El Picho

Director de empresas en crescendo UCR

[El Picho @AlonsoMoya5]

"Insensato todo aquel que tenga un arma,
que la use para descargar su ira"
Señor Loop

[Ariel Bonz Smith @ArielBonzSmith]

She is a threat to national security 🇺🇸and her visa should be cancelled ‼️🫵🏼 @usembassysjo @DHSgov @ICEespanol

[Mati Smith🇦🇷 @Trumperizar]

El origen de todos los males latinoamericanos.

[Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs]

When leftists say "keep religion out of politics," they only mean Christianity

[Luis Carlos 🏴‍☠️ One Piece @LuisCarlos]

En el show de @nachored un chico contó que fue torturado en el Helicoide a los 13 años de edad, en el año 2018.

[Un Calamar Basado @CalamarBasado]

✅ 2026 actualizado

[Rep. Riley M. Moore @RepRileyMoore]

Eleven years ago today, 21 Coptic Christians were brutally executed by ISIS terrorists for their faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We will never forget these brave martyrs - with one martyr proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ before his death.

Do not forget them. May their strong faith convict you to stand boldly for Christ — whatever the cost.

[El Picho @AlonsoMoya5]

“En democracia, no hay votantes de valor distinto.”

[Mario Quirós @marioquiross]

Hola, don Leonardo. Un gusto saludarlo

Ojalá me hubiera mencionado directamente. Creo que cuando no se está de acuerdo con una opinión como la que dí (que puede usted considerar o no correcta y se vale) se abre una oportunidad enorme de intercambiar opiniones con respeto y aprender todos.

Ese extracto es parte de una entrevista en que, dados los resultados electorales, el análisis se daba alrededor de una pregunta muy concreta: ¿puede el PLN asumir como propio y permanente el porcentaje obtenido en esta elección?

Desde mi punto de vista. Esta elección se jugó con una lógica de segunda ronda en primera ronda y eso produjo un reagrupamiento -alrededor de don Álvaro Ramos- del voto útil anticontinuismo y del votante moderado. Se favoreció un resultado electoral en un contexto específico. No es una crítica; es una descripción del escenario según lo que yo veo.

Ese votante tenía todo el derecho de decidir así. Votó desde lo que aspira para el país, desde lo que le preocupa, desde lo que quiere y desde lo que teme. Esa lógica es absolutamente legítima. Lo hizo porque, en ese momento, le pareció la mejor opción posible.

Pero así como ese votante tiene el derecho de votar, también se debe respetar el mismo derecho a quien lo haga desde una distinta.

En democracia, no hay votantes de valor distinto. La gente vota desde lo cotidiano, desde su experiencia, desde lo que vive y desde lo que cree que puede mejorar su realidad. No existe por eso una lógica de voto superior a otra.

Decir -aunque sea de manera indirecta- que quien no votó como uno, lo hizo porque está comprado, es convertir la diferencia política en una descalificación moral y la pluralidad en trincheras. No podemos seguir alimentando en Costa Rica la idea de que hay votos votos “conscientes” y votos “manipulados”. Eso no fortalece la democracia; la debilita.

La campaña ya pasó. Si queremos también pasar la página y reconstruir mínimos de convivencia democrática, tenemos que empezar por respetar el voto ajeno incluso cuando no coincide con el propio. Pero sobre todo tratar de entenderlo.

Saludos cordiales,

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Let's talk about the opening part of this statement: "nobody is illegal on stolen land." We can break it down, but we should also know what it is. What we are looking at is Chinese-style political sloganeering called "tifa" (提法).

Communist communications ever since Mao took over China (and the CCP before that) almost always follow this kind of formulation, called 提法 (tífǎ), which literally translates as "watchwords" or "slogans." Literally, it means to lift up or present or highlight the core message or political principle in play through a charged slogan.

The purpose of the sloganeering is actually to do a kind of political engineering through carefully selected and weaponized words that are easily memorable and that hijack the critical thinking faculties of the people who both hear and repeat them so they'll advance the Party line.

You can think of tifa quite literally as a form of "discourse engineering" with the intent of doing political engineering or political warfare more or less by hijacking people's brains through mystifying slogans. (Mystification is like a more powerful form of confusion, akin to having been put under a spell.)

In his amazing analysis of the CCP in the early 1950s, just after Mao took power (in October 1949), psychologist Robert Jay Lifton referred to what amounts to tifa as "thought-terminating clichés." That is, they're slogans (or clichés) that have the power to turn off your ability to think clearly about what's being said and implied and to just go along with the political messaging rather than to question it.

The mechanisms of these political warfare tools are mystification and rhetorical entrapment. Mystification is overriding critical thinking with carefully constructed falsehoods and framing. Rhetorical entrapment occurs when there's no easy way to disagree with the framing (think, "black lives matter" or "Christ is king" (as the Groypers use it), both of which are examples of tifa).

The mystification part is a process of using carefully constructed falsehoods presented as truisms that undermine the critical thinking process. That is, the statements can be seen as "obviously" true in a particular way that disguises how they are false in another way. For example, black lives obviously matter, but supporting the organization is something people should not do.

The statement "nobody is illegal on stolen land" is very sophisticated as tifa because it contains three mystifications in just six words:

1) "Nobody is illegal" confuses the distinction between being a human being of basic human dignity and being a citizen of a country or legal visitor there;
2) "Stolen land" confuses the legitimacy of the country in question;
3) The idea of being able to be legal or illegal if the country itself is not legal because it is "stolen land." This is distinct from the idea of the land itself being stolen because it conceptually bridges the concept of legality and legitimacy of the country.

As you can tell, breaking down and explaining the failures of all three parts of this mystification (demystification) is both challenging and exhausting, and it takes so much space that most people will not engage with it due to its length (which will be three orders of magnitude greater (5000-6000 words) than the tifa itself (6 words) to explicate fully and two orders of magnitude greater (600-800 words) just to barely articulate). Raise these by another order of magnitude of effort or two for the argument that will follow the attempt to demystify.

The point is that to fully engage a six-word tifa through explanation, discussion, and argument to try to break someone free of it might take 50-100 thousand words worth of effort by the time all is said and done. (Another example: "trans women are women"; look how much effort that one has taken!)

This example of tifa also contains two rhetorical traps that derive from the first two mystifications:
A) It dares critics to say that people themselves are illegal (illegitimate) because of a political circumstance, thus replacing a legalistic fact with a moral assertion, one that is difficult to litigate without considerable expertise and that might still lose on emotional appeal ("empathy");
B) It lures critics into litigating the legality of the establishment of the nation in question, which undermines the justified presumption of authority in the national concept.

These rhetorical traps not only put critics in a bad, weak, and likely losing position from the start, but they also invite adopting a reactionary or chauvinistic stance as the only possible reply (e.g., "we aren't colonizers; we're conquerors" or "illegals are illegitimate"). This feeds the strategic principle of "your target's reaction is your real action" upon which these manipulative movements gain the most ground.

In short, tifa like this hijacks the capacity to understand the situation correctly in a succinct, repeatable phrase even Billie Eilish can repeat in about a second and a half (confuses and mystifies) while arranging a sophisticated psychological and public opinion trap that is mostly lose-lose-lose for those who would object.

Notice that through the application of tifa as a form of political warfare (public opinion warfare, specifically), any idiot (including the average Billie Eilish fan) can ensnare any good-faith actor in this very sophisticated political warfare device even without understanding in the slightest how it works, dragging them into either confusion or arguments meant to be fought on losing ground for the good-faith critic. You don't need a sophisticated political warfare operator to make this happen.

Furthermore, notice that any idiot who falls for the tifa here will actually repeat it, making the slogan campaign viral so that it is mostly being fought out not by experts but by masses of laypeople who know there's a fight but who aren't properly equipped to deal with it. This is why it is an example of "public opinion warfare" as one of the CCP's "three warfares" doctrine styles.

As summarized by the RAND Corporation: "Tifa have four identifying characteristics: (1) They are politically laden and stated verbatim, (2) they extend along a clear line of authority, (3) they are distributed to official party organs, and (4) they characterize or resolve a dialectical contradiction between competing ideas in the CCP."

Engaging with this kind of slogan, as we must, brings critics into a "dialectical space" that's roughly on the level of the average idiot who can argue emotively or even just repeat the slogan as a kind of verbal cudgel (for those watching) rather than genuinely engaging. We might call this the "Reeeeee! Effect," and we all know it works very well. Tifa creates the "Reeeeee! Effect."

Since the late 1960s, almost all "New Leftist" activism in the West runs on a Maoist-Marxist engine, including the heavy use of tifa sloganeering as a form of rhetorical and political warfare. Most of what we engage in today with their B.S. rhetoric is tifa.

So these "thought-terminating clichés" (tifa) are very powerful and sophisticated political warfare tools that we all encounter every day. The only way to beat them is to identify them for the manipulations they are and explain them as best we can so that people are more likely to identify them and less likely to fall for them, and also to help people out of the ones they're already caught in and under the spell of.

[Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs]

I feel like now is a good time to bring this back

[Giovanni Travierso @Giotravierso]

No se burlen de los niños que creen en Santa Claus. Hay adultos que creyeron que el PAC podía volver al poder.

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

This video hits hard today

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

RIP BBC - You had Zero Credibility before you were caught lying to your audience - you’ve got even less now.

[🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅 @CRRJA5]

AND THAT’s WHY WE NEED .@TPUSA ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.

[Kristan Hawkins @KristanHawkins]

This is the callous response of pro-choice students at the University of Montana when I told them my friend Charlie Kirk had been shot.

It was horrific. I share this because evil must be exposed in our nation, now more than ever. We may be at one of the lowest points in our history, but we will not stop fighting to save our nation and will do it for him.

[Javier Milei @JMilei]

Mis condolencias a la familia de Charlie Kirk y a todos los jóvenes en el mundo que lo admiraban y lo escuchaban. Un formidable divulgador de las ideas de la libertad y acérrimo defensor de Occidente.

Fue víctima de un asesinato atroz en medio de una ola de violencia política de izquierda en toda la región. La izquierda es siempre en todo momento y lugar un fenómeno violento lleno de odio. El mundo entero perdió a un ser humano increíble.

Adiós.

[La Razón @larazon_es]

⚫️ Asesinados 100 cristianos en el Congo en un genocidio que no merece la misma atención que lo que ocurre en Gaza.

✍🏽 @jmzuloaga2

https://t.co/rki3fsKHGa

[Jeffery Mead @the_jefferymead]

Charlie Kirk was just assassinated in broad daylight and people on TikTok are celebrating.

These people are on the side who claims to be the side of “love and tolerance.”

A man’s life was taken and instead of mourning, they cheer. It is absolutely disgusting.

Pay attention. DO NOT ignore this behavior.