believing that wishing makes it so – except these children have power.
The good news: a habit of mind can be broken. It starts with one sentence, said out loud: the world doesn't work like that.
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:
Zakłamanie [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.
Obłuda [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 zakłamanie in its modern form. This is obłuda 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.
1/2
rob942 retweeted
I am trans. I spent all last week in Mississippi at my high school reunion and went to my childhood church. No one was rude. No one misgendered me or deadnamed me. Very literally nothing happened.
Why? Because unlike most of the new, radical trans movement, I didn’t show up with a political agenda, daring people to disagree. I was dressed like any other woman my age. I’d done the work to change my body, face and voice to the point no one had to think about my gender.
Having grown up in Mississippi, I knew what most of the radical new trans movement doesn’t. Conservatives are inclined to think of it as a private issue, so leave it private. Pass and get on with it.
No one cared about us until this non-binary nonsense showed up, insisting we stop calling women women. No one cared until fetishists started walking into locker rooms with their literal dicks flopping around. If you wanna keep trans people safe, jettison the extremists and just act normal.
rob942 retweeted
To the leftists scrambling to defend Albanese: this wasn’t a normal dirt sheet.
It was a calculated revenge attack, timed to send a clear message to the crossbench — criticise the misuse of taxpayers’ money and we will come after you.
Shut up or else.
This was a deliberate attempt to intimidate Members of Parliament, to interfere with their duties, and to silence scrutiny of government spending.
And such conduct is a Contempt of the Parliament - a specific violation of s49 of the Australian Constitution - and for which people have been imprisoned for.
rob942 retweeted
“This post needs to go viral – NOW!
So, as you might have heard, Australia’s controversial Digital ID bill was recently passed in Federal Parliament.
And no, this isn’t about logging into Medicare “more easily.” This is the wet dream of every power-drunk bureaucrat who’s ever fantasised about tracking what you eat, watch, spend, say – and even think.
Labor rammed it through with help from the Greens and Jacqui Lambie, while the likes of Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Matthew Canavan, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Gerard Rennick strongly opposed it.
Experts lined up to say it was dangerous. Legal groups shredded it. Privacy advocates screamed. The public wasn’t consulted. But they damn well passed it anyway.
This bill is not about “protecting your identity” – it’s about owning it.
Without a digital ID, you will eventually have no access to a bank account, cash, Centrelink, MyGov, flights, fuel, medication, voting in elections, and even receiving parcels in the mail.
And you can kiss goodbye to ever renting a home, owning a car, using social media, shopping online, accessing the internet at all, having a phone number, and buying groceries.
They say it’s “voluntary” – just like MyGov was “optional” until 10 million Aussies were forced into it just to access basic services.
Just like the COVID-19 vaccine was “optional” until those who resisted found themselves locked out of society for months for not being up-to-date with their boosters.
It’s coercion and blackmail with a friendly smile.
And now that this thing’s been jammed through Parliament, the tech giants are lining up like pigs at a data trough. They’ve already got your search history, your online purchases, your late-night Instagram habits, and every whispered “Hey Siri” or “OK Google.”
Now they get to attach all of that to your real name, address, and government-approved ID. That “anonymous data” you thought was floating harmlessly in the cloud? Not anymore.
Your Woolies reward card is now part of your permanent “consumer profile.” Your YouTube comments? Traceable. That shady dating app you thought was private? Good luck with that when your real ID is stitched to everything you do online.
Privacy’s gone, and it’s not coming back. And let's not pretend this data won't be regularly hacked, leaked, or sold to the highest bidder.
And when the system inevitably fails? One blackout, one outage, one “oops” from some contractor, and you’re digitally locked out of your own life, while some AI bot in a call centre tells you to try turning it off and on again.
The committee that was supposed to scrutinise this bill was a total joke. They ignored almost every expert submission, skipped past glaring privacy failures, human rights concerns, and technical red flags, and still gave it the green light.
It wasn’t an inquiry – it was a rubber stamp for the surveillance state controlled by foreign nations.
Every politician who voted for this has just helped build the scaffolding for digital tyranny. This is the infrastructure for a fully centralised, always-on tracking system.
They’ll say it’s for your safety. They’ll say it’s about efficiency. What they mean is: now they know who you are, where you are, what you’re saying, who you’re saying it to, and how to shut you up when you speak too much truth.
#This isn’t progress – it’s control, plain and simple.
What we’re seeing isn’t some harmless upgrade – it’s China-style social credit wrapped in an Aussie flag, and you can bet the CCP is watching on proudly, noticing how we've finally caught up.
#StephanieMessenger
rob942 retweeted
Most political conversations should start with the words:
"You are a mental communist. The world doesn't work like that."
Why?
Because the people who go into politics and journalism alike are the ones who have a model of the world in their head – and want to enforce it.
Every model is wrong. It is a model, not reality. But they are also the people with neither the humility nor the intelligence to recognize that. These people are proud.
The engineer tests his model against reality. When the bridge cracks, he changes the model. The farmer, the doctor, the shopkeeper, the mother of four – reality corrects them every single day.
The mental communist does the opposite. When reality doesn't fit the model, he changes reality. A new law, a new ministry, a new program – and when that fails too, a bigger one.
Hayek explained why the worst get on top: the power to plan other people's lives attracts those most certain they know how others should live, and the system rewards them for it. The humble don't run for office or write editorials. They build things.
In Poland we had a whole state run by people with a model of the world. The world didn't work like that. The shelves were empty.
So we need two things. Put people into politics who have met reality – who built something, ran something, paid for their own mistakes. And give whoever is in charge as little power as possible, because every model is wrong, and the damage grows with the power behind it.
The best politician is the one who knows his model is wrong – and therefore wants as little power as possible to enforce it.
So yes, start the conversation with this: "You are a mental communist. The world doesn't work like that."
Then show him how it does.
Pride – The Engineers of Human Souls.
Pride is not the craftsman’s satisfaction in good work. That kind of pride built cathedrals.
Pride is the certainty that you know better than other people how they should live.
Pride is looking at a society and seeing a machine – with yourself as the engineer.
Pride is impatience with reality. Reality is slow, messy, full of people who want different things. So pride replaces it with a plan.
Pride "loves" humanity and despises people. Humanity never argues back.
Pride is blind in one specific way: it cannot see what it does not know. Hayek called it the fatal conceit – the belief that a few clever people can know what millions know, each about his own work, his own family, his own street.
Pride wears the mask of compassion. "For your own good" – the most dangerous words in politics. C.S. Lewis warned that the worst tyranny is the one exercised sincerely for the good of its victims – because its enforcers sleep with a clear conscience.
Pride never admits a mistake. A failed plan was sabotaged, betrayed, underfunded – never wrong. So the next plan is bigger.
And pride never lives in its own design. The architect of the housing estate lives in the old town. The reformer of the school sends his children somewhere else. The planner never pays for his plan.
Now scale it up. Plato’s ideal city abolished the family among its rulers and told the people a useful lie. The French revolutionaries redesigned even the clock – ten hours a day; it lasted barely a year and a half. Trotsky promised that under socialism the average man would rise to the level of Aristotle, Goethe or Marx; what came out was a man queuing for bread and informing on his neighbor. Le Corbusier wanted to raze the heart of Paris for identical towers; his ideas shaped the grim estates on the edge of every European city – designed for a new man, inhabited by real ones. Today the same pride works in committees, redesigning language, the family and what children must learn about themselves. Quieter than a revolution. The same certainty.
The West’s best tradition starts from the opposite place. Socrates: the wisest man knows that he does not know. Chesterton: never take down a fence until you know why it was put up. Society is not a machine. It is a living thing – grown, not built. The statesman should be a gardener, not an engineer.
A free society does not abolish pride. It converts it: be as proud as you like of what you build – your house, your company, your family – and let reality judge it. The planner is proud of what he designs for everyone else, and never has to live in it.
The cure is the oldest one: know what you don’t know. And let people live their own lives.
rob942 retweeted
The B.O.M. have been lying to us and getting away with it... until now.
Their 'raw' data isn't... and now we have the proof.
For decades the Bureau of Meteorology have gotten away with fiddling with the data, now they've been caught out and there's no hiding this one!
The BOM must no longer be regarded as a scientific organisation, they're a political one, providing manipulated data to suit political objectives and costing us BILLIONS in the process.
It's time for a total cleanout!
Check out the work of Jennifer Marohasy, and specifically the blog post promised in this video, here: jennifermarohasy.com/2017/02…
Support my work and join my email list here: store.topherfield.com/
Grab your BLACKOUT merch here: store.topherfield.com/collec…
rob942 retweeted
#news A gay man in Michigan says he started reading the Quran after members of the gay community called him Islamophobic for his concerns about how homos*xuals and women are treated in M*slim-majority countries.
He said the conditions ruled by Islam are incompatible with the life he lives in America.
"I genuinely do not understand how somebody could look at a place that's M*slim-dominated and say that they want that here, especially as a gay man. It makes no sense."
"It's not like a hatred thing. It's not like a political argument. It's like those are not conditions that would be conducive to the way that I want to live my life here."
"So, I just don't get what the gays are thinking. Literally they've lost it. This is like a mental illness at this point that these gays are so in support of something that's so obviously bad for them. I cannot understand.”
Countries that impose the de*th penalty under Sharia law for gay people.
☪️Iran
☪️Saudi Arabia
☪️Yemen
☪️Afghanistan
☪️Brunei
☪️Mauritania
☪️Nigeria (northern states)
☪️Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Somalia, Pakistan: Death possible under Sharia
☪️M*slim-majority countries under Sharia-influenced laws with criminal penalties for being gay
Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Gambia, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and others. Penalties range from years to life in prison, often with flogging. Indonesia has imposed public flogging under local Sharia in Aceh for same s*x acts.
In Michigan, particularly Dearborn (a Detroit suburb with a large M*slim population), hundreds of mostly M*slim parents and community members, protested and shut down a Dearborn Public Schools board meeting over books with LGBTQ themes and explicit content.
Signs included “Homosexuality Big Sin” and “Keep Your Dirty Books in the Closet.”
Conservatives say that classical Sharia’s criminalization of homos*xuality, restrictions on women, and prioritization of religious law over individual rights are incompatible with the U.S. constitutional order and equal protection.
Why do liberals support a religious political system that will strip their freedoms, limit women's rights and criminalize homos*xuality?
#christinaaguayonews
