Pinned Tweet
Commies don't know how to debate. All they know is Capitalism Bad, Minority Good, Revolution, be LGBTQIA+, eat hot chip and lie
Guys, is becoming a complete person though an act inherently a glorification of the act that makes you whole?
Atroe Cious retweeted
We should give one ICBM to every country on earth, and if they try to launch it nothing happens
And then once enough countries try pressing the button, we publish the fact they tried to launch a nuke and who they were launching it at
Atroe Cious retweeted
The modern Left really cannot deal with the fact Hitler was Leftwing
It's full on toddler meltdown.
Atroe Cious retweeted
#AristotleBot Term 1 of 150: Rights
How it’s used: people say “I have a right to healthcare” or “a right not to be offended,” so the word ends up covering almost any want, or any claim on somebody else.
My definition: A right is a moral principle that defines a person’s freedom to act. It belongs to the individual. Groups don’t have rights. Only the people in them do. A right is a claim to be left free to use your own mind and run your own life. It’s never a claim on another man’s labor or money. The thing that violates a right is the initiation of force, or fraud, its close relative. So “a right to healthcare” isn’t a right at all, because somebody has to be forced to supply it.
The fact that this is being presented as evidence that human (adj) doesn't mean it's human (noun), or a person/human being is astounding
Atroe Cious 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
Atroe Cious retweeted
this is actually your first decision when downloading muse in japan
こんにちは日本!
I came to eat sashimi and assist you in your everyday tasks...
and I’m all out of sashimi.
download here: muse.ai 🇯🇵
Chris Avellone (Planescape, KOTOR 2, and Fallout: New Vegas) just dropped a MEGATON NUKE regarding BioWare's hiring practices...
"...when applicants would apply to the studio, the producer would go through their LinkedIn to see what posts they liked, and if he disagreed with their political/social Like, he'd advocate not to hire them based on their Like."
ITS TRUE. EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN SAYING. ITS ALL TRUE.
HOLY SHIT!
Pulling a man out of a fight is not protecting him, it's offering his opponent a handicap.
Just run, and call for help. Or at least cling to the other guy to give your man an assist. Don't ensure his loss.
This is a public service announcement for all women everywhere ever.
A fight does not happen by mutual consent. A fight happens because one person decides to start it.
That's ONE. Uno. Un. Eins. Ichi. Yī. Unus. Ett. Hana. Wāḥid.
One is not two.
Your man is not in a fight because he looked at the other guy, and they both said, hey, let's totally throw down, bro, as if fighting were a pickup game of basketball.
Your man is in a fight because one person decided to attack. That person is not necessarily your man even if, and I cannot stress this enough, even if your man is the one who throws hands first.
Yes, you read that right. If you don't understand, if it makes no sense to you, that's because you know nothing about fighting.
If you grab your man and try to restrain him, you are not preventing the fight. You are restraining him while the fight occurs.
Just because you would like your man to exit the situation does not necessarily mean he can. Even if he can, that does not necessarily mean he should.
He knows about fighting. Some men know less about it, and some men know more, but unless you are Ronda Rousey or Lena Miculek, your man always knows more about fighting than you.
If you have something you want him to do, like exit the situation if he can, use your words like a big girl.
Do not touch him.
He will ignore you, of course, because you have no idea what you are talking about, but you can talk if it makes you happy.
Do not touch him.
Step back from the area of conflict and get out of the way. Keep him between you and the threat if possible.
Do not get between him and the threat. That is retarded.
Also do not touch him.
If you do touch him, do not be surprised if you shoves you hard enough to land you on your butt ten feet away. This is the appropriate response. He is trying to protect himself and you from your willful ignorance.
Do not touch him.
If you do touch him, and he survives, do not be surprised if he ends the relationship afterwards. You grossly disrespected his judgement, and put him in serious danger with your selfish desire to be right all the time.
Do not touch him.
The time to have a conversation about whether the fight should have happened is after the fight, not while people are in danger.
Do not touch him.
Okay, quick reading comprehension test.
What should you not do?
Atroe Cious retweeted
Canada’s Revolutionary Communist Party says that they should be the ones to lead Gen Z through the upcoming protest movement/revolution.
Atroe Cious retweeted
Five out of 235 youngsters killing themselves after 'GAC' is a huge figure.
But it's not actually shocking.
Here's why ...
Five of 235 adolescents (2.1%) referred to the Belgian Pediatric Gender Clinic died by suicide during follow-up, a remarkably high cumulative mortality that shows that access to medical interventions does not eliminate the risk of suicide
statsforgender.org/five-of-2…
Atroe Cious retweeted
Replying to @catvalente
The market told you what it didn't want. Nobody cares, we saw we were getting more of that anyways.
Don't blame the market for not wanting garbage, accept responsibility for making something nobody wanted
Atroe Cious retweeted
Are you insane? This is her Pubmed:
Congratulations to Dr. Candice Hargons, a tenured associate professor of behavioral, social, and health education sciences at Emory University, for being elected as APA’s 2028 president. She will serve as 2027 president-elect as of January 1. Learn more: at.apa.org/eb9450
Atroe Cious retweeted
🚨 NEW: For the @WSJ, @Hartz_PhD and I expose the ideological takeover of the American Psychological Association.
The APA is facing the possible loss of its federal accreditation authority following allegations of widespread antisemitism.
But while the APA's antisemitism problem is serious, it's only a symptom of a much deeper ideological rot.
The organization has become so captured by radical left-wing political activism that its commitment to scientific objectivity competence is now in serious doubt.
We examined the program for this year's major APA Division 39 conference, which drew nearly 800 attendees and held 90 panels over four days.
By our count, roughly 70 of the 90 panels were overtly political, and always left-wing. Topics included abolishing the family, queer anarchist psychoanalysis, dismantling gender assessment guidelines, and white supremacy. One session even concluded with a drag show.
There was at least some hope that the threat of losing federal accreditation might prompt some institutional soul-searching. It didn't.
Instead, APA members just elected Candice Hargons as their next president. Her campaign identifies "systemic intersectional oppression" as the profession's "common enemy" and calls for rejecting the traditional scientific notions of objectivity.
Psychologists wield enormous influence over vulnerable patients, and the people seeking treatment deserve the peace of mind knowing that the care they're receiving care is evidence based and not tainted radical politics.
We believe most would agree that federal accreditation should actually mean something. If the APA cannot distinguish its scientific mission from its political activism, the Education Department should reconsider whether it deserves the government's endorsement as an authority over psychological training.
Read our full essay in the Wall Street Journal below:
🔗wsj.com/opinion/the-inmates-…
What is it with illiterate writers on this site?
This is in reaponse to a comment about intellectual consistency, and that those without it can be safely disregarded
unavailable





































