Basically Based

Pro: Personal responsibility, objectivity, merit, equality of opportunity not outcome
Anti: Marxism, Critical Theories, Postmodernism

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

I don't think Jesus ever threatened death to people who disagreed with Him

[Uri Kurlianchik @VerminusM]

Gaza was an experiment to see what would happen if you gave Palestinians near total control over a territory. That experiment has failed spectacularly.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

I will take absolutely no lectures about "divisiveness" from the people who gave us two-tier policing, racial hiring quotas and endless race-baiting.

Unlike you, we do not kneel.

[David Farrar @dpfdpf]

Help me compile a list of words that are now basically meaningless due to misuse. Such as

1) Neoliberal - any non-socialist economic policy
2) Austerity - not increasing spending as much as we want
3) Racist - has a different view to me on the Treaty
4) Far right - not left

[Rawan Osman روان عثمان @RawaneOsmane]

“Free Palestine.”

I grew up on those words.

In Lebanon, most people around me wanted a free Palestine for a very practical reason — to send the Palestinian refugees back. The civil war that tore my country apart was ignited in no small part by the Palestinian armed factions who turned Lebanon into their launching pad. “Free Palestine” meant: free us from them.

In Damascus, where my father’s family lived, the sentiment was different but equally self-serving. Palestine must be returned to the Arabs, its righteous owners. No one asked follow-up questions. No one was expected to.

Palestine was central to Islam, most Arabs are Muslim, therefore supporting the Palestinian cause was reflexive. A non-brainer in the most literal sense — no brain engaged at all.

Nobody stopped to point out that Palestine is not an Arabic word. Nobody found it strange that Jerusalem, the supposedly third holiest city in Islam, is not mentioned once in the Quran. Not once. Nor is Palestine. The entire theological and political architecture of this cause rests on a foundation that their own scripture doesn’t bother to acknowledge.

What was actually happening was indoctrination. A systematic, generational rejection of Jewish sovereignty — and frankly, of any minority sovereignty. Jews, Christians, Druze, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis — the Arab world has been remarkably consistent in how it treats people who are different. We just don’t talk about that.

Instead, in the West, we talk about Palestine.

In the West, a civilization that has elevated human rights to its highest moral currency, the Palestinian cause has become the one exception to every rule. In the queue of human suffering, Palestinians cut the line every time. Homosexuals executed in Gaza and hanged from cranes in Iran? Palestine first. Women imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for campaigning for the right to drive — a right they were denied until 2018 — girls sold into marriage in Afghanistan, women erased from public life entirely under the Taliban? After Palestine. Political dissidents ground into dust in Syrian and Egyptian prisons, journalists disappeared in Libya, children starving in Yemen while their rulers wage proxy wars, entire populations hollowed out by hunger in Sudan? All of it waits. Christians ethnically cleansed from Iraq and Syria, the Arab world methodically emptied of every Jewish community it once held — a demographic erasure carried out across a century with surgical patience and near-total Western silence?

Palestine is still first.

So let’s end where we started. Free Palestine. Which Palestine, exactly? The Roman invention? The British administrative line? The British Mandate covered the entire territory of what is today Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. In 1921, 78% of that mandate was handed to the Hashemite family — a dynasty imported from Hijaz in present-day Saudi Arabia — and became the Kingdom of Jordan, which it remains to this day. A foreign royal family, on the majority of historic Palestine, ruling it as a monarchy. Nobody protests that. No flags, no chants, no encampments. The remaining 22% was designated for the Jews, became Israel, and is the only part that any pro-Palestinian activist has ever had a problem with.

So when you say Free Palestine, you mean that 22%. You mean the Jews.

And free it from whom? From a people with a three-thousand-year-old documented presence in that land, to restore the glory of a name coined by Roman colonizers, a name lifted from the Torah, a name that has no roots in Arabic, no mention in the Quran, and no history as a sovereign state?

You are not chanting for liberation. You are chanting for colonialism — the Roman kind, repackaged for social media.

Free Palestine is not a cause. It is a colonial term, coined by invaders, recycled by the indoctrinated. The least you can do is have the intelligence to understand it and the decency to reflect on your position.

📍#Israel

[Sall Grover @salltweets]

“In a free society, people can believe whatever they want. If you want to believe men can be women or you’re a man who wants to call himself a woman, that is your business. What you cannot do in a free society is force anyone else to accept it. What is at stake here is the ability to lawfully acknowledge reality.

If you care so much about “trans rights” you can work out a way to get them without destroying the category of women in law, female spaces, sport, services, the entire reality of lesbianism, and punishing citizens for acknowledging reality. The fact that you haven’t even tried makes it appear that destroying the rights of women is the goal.

Any politician who will look an Australian citizen in the eye and tell them that a man can be a woman is admitting that they will lie about anything and everything because the most obvious lie has already been told.

If no one in this room can acknowledge reality and fix an obvious problem you are either malicious or incompetent. The days of dismissing this issue are over. This is not a culture war. It’s reality.”

- my words, read by Alison Penfold MP, in parliament today.

Contact politicians are tell them to BACK THE BILL - “Sex Discrimination Amendment- sex based rights bill 2026”

[Kyle Becker @kylenabecker]

Western Civilization didn't flourish because "white males" stopped other groups from succeeding.

The West thrived because of rational thought, individual rights, and free enterprise.

"White males" that invented the steam engine, electric generation, the combustion engine, flight, and space exploration did not do so because they "stole" the ideas of minorities.

These inventions helped lift mankind out of ignorance and hardship, improving the quality of life for all of humanity.

"White males" didn't oppress the entire world, they helped make it a better place.

"White males" didn't oppress everyone's rights, they invented the idea of rights and paid in blood to liberate tens of millions of people.

"White males" didn't invent slavery, they ended it.

"White males" didn't invent tyranny, they devised a form of government to end it.

Destroying Western Civilization isn't about empowering groups that were "oppressed." It is about tearing down civilization itself so that globalist parasites can rule over all of us.

[Duncan Disorderly 🔨🇳🇿🐄☕️🍺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇮🇪 @HRPremier66]

@aniobrien His pomposity and pretentious faux gravitas ensures I hit the mute/off switch the moment I glimpse his smug visage or hear his drone about to begin.

[Milton Friedman Quotes @MiltonFriedmanW]

“You cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration.”

— Milton Friedman

[Misanthrope @Misanth23754159]

@aniobrien @nzlabour “Diversity” = ideological conformity.
“Inclusion” = exclusion of dissent.
“Equity” = engineered outcomes, not equal opportunity.
Did I miss the bit about actually educating the young ones?

[Ani O'Brien @aniobrien]

Can we make the sex definitions bill a conscience vote so we can know for sure who the morons are?

[Virginie Landry 🗽🐍 🐢 @virginie1landry]

Il y a 2 ans et demi, 108 « économistes » dont Piketty et Zucman prédisaient l’effondrement économique de l’Argentine en cas de victoire de Milei.

Cela devrait suffire à les disqualifier à jamais.

[Mer Atwell @MeredithAtwell]

@BasedMikeLee

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝟒𝟔𝟑 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐁𝐎𝐎𝐊𝐒. 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐈𝐏𝐓𝐒.

Every time someone trots out the Crusades to lecture Christians or the West, they leave out four centuries of history. I'm putting it back on the record.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲

Muhammad died in 632. Within three years, Muslim armies had taken Damascus (635). The next year, Antioch (636). The year after that, the entire Holy Land (637) — the spiritual center of Christendom, gone. Armenia became the first Christian nation fully conquered (639). Egypt, the Coptic Christian power, fell two years later (641). By 650, Muslim forces had reached southern Italy and Cyprus, taking thousands of captives as "𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴" and "𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘶𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴." Then came Spain — Muslim armies crossed from North Africa in 711 and overran most of Iberia by 715.

In roughly 80 years, Christianity lost the Middle East, North Africa, and most of the Iberian Peninsula.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 — 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲

This was not exploration. This was conquest. In 717, Muslim forces besieged Constantinople itself — the capital of Eastern Christendom. The siege lasted a year before they were repelled. Had it succeeded, the path into Europe would have been wide open.

In 730, they invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours. In 792, the ruler of Al-Andalus called for a second invasion of France. Repelled. In 848, a third invasion of France. Repelled again.

In 827, Muslims invaded Sicily and Italy, persecuting monks and pillaging Christian communities. Sicily would remain under Islamic rule for 250 years. In 846, they invaded Rome itself and forced the Pope to pay tribute. By 909, they had taken Sardinia.

This was relentless, coordinated, and existential.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐭

In 937, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher — built over the site Christians believe is the tomb of Christ — was burned to the ground. More churches in Jerusalem were torched alongside it. In 1009, the Church of the Resurrection was destroyed. By 1012, Al-Hakim's oppressive decrees against Christians had begun in earnest.

Christian pilgrims could no longer safely visit the sites of Christ's ministry. The holiest city in Christendom was ruled by a hostile power systematically destroying the faith itself.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩

In 1071, Muslim Turkish forces shattered the Byzantine army at Manzikert and occupied most of Anatolia. Constantinople was now directly threatened.

In 1094, Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos sent envoys to Rome begging Western Christendom for military aid.

In 1095, Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade.

𝟒𝟔𝟑 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝟐𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐋: 𝐀 𝐒𝐎𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐓-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐑𝐃-𝐄𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐒𝐘𝐂𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊, 𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋𝐈 𝐊𝐈𝐁𝐁𝐔𝐓𝐙 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐎𝐋𝐃-𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐑𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐆.

𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭-𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲-𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. The argument is built on the actual receipts of the Israeli kibbutz movement — the most ambitious 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 — and why even that failed.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐩, 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘸, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.”

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡:
— 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 — children lived apart from parents in dormitories, raised communally
— 𝐏𝐚𝐲 — everyone got the same regardless of work or output
— 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐲 — explicitly designed to free women from ‘the patriarchy of the father’
— 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 — individual possessions were minimized; everything was communal
— 𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 — the high performer and the low performer received the same

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 for evolutionary reasons going back hundreds of thousands of years. Children form attachment bonds with primary caregivers. Mothers form bonding circuits with infants. 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 ‘𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧.’ 𝐈𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝: 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. The high-effort, high-skill kibbutznik received the same as the low-effort. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐯𝐢𝐯 𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝. The kibbutz birth rate collapsed. The economic output stagnated. Most kibbutzim are now functionally privatized cooperatives, indistinguishable from any small Israeli business.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭: 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ~𝟐𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎𝐬, 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟑𝟎 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦. The rest privatized, paid market wages, and reintroduced the family as the core unit. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞: every other communist project in history was 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝. If the kibbutz failed under best-case conditions, every Soviet, Maoist, Cuban, Cambodian, North Korean, and Venezuelan iteration was 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭-𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫: communism 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲, 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 — three pillars of human social biology that 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐲𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞. The Soviet Union killed 60 million people trying. The PRC killed 65 million. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝟏𝟖-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ‘𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧.’ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟. 𝐌𝐚𝐦𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐢’𝐬 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐬.

𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘥

[Samuel Fitoussi @SamuelFitouss10]

Pourquoi les intellectuels sont-ils si souvent socialistes ?

Les intellectuels pourraient avoir un faible pour les théories qui ouvrent la porte à une forme d’ingénierie sociale, qui impliquent que les changements positifs doivent être impulsés par le haut, de manière verticale. Pourquoi ? Parce que si le progrès naît de la mise en place de la recette de la bonne société, alors les intellectuels sont les garants du bonheur de leurs concitoyens, investis d’une mission : orienter la société vers un avenir meilleur. En revanche, si le progrès advient surtout par le bas, par l’initiative spontanée d’individus, par la société civile, par le marché, alors les intellectuels doivent se limiter à un travail descriptif, et ne peuvent avoir d’influence significative, en tout cas pas d’influence positive significative.

« L’idée de reconstruire entièrement la société, notait Hayek, séduit davantage l’intellectuel que les réflexions plus pragmatiques des tenants d’une amélioration graduelle de l’ordre établi. » Dans L’Opium des intellectuels, Raymond Aron raconte que si l’intelligentsia française, pendant la guerre froide, était plutôt hostile aux États-Unis, c’était justement parce que le pays avait enregistré d’immenses progrès grâce à l’entreprise individuelle de ses citoyens plutôt que par le biais d’une idée de génie (le communisme) appliquée à tous. [...]

Thomas Sowell, lui, constate que les intellectuels ont tendance à étudier, décrire et s’enthousiasmer pour les périodes de l’Histoire où ont eu lieu des changements législatifs (nouveaux droits, acquis sociaux, etc.) dont ils imaginent pouvoir s’attribuer partiellement le mérite, mais semblent indifférents aux améliorations de la condition humaine, parfois plus significatives, imputables à la vitalité de la société civile (même lorsque ce sont précisément ces progrès qui rendent possibles les acquis sociaux des décennies suivantes). [...]

Encore aujourd’hui, les sciences sociales ne se passionnent pas pour l’extraordinaire amélioration des conditions de vie en quelques décennies à Hong Kong, à Singapour, ou en Corée du Sud, permise par la réduction du poids de leurs gouvernements dans l’économie. Ce qui soulève une question : les intellectuels se disant attachés à la justice sociale ont-ils comme priorité l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux, ou bien l’affirmation de leur propre importance dans l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux ? « Ce qui préoccupe réellement les doctrinaires, écrivait Gustave Le Bon, ce n’est pas l’avènement du socialisme mais l’avènement des socialistes. »

Dans la même veine, l’essayiste Vera Nikolski a montré que les intellectuels sous-estiment l’influence du progrès technique dans la libération de la femme (électroménager, pilule, avortement, augmentation générale de la productivité ayant dévalué l’importance de la force physique) et surestiment celle des idées égalitaristes. Il est aussi amusant de noter qu’au XIXe siècle, pendant que John Stuart Mill appelait les universités à former « des esprits capables d’améliorer et de régénérer la société », décrivant l’élite intellectuelle comme des « têtes pensantes », « en avance sur le reste de la société », « sans qui la vie humaine serait stagnante » , la révolution industrielle transformait radicalement la condition humaine. Elle était menée entre autres par Thomas Edison et Henry Ford, qui n’étaient presque pas allés à l’école, et par les frères Wright (inventeurs du premier avion), qui n’avaient pas le bac. [...]

La discussion présente peut offrir une réponse à cette interrogation : comment expliquer la « tyranophilie » des intellectuels ? Pourquoi, tout au long du 20ème siècle, ont-ils affiché une telle complaisance pour les dictateurs de la pire espèce ? Réponse du philosophe Roger Scruton : « Les intellectuels sont naturellement séduits par l’idée d’une société planifiée, car ils pensent qu’ils en seront les responsables. » Selon l’anarchiste russe Bakounine, le but réel des intellectuels marxistes était l’instauration d’une « pédantocratie », c’est-à-dire un régime dans lequel les pédants (ici, les théoriciens marxistes) exerceraient les responsabilités. Le tort des démocraties libérales serait donc qu’étant libérales, elles « laissent une part à l’action spontanée de tous et de chacun, s’interdisent l’ambition de construire l’ordre social selon un plan et de soumettre l’avenir à leur volonté » (Aron). Si à l’inverse, le communisme a tant plu à l'intelligentsia, c’est peut-être car il s’agit, selon la formule de Jan Waclav Makhaïski, d’un « régime basé sur l’exploitation des ouvriers par les intellectuels ».

Orwell, dès 1946, livrait la même analyse. Au Royaume-Uni, les intellectuels les plus favorables à Staline, écrivait-il, sont « en général des individus sans éclat, frustrés par le système […], avides de plus de pouvoir et de reconnaissance. Ces individus se tournent vers l’URSS et y voient, ou croient y voir, un système qui élimine la classe supérieure, maintient la classe ouvrière à sa place et accorde un pouvoir absolu aux gens comme eux. […] Leur désir inavoué : remplacer le socialisme égalitaire par une société hiérarchisée où l’intellectuel pourrait enfin s’emparer du fouet ».

De retour d’un voyage à Cuba, Simone de Beauvoir, enthousiaste, a raconté la façon dont Sartre, elle-même et Fidel Castro ont arpenté l’île, notamment pour que ce dernier puisse « gronder » les paysans, leur « demander de faire mieux ». Un jour, ils sont passés devant des ouvriers qui construisaient un village. En un coup d’œil, Castro a discerné des défauts dans le projet architectural. Alors il « s’est jeté par terre de tout son long et il a dessiné sur le sable le plan d’un village ; on lui a apporté un bout de carton où il a recopié le plan. Les paysans l’ont acclamé : ils suivront ses indications. » Les ouvriers cubains, relate-t-elle avec ravissement, avaient « tout le temps la tête levée » pour voir si l’hélicoptère de Castro arrivait, avec l’espoir que celui-ci descende du ciel pour les éclairer de ses lumières. On ne peut donner plus belle métaphore de la verticalité.

En lisant l’entretien où de Beauvoir dit toute son admiration pour la dictature cubaine, il est difficile de ne pas y déceler une forme de paternalisme intellectuel, une fascination romantique pour un modèle de société où une élite éclairée guide le petit peuple dans le droit chemin. Cela semblait d’ailleurs être l’un des fils directeurs de sa pensée politique. Quelques années plus tôt, elle se réjouissait que le régime maoïste, par son appareil de propagande, tienne le peuple « au courant des événements », « lui en explique le sens et les raisons » et « le forme politiquement ». Comme le notait Orwell, certains intellectuels ne voient pas « la révolution comme un mouvement des masses auxquelles ils souhaitent s’associer ; ils l’envisagent comme un ensemble de réformes que eux, savants, vont imposer aux autres, membres de l’ordre inférieur ».

[Handre @Handre]

The Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster stands as history's most vivid demonstration that collectivism breeds tyranny and starvation centuries before Marx penned a single word about class struggle.

In 1534, radical Anabaptist preachers seized control of this German city and immediately declared their "New Jerusalem" built on complete communal ownership. Private property vanished overnight. The new regime confiscated all money and demanded citizens pool every resource for the collective good. Sound familiar?

The self-proclaimed "Tailor-King" Jan van Leiden ruled this proto-socialist paradise with absolute authority, enforcing his vision of equality through systematic terror. Dissenters faced immediate execution. The state mandated polygamy as official policy while abolishing individual economic choice entirely.

When you destroy price signals and property rights, you destroy the coordination mechanism that feeds cities. Münster's collectivist experiment delivered exactly what economic theory predicts: rapid collapse into famine and chaos. Within months, residents ate rats and boiled leather to survive. Reports of cannibalism emerged as the egalitarian dream transformed into a living nightmare.

The most predictable element? Elite hypocrisy. While ordinary citizens starved in their enforced equality, van Leiden and his inner circle lived in luxury, enjoying the finest food and accommodations the collective could provide. Centralized power inevitably corrupts those who wield it.

The economic logic remains bulletproof: without private property, individuals lose incentive to produce efficiently. Without market prices, planners cannot calculate resource allocation. Without voluntary exchange, coercion becomes the only tool for organizing complex society. Münster's rulers discovered these iron laws the hard way.

The starving city collapsed from within as its communist economy proved incapable of sustaining basic human life. When Catholic armies finally retook Münster in 1535, they found a wasteland of economic destruction and human misery.

The victors tortured the surviving Anabaptist leaders and displayed their bodies in iron cages hung from the city's main church. Those cages remained there for centuries as a warning about utopian schemes that promise equality but deliver only death.

Modern advocates of wealth redistribution and collective ownership prefer to ignore Münster's lessons. They insist their version of centralized control will somehow escape the economic laws that doomed every previous attempt. But human nature and market forces operate independently of ideological wishes.

The Anabaptist experiment reveals the fatal flaw in all collectivist thinking: the assumption that abolishing property rights creates abundance rather than scarcity. In reality, property rights exist because they solve the fundamental problem of resource allocation in a world of competing needs and limited goods.

Münster's collapse took just sixteen months to complete. The city's descent from Protestant reform to communist tyranny to economic wasteland offers a perfect case study in how quickly good intentions can destroy functioning societies when they ignore basic economic principles.

You can find those iron cages in Münster today, still hanging from St. Lambert's Church after nearly five centuries. They serve as permanent reminders that collectivism's promises always end the same way: in starvation, tyranny, and death.

[John Aziz @aziz0nomics]

There are more Muslims living in Israel as full-citizens than there are Jews living (as citizens or not) in the 49 Muslim majority countries put together.

This should be the only argument you need to debunk the false claim that Israel is an ethnostate.

[Handre @Handre]

The Plymouth Pilgrims accidentally ran the first documented socialist experiment in America three centuries before Marx scribbled his manifesto. Governor William Bradford's "common storehouse" system from 1620-1623 delivered textbook collectivist results: mass shirking, crop failures, and near-starvation.

Bradford recorded the disaster in detail. Young men "complained that they were oppressed" when forced to work for others without reward. Productive colonists watched lazy neighbors receive equal rations despite contributing nothing. The system "was found to breed much confusion and discontent" because it violated basic human incentives. People starved while fertile Massachusetts soil lay underworked.

The turnaround came swiftly in 1623 when Bradford abandoned the collective model and assigned private family plots. Production exploded overnight. Women and children voluntarily joined field work when their families directly benefited from extra effort. The same colonists who nearly died under socialism suddenly produced abundant harvests under private property.

Bradford explicitly credited private ownership for saving Plymouth Colony. He documented how individual responsibility transformed human behavior within a single growing season. Individual effort cannot be separated from individual reward without destroying both.

Every socialist experiment since Plymouth has repeated this identical pattern. Different century, different continent, same predictable collapse when planners ignore the reality of human nature.

No matter what they call it, whenever and wherever collectivist ideas are put into practice, disaster soon follows.

[Stephen R. C. Hicks @SRCHicks]

The chart has a point to make. Yet the labeling is absurd. Note that it uses "liberal" and "left" interchangeably.
The thinkers on the left most driving its current ideology have been Rousseau, Marx, Marcuse, Foucault, and their followers.
Not a single one of them is liberal. They are all strongly and consistently anti-liberal.
Call them what they are -- authoritarian, socialist, maternalist, etc. -- rather than sloppy journalistic labels.