Pracownik fizyczny, pluszowy inkwizytor. Prywatne opinie nie różnią się od publicznych.
Joined January 2022
- Tweets9.2K
- Following360
- Followers290
- Likes40.7K
Jan retweeted
Szanowni, z dumą ogłaszamy, że już 21 listopada na Łódzkich Targach Książki będzie miała miejsce premiera kolejnej naszej książki. Tym razem to Jacek Hajduk zabierze Was w podróż do Starożytnego Rzymu!
A spotkacie tam człowieka, którego historia uznała za potwora! Jaki naprawdę był Neron? Opowie nam o tym Epafroditos - przyjaciel i sekretarz cesarza. Tylko czy można mu ufać?
"Nie jestem szaleńcem. Chyba..." Jacek Hajduk, Wydawnictwo Centryfuga
Koellizm okolicznościowy: "Mogę napisać tekst gorszy niż potrafię, ale lepszego niż potrafię nie napiszę."
Jan retweeted
Jutro na WOKiEm pierwsza (z trzech) część tłumaczenia rozmowy z historykiem Raymondem Ibrahimem na temat krucjat, zarówno średniowiecznych jak i współczesnych.
W pierwszej częśći rozmowy Ibrahim rozważa różnice pomiędzy elitami europejskimi w Średniowieczu i dziś, powody zwołania pierwszej krucjaty oraz ryzyko, jakie islam od samego jego początku stanowi dla nie-muzułmanów, w tym dla chrześcijan.
To tłumaczenie wrzucę też jako artykuł na mój profil na X, więc jeśli wolicie zostać na X zamiast czytać na Substacku, to zajrzyjcie na mój profil jakoś tak jutro po południu
Jan retweeted
I have to be in church 15-20 min earlier to get a spot. The ones who come later stand in the back or sit in the basement in front of a tv transmission. The church is bursting in seams and it's been like that for 3 months and I don't know why ...
Jan retweeted
You've probably seen the video. A young Frenchwoman in Paris, in tears, begging looters to stop. "Why are you doing this? That's not what we stand for."
Some accounts are mocking her. "She voted for it."
I won't. Because what you see on her face is not stupidity. It's a disease that has infected the entire West, and it has a name: suicidal empathy.
The term comes from Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University in Montreal. A man who fled the Lebanese civil war as a child, and who knows what it looks like when a society falls apart. His new book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind, is the follow-up to The Parasitic Mind. Here is the thesis, and why it concerns every one of us.
Empathy is one of the best things about us. It evolved for a reason: to care for our children, our kin, our tribe. It was calibrated for a world where the people you felt for were the people around you, and where empathy always came paired with its counterweight: the instinct to protect your own and to recognize a threat.
Suicidal empathy is what happens when that mechanism misfires. When it fires at the wrong targets, in the wrong amounts, with no brake. When we feel more for the criminal than for his victim. More for the stranger who breaks the rules than for the citizen who follows them. More for how compassionate we look than for what our compassion actually produces.
Where does it come from? Four layers.
First, biology. Empathy is a spotlight, as the psychologist Paul Bloom put it. It lights up the one face in front of you and leaves everything else in the dark. The crying migrant on the boat is visible. The thousands of future victims of a broken system are statistics. A spotlight is a terrible tool for running a country.
Second, our own civilization. The West is the civilization that put the victim at the center of its morality. Christianity taught us to care for the stranger, the poor, the weak. It was one of the greatest moral revolutions in history. But cut off from its other half, justice, responsibility, the duty to protect your own, it turns into something else.
Third, ideology. In The Parasitic Mind, Saad described idea pathogens, ideas that hijack our reasoning. Suicidal empathy is the emotional counterpart: an ideology that hijacks our compassion. It sorts the world into oppressors and victims, then demands unlimited empathy for whoever ranks as the victim, whatever they do.
Fourth, status. In the age of social media, empathy has become a display. Posting "refugees welcome" costs nothing and earns applause. The bill goes to someone else: the working class, the suburbs, the women walking home at night.
The results are everywhere. Criminals treated as victims of society. Sexual assaults by migrants met with lenient sentences. Self-defense branded as aggression. Borders treated as cruelty. Saad's conclusion is simple: a society dies when it would rather display infinite tolerance than use its survival instinct.
Now the part I'll add myself, and that few people dare to say.
On average, women score higher than men on measures of empathy. It's one of the most consistent findings in psychology, across cultures, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense: for most of human history, the survival of children depended on it. It's a strength.
But it means an ideology that weaponizes empathy will hit women harder. And the data shows it: in country after country, young women have moved sharply to the left of young men, especially on immigration.
This is where men have a responsibility.
Not to mock. Not to lecture. Not to say "she deserved it." Empathy has always needed a counterweight, and that counterweight was the protective instinct: the one that draws lines, says no, and stands between the threat and the people it loves.
Men abandoned that role. They were told it was toxic, and many believed it. So they stayed silent at the dinner table, at work, with their partners, sisters, daughters and friends.
That has to end. Men have to have this conversation, honestly and with respect: compassion that cannot say no is not compassion. It's surrender. And the first to pay for it are women.
Many women already understand this better than anyone. Some of the bravest voices in this fight are women, precisely because they are the first to feel the danger in the street.
A civilization rests on a balance: compassion and strength, openness and borders, mercy and justice. When one side swallows the other, the foundations crack. What we are watching in Europe is what happens when empathy has no counterweight left.
Look at that young woman again. She isn't the enemy. She's what this ideology made of a generation that was told kindness would be enough.
Our job is to make sure she's the last generation that has to learn it this way.
She voted for it.
She welcomed them.
Faced with the encore, she begs them to stop. In her heart she knows they will not.
Everything she believed. That they were French like her, fighting for the same cause. That the ones who warned her were full of hate. That she would be safe.
It all falls apart in this moment. She is terrified of what comes next. In her heart she knows.
Only remigration can save her.
Z podziękowaniem!
@JanHoplon gratuluję dobrej książki.
Niebanalne postacie, efektowne kontrasty między polską i zagraniczną rzeczywistością, a najbardziej urzekły mnie chyba sceny warszawskie – szczególnie te z klubu zapaśniczego. Aż przypomniał mi się zapach materaców z wuefu w podstawówce...
Jan retweeted
"If these books contain what is in the Quran, they are unnecessary. If they contain things contrary to it, then they are harmful." The Muslim Arabs burned and looted the Library of Alexandria and created the "Islamic Golden Age" lie.
In 640, the Muslims enter Egypt, which was one of the most important cities of the Byzantines and a major center of intellectual life.
Al-Qifti, described the story in the biographical dictionary, "History of Learned Men". Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Umar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī (The Arabic name of John the Grammarian / John Philoponus): "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
So, Ibn al-Qifti recounts, the general ordered that the books be burned to fuel the fires heating Alexandria's city baths. It is said that they were enough to provide heating for six months.
Some were saved and went to Rome, some others to various monasteries in Greece and Constantinople.
Some were hidden by Christian Arab scholars to save them from destruction, while others were found in private collections. For example, Patriarch Cyril Lucaris donated to the King of England Charles I the "Alexandrian Codex," a valuable manuscript of the 4th century. The Christian Arabs saved and translated many of the Greek writings, about 8%, until the advance of Islam, when many literary copies were destroyed because they were accused of being heretical, and only mathematics and astronomy were preserved.
The destruction of the center of knowledge began with the fire of Julius Caesar but was completed in the hands of the Muslims, who in their passage brought only chaos and death.
The idea that the Christians destroyed the library comes from a fanatical English "enlightener," Edward Gibbon, who at the end of the 18th century created the theory that the Arab Muslims were innocent and the bad ones were the Christians, without being able to support his theory anywhere, as he even wrote the characteristic phrase about the burning of the books by the muslims: "But if the bulky volumes of the dissenters, Arians and Monophysites, were really used for heating the public baths, the philosopher will admit with a smile that in the end they were sacrificed for the good of humanity," and thus one understands that he is an unreliable fanatical anti-Christian.
By pure chance, a century later, the so-called "Golden Age of Islam" begins with the opening of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. They translated hundreds of thousands of books which had been collected after about two centuries of looting and fanatical expansionism. They stole all the wisdom of other peoples and appropriated it.
The greatest proof is that there is no chronological continuity in the sciences and knowledge that suddenly appeared among the Arabs.
Of course, however, the greatest thinkers of the Caliphates were not the Arabs but the Persians, who, although they had been conquered by Islam, had managed to create their own Caliphates. The Abbasids had depended heavily on the support of Persians in their overthrow of the Umayyads.
Therefore, the "Islamic Golden Age" is a lie. The Persians are the ones who deserve to be mentioned, not Islam. They, as knowledgeable in the sciences and feeling the attraction toward progress, translated the Greek and Egyptian texts and managed possibly to develop them.
But still, only as much as Islam allowed them. Islam forbade critical thinking and progress because this would mean departure from the commands of the Quran and Muhammadanism. Scientists who were conquered by Islam, such as Persians, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, and Egyptians, were forced to change their names to Arabic ones.
Islam could never engage with science and medicine because it explicitly forbade anything contrary to the Quran and the evolution as commanded by Muhammad (Quran, Hadith, Tawhid, Surah, Fiqh).
Persian physicists, physicians, and mathematicians who had not completely distanced themselves from Zoroastrianism engaged with the sciences.
How is it possible for a society with the law of Sharia to progress in sciences and philosophy?
Two centuries of looting and slaughter of more advanced peoples was what brought about the so-called false "Islamic Golden Age."
There is not a single primary source or trustworthy historical text that supports the claim that Europeans lacked the knowledge and simply took what they wanted from the books the Muslims preserved. Monks in Greek monasteries, as well as those in Rome and Constantinople, preserved and translated thousands of Greek texts. The Arabs translated what they stole and destroyed the prototypes. Yes, there are some texts by Pythagoras, for example, that exist only in Arabic, and that is all. The so-called "Islamic Golden Age" did not exist and did not help or influence the European sciences. This is Islamic propaganda.
However, you should think carefully about why and who promote two very big lies in the West:
Why do some people try with mania to convince that the Christians burned and destroyed the Library of Alexandria, which was not ultimately destroyed but continued to function completely normally? Yet no one ever mentions that the last and final destruction, during which there were thousands of books and endless wealth of knowledge, was carried out in 640 by the Muslim Arabs? Why does this happen, one wonders?
1. Why do some people insist so much on the "Golden Age of Islam" at the same time when there are no primary sources that report that there is historical and scientific continuity among the Arabs and Islam? That is, suddenly their civilization blossomed from zero without there having been any historical continuity in the sciences, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, and mathematics?
2. Why do some people insist so much on these two topics which are not at all coincidental?
Everyone should think and research on their own.
If you want to support me in the effort I’m making, please consider becoming a subscriber to my X account for only $2. I write about the ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greece and what Christians went through because of Islam. Always with primary sources and historical facts.
- Homer Pavlos
Nie wiem, czy to aby nie fejk, ale wcale bym się nie zdziwił, gdyby ta historia była prawdziwa.
🚨 Il sommelier professionista Eric Boschman e una televisione belga hanno deciso di condurre un esperimento sugli organizzatori di un prestigioso concorso internazionale di vini. Hanno scelto in un supermercato a bordo strada una bottiglia del vino più economico, al costo di soli due euro e cinquanta centesimi, e poi l'hanno "rifinita" con cura. Le hanno attribuito un nome altisonante, "Le Chateau Colombier", hanno applicato un'etichetta elegante e inventato una storia: apparentemente, il vino era prodotto con varietà di uva belga di alta qualità. E in questa veste, l'hanno inviato al concorso.
Incredibilmente, questo vino ha vinto una medaglia d'oro. I giudici hanno elogiato il suo ricco bouquet, il suo aroma impeccabile e la sua composizione insolita.
Pół książki piszesz o tym, że zapasy i pankration to dwie różne dyscypliny, i jak krew w piach 👇
historykon.pl/jan-m-dlugosz-…
Z podziękowaniem:
Jedni recenzują książki po ich przeczytaniu, inni /jak @gabriel_maciej/ bez zbednych ceregieli. A ja w trakcie powiem, że odnajduję w tej, z czystą przyjemnością czytanej pozycji, uwielbiane przeze mnie, a zaimplementowane i znowelizowane przez autora @JanHoplon, chandlerowskie
Sobotni poranek. Najpierw półtorej godziny pracy w pracy, potem półtorej godziny redagowania. Niech już przyjdzie ta emerytura...
Szanowni Państwo. Przyznano literackiego Nobla! W związku z tym, gdyby ktoś szukał do czytania czegoś, od czego nie boli głowa, to polecam 👇
lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/5115…
Jan retweeted
L'argent public vers les ONG sera interdit dans le futur.
Hier j'ai dit que c'était le plus grand mécanisme de corruption de l'histoire. Beaucoup m'ont demandé pourquoi. Alors je vais vous expliquer comment ça fonctionne.
Commençons par le nom. ONG. Organisation NON gouvernementale. Retenez bien ce mot, parce qu'une énorme partie de leur argent vient des gouvernements.
Entre 2021 et 2023, l'Union européenne a versé 7,4 milliards d'euros à des ONG. Plus de 12 000 structures. Et la Cour des comptes européenne (pas un compte complotiste, la Cour des comptes) conclut qu'il est impossible d'avoir une vue d'ensemble fiable de l'endroit où va cet argent. Il n'existe même pas de définition claire de ce qu'est une ONG. Ni en droit européen, ni en droit français.
Maintenant, regardez la boucle.
L'État finance une ONG. L'ONG fait du "plaidoyer", c'est-à-dire du lobbying : rapports, campagnes, rendez-vous avec les élus. Elle réclame plus de régulation, plus de programmes, plus de budget public sur sa thématique. L'État vote ces budgets. Une partie revient aux ONG. Et on recommence.
Le génie du système, c'est que l'administration se fait réclamer par la "société civile" exactement ce qu'elle voulait déjà faire. Le contribuable paie deux fois : la politique publique, et la campagne qui la réclame.
Vous pensez que j'exagère ? En 2025, la Commission européenne a elle-même reconnu que certains programmes de travail d'ONG financés par le programme LIFE contenaient des actions de lobbying inappropriées, y compris ciblant des députés européens. De l'argent public pour faire pression sur des élus. Ce n'est pas moi qui le dis, c'est la Commission.
La Cour des comptes européenne note aussi que personne ne vérifie si des pouvoirs publics contrôlent ces ONG via leurs conseils d'administration. Elle cite un institut enregistré comme ONG dont la direction était composée exclusivement de représentants publics. Une ONG gouvernementale. Tout est dans le nom.
Maintenant, les milliardaires.
Le vrai coup de maître, ce n'est pas de dépenser son argent. C'est de faire dépenser celui des autres.
Prenez Bill Gates. Sa fondation est devenue le deuxième financeur de l'OMS derrière les États-Unis, autour de 10 % des recettes sur la dernière décennie. Mais contrairement aux cotisations des États, cet argent est fléché : il finance les priorités choisies par le donateur. Sur la polio, plus de la moitié du financement de l'OMS en 2022-2023 venait de sa fondation. Une fondation privée qui oriente l'agenda d'une organisation financée par les impôts de presque tous les pays du monde. Personne n'a voté pour ça.
Même logique avec Gavi, l'alliance vaccinale lancée avec son argent : la fondation met la mise de départ et fixe la direction, puis les États apportent l'essentiel des milliards. Un dollar privé qui tient le volant, beaucoup de dollars publics qui suivent.
Soros, c'est la version politique du même levier. Open Society finance depuis des décennies des réseaux d'organisations de plaidoyer partout en Europe : justice, migrations, médias, "droits". Ces structures construisent une expertise, une légitimité, un carnet d'adresses. Puis beaucoup d'entre elles candidatent aux subventions publiques, siègent dans les consultations officielles et fournissent les rapports qui servent à écrire les lois. Le milliardaire paie l'amorçage. Le contribuable paie la croisière.
Voilà comment on nous a eus. Pas avec un complot. Avec un montage parfaitement légal : des positions politiques déguisées en "société civile", financées en partie par vos impôts, qui ne passent jamais devant un électeur.
Un parti politique doit publier ses comptes, plafonner ses dons, se soumettre au vote. Une ONG fait de la politique sans aucune de ces contraintes.
La solution est simple. Une ONG doit être non gouvernementale, donc zéro argent public pour le plaidoyer. Une association qui rend un service concret, une soupe populaire, un centre d'accueil, peut être payée par un contrat de prestation transparent, avec des résultats mesurés. Mais faire du lobbying avec l'argent des contribuables pour réclamer plus d'argent des contribuables, ça doit disparaître.
Vous voulez défendre une cause ? Convainquez des citoyens de vous financer volontairement. C'est ça, la société civile.
Ce sera interdit un jour. La seule question, c'est quand.
