LET'S EDUCATE PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL NUMBERS.... The media loves headlines about @elonmusk becoming a "trillionaire." But most people don't understand what that number actually means. Let's break it down. If Elon Musk is worth roughly $1 trillion on paper: ❌ It does NOT mean he has $1 trillion in cash. ❌ It does NOT mean he can spend $1 trillion tomorrow. ❌ It does NOT mean the government could simply seize $1 trillion and spend it. Most of that wealth exists as ownership in companies. Think about it this way: If your home is worth $500,000, you don't have $500,000 sitting in your bank account. You own an asset. The same principle applies to company shares. Now let's compare some numbers. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The U.S. federal government spends roughly $7 trillion per year. Even if Elon somehow sold every share he owned tomorrow and turned it all into cash (which is impossible), that money would fund Washington's spending for only about 7 weeks. Read that again. 7 weeks. Not years. Not decades. 7 weeks. ELON'S 2021 TAX BILL In 2021 Elon paid approximately $11 billion in federal taxes. The median American household pays around $2,000-$5,000 annually in federal income taxes depending on income and family situation. To equal Elon's $11 billion tax bill, you'd need roughly: ✅ 2.2 million households paying $5,000 each OR ✅ 5.5 million households paying $2,000 each That's more households than exist in many U.S. states. JOB CREATION Tesla employs over 120,000 people globally. SpaceX employs more than 15,000 people. X, xAI, Neuralink, and Musk's other companies employ thousands more. Directly and indirectly, Musk's companies support hundreds of thousands of jobs. ✅ Those workers pay taxes. ✅ Buy homes. ✅ Support local businesses. ✅ Raise families. That's how wealth circulates through an economy. WHAT ABOUT "TAX THE BILLIONAIRES"? Let's do the math. The U.S. national debt is now over $40 trillion. Suppose the government somehow confiscated an entire $1 trillion fortune. That would eliminate only about: 2.5% of the national debt. The other 97.5% would still be there. A spending problem cannot be solved by a one-time wealth seizure. THE BIGGER PICTURE America has approximately: 🇺🇸 340 million people 🇺🇸 34 million businesses 🇺🇸 A $30 trillion economy The reason America became the most prosperous nation in history wasn't because government bureaucrats created wealth. It was because entrepreneurs, inventors, builders, investors, and workers created wealth. ✔️ The smartphone in your pocket. ✔️ The internet. ✔️ Amazon. ✔️ Google. ✔️ Microsoft. ✔️ Tesla. ✔️ SpaceX. Most of the technologies that transformed modern life came from capitalist innovation, not socialist central planning. Yet some politicians act like success itself is the problem. No. The problem isn't that America produces billionaires. The problem is that America isn't producing enough future millionaires. A healthy economy should create more owners, more investors, more entrepreneurs, and more opportunity. Because every billionaire started as a millionaire. Every millionaire started with a first dollar. And every thriving economy starts by rewarding people who create value for others. 🇺🇸 America became great by creating wealth. Not by punishing the people who create it.

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement. Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier. Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème. Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs. Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours. La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

Today, Neil deGrasse Tyson can go shit in his hat: "The delusion is thinking that SpaceX is going to lead the space frontier. That's just not going to happen, and it’s not going to happen for three really good reasons: One, it is very expensive. Two, it is very dangerous to do it first. Three, there is essentially no return on that investment."

Imam Mohammad Tawhidi @Imamofpeace former Islamist, trained in Qom, Iran. Today one of the world’s sharpest Muslim critics of political Islam. Here you have it in black and white. From a man who sat on the inside. He openly explains how Islamists deliberately use the left’s useful idiots as a shield. A strategy. Shut down all criticism with accusations of racism, while Islamism grows in peace behind the kind-hearted and naive. They think they’re defending a minority. In reality they’re defending an ideology that despises everything they stand for: women’s freedom, gay rights, free speech. Listen to him. He knows exactly what he’s talking about.

Migrants can rape, rob, murder, and behead people. Britons who protest are told to stay calm or get arrested. The media blames X for the anger. Keir Starmer and his government have enabled this nightmare and now demand we shut up about it. Fuck off, Starmer. The people have had enough

He's not bothered about child sexual exploitation on Pornhub, OnlyFans, Roblox, or any of the countless platforms where children are groomed, abused, and exploited. He's not demanding tougher sentences for predators. He's not demanding the closure of sites that profit from sexual content children can access. He wasn't particularly interested when the BBC spent decades covering for prolific celebrity nonces or when LBC parade around government psyop whore Bonnie Blue. What he cares about is @X. Because X is where people get news, compare notes, share evidence, and discover that what is happening in one town is happening in another. From Penzance to Portugal - we are one. The pretence is that this is about "misinformation" and "encitement", but the actual target is the means by which ordinary people communicate with each other. They've tried destroying our pubs and our churches and communities - where we congregate and talk and unite. But we found somewhere else, so that has to be destroyed too. What they forget is that the British were organising long before mobile phones, the internet, social media, television, radio, or newspapers. For a thousand years we organised rebellions, uprisings, protests, petitions, and resistance movements armed with little more than word of mouth, churchyards, market squares, pubs, and messengers on horseback. The Iceni managed it. The Cornish managed it. The Levellers managed it. The Chartists managed it. The people who fought the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, and every other power that tried to impose itself upon them managed it. If people are angry enough, they will find each other. They always have.

Belfast Tonight. Britain Tomorrow. The Trajectory Is Set. On Monday night a man was pinned to a residential street in north Belfast and stabbed repeatedly in the face and neck. Members of the public intervened. One used a hurling stick. By Tuesday night three houses and a Middle Eastern supermarket were burning. Infants were carried from neighbouring properties. A police vehicle was set alight. Politicians called for calm. Remember this night. Not because it is exceptional. Because it is not. This is where the road leads. Not in twenty years. Now. Belfast has experienced serious immigration-related disorder for three consecutive years. The same cycle every time. Attack. Outrage. Disorder. Calls for calm. Nothing. The next incident. What is playing out in Belfast is not a malfunction. It is the destination. A state that cannot name the cause manages the consequence instead, and calls it governance. Now project forward. Not with imagination. With arithmetic. Over 200,000 people have arrived by small boat since 2018. The majority are unvetted young men from countries with no cultural alignment with the host society. They are housed in communities without consent. Dispersed without warning. The removal rate is four percent. The government knows the other ninety-six percent are staying. It has decided to manage that fact rather than reverse it. Every year the number grows. Every year the concentration deepens. Every year the friction increases. In ten years those concentrations will not be streets. They will be districts. In twenty years they will be cities within cities, governed by parallel authority, answering to parallel loyalties. We have watched this happen in France. The banlieues were built accommodation by accommodation, retreat by retreat, until the French state no longer entered them except in force. Britain is on the same road, travelling faster. The trigger events will multiply. One policing incident. One foreign conflict landing on a British street. One court case, one arrest, one viral video. Any spark will do because the kindling has been laid by policy and left to dry by neglect. The riots will not be contained to one city for one night. They will spread, as they spread in France, as they spread across England last summer, because the grievance is not local. It is national. And the anger on both sides will harden with every cycle. Public order will not hold at current trajectory. The police already negotiate where they once enforced. Investigations are quietly dropped. Reports go unfiled. The state keeps the peace by lowering the bar for what constitutes peace. That bar will keep falling because the alternative requires confronting what the political class has spent thirty years refusing to confront. The political system will bend to the new demography. It already has. Candidates selected on foreign conflicts. Councils controlled by sectarian bloc voting. Representatives answering to communal leaderships rather than constituents. That process will accelerate as the demographic weight shifts. And somewhere in this trajectory a trigger event will occur that cannot be managed. A mass casualty attack. A riot that becomes an insurrection. A video so barbaric it breaks the remaining political consensus around managed silence. After that the response will be less controlled, less proportionate and less reversible than anything a government could have delivered by acting fifteen years earlier when the choice still existed. Britain is not sleepwalking into this. The eyes are wide open. The trajectory is known. The choices being made are deliberate. Every week that passes without a closed border, a functioning removal system and an honest political reckoning is a week in which the future described above becomes more certain and less avoidable. Belfast on Monday night is not a warning. The warnings came years ago and were ignored. Belfast on Monday night is the bill beginning to arrive.

Tout le monde pense que le monde libre a gagné en 1989, à la chute du mur de Berlin. C'est faux. Et c'est exactement pour ça que le monde est aujourd'hui en feu. Ce qui est tombé le 9 novembre 1989, c'est un appareil. Une économie planifiée, un empire militaire, un mur de béton. Ce qui n'est pas tombé, c'est l'idée. L'idée que le monde se divise en oppresseurs et en opprimés. L'idée qu'il existe une égalité finale à atteindre, par tous les moyens. L'idée que tout ce qui existe (la famille, la nation, le mérite, l'héritage) est une structure de domination à abattre. Cette idée-là n'était plus dans le bâtiment quand le bâtiment s'est effondré. Il faut reprendre la chronologie, parce que tout est dans la chronologie : Le communisme économique avait un défaut fatal : il était réfutable. Il promettait l'abondance, il produisait des famines. Il promettait l'émancipation, il produisait des barbelés. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, L'Archipel du Goulag publié à Paris en 1973, les boat people de 1979 : à chaque décennie, le réel envoyait sa réfutation. Les boat people étaient une réfutation flottante, visible depuis les plages. Alors l'idéologie a fait ce que fait tout organisme menacé : elle a muté. La mutation a un nom, et j'en ai raconté la généalogie ici : la French Theory. Foucault a déplacé la guerre du terrain des faits, où le communisme perdait à chaque fois, vers le terrain du savoir lui-même. S'il n'y a pas de vérité, s'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir, alors plus aucune famine, plus aucun mur, plus aucun goulag ne peut réfuter quoi que ce soit. La French Theory n'a pas enterré le marxisme. Elle l'a rendu irréfutable. Et la mutation a des dates. Toutes antérieures à 1989. 1934 : l'École de Francfort, chassée d'Allemagne, s'installe à Columbia. La critique de l'économie devient critique de la culture. 1964-1965 : Marcuse, exilé allemand devenu professeur américain, remplace le prolétariat défaillant par un nouveau sujet révolutionnaire (les minorités, les étudiants, les marginaux) et écrit noir sur blanc que la tolérance doit être accordée aux mouvements de gauche et refusée à ceux de droite. Octobre 1966 : le débarquement a une date précise. Université Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Derrida, Barthes, Lacan présentent la pensée française aux campus américains. 1967 : Rudi Dutschke lance le mot d'ordre, la longue marche à travers les institutions. 1968 : les révolutions de rue échouent partout. Qu'importe. La révolution ne passera plus par la rue, elle passera par la salle de classe. 1975-1985 : Yale, Berkeley, Columbia absorbent la théorie, qui devient le système d'exploitation des humanités. 1987 : Allan Bloom publie The Closing of the American Mind pour donner l'alerte. Un million d'exemplaires vendus. L'université le traite de réactionnaire et passe à autre chose. L'Amérique avait son Aron, elle en a fait la même chose que nous du nôtre. Puis arrive le 9 novembre 1989. Le Mur tombe. L'Occident célèbre. Fukuyama avait déclaré la fin de l'Histoire dès l'été, avant même la chute. On démantèle les missiles, on encaisse les dividendes de la paix, on déclare le match terminé. Nous avons célébré notre victoire sur une adresse vide. L'idéologie avait déménagé vingt ans plus tôt. Nous avons gagné contre les chars et perdu contre les chaires. Pendant ce temps, l'autre empire communiste faisait la lecture inverse. Pékin avait écrasé Tian'anmen dans le sang cinq mois avant Berlin. Sinistre, mais lucide sur un point : la Chine savait que la guerre était idéologique. Elle a choisi : abandonner l'économie marxiste, garder le contrôle du récit. L'Occident a fait l'exact opposé : il a gardé le marché et absorbé l'idéologie. Trente-cinq ans plus tard, regardez qui construit des centrales et qui déboulonne ses statues. Vous voulez la preuve que c'est le même logiciel ? Faites la table de correspondance. La lutte des classes est devenue la lutte des identités. Les koulaks sont devenus les privilégiés. L'autocritique maoïste est devenue le privilege checking. Les commissaires politiques sont devenus les DEI officers. Le samizdat est devenu le compte shadowbanné. La nomenklatura a quitté Moscou pour Davos et Bruxelles. Et le paradis ne s'appelle plus la société sans classes : il s'appelle l'équité, l'égalité des résultats. Exactement ce que je décrivais ici il y a quelques semaines. On me dira : il n'y a pas de Goulag. C'est vrai. C'est même tout le génie de la version 2.0. Le communisme dur devait briser les corps parce qu'il ne tenait pas les esprits. Le communisme mou tient les esprits : il lui suffit de briser les carrières. Pas de camps, des services RH. Pas de procès de Moscou, des excuses publiques. Pas de Sibérie, la mort sociale. Demandez aux émigrés du bloc de l'Est installés en Occident ce qu'ils ressentent en traversant une université américaine en 2026. Ils reconnaissent l'odeur. Et voilà pourquoi le monde est en feu. Une civilisation a passé trente-cinq ans à enseigner à ses propres enfants qu'elle était le problème. Résultat : elle ne sait plus défendre ses frontières, transmettre son héritage, ni même nommer ses ennemis. Quand la présidente de Harvard, devant le Congrès, répond que condamner un appel au génocide « dépend du contexte », vous voyez le logiciel tourner en production. Et les prédateurs du dehors lisent cette faiblesse comme un livre ouvert : Moscou teste, Pékin patiente, l'islamisme avance dans les rues de nos capitales. Le feu extérieur n'est que la conséquence du désarmement intérieur. On ne brûle bien que les maisons qui se sont vidées de leurs défenseurs. Le Mur n'est pas tombé. Il s'est déplacé. Il ne sépare plus l'Est de l'Ouest : il passe désormais à l'intérieur de chaque institution occidentale, entre ceux qui construisent et ceux qui déconstruisent. La première guerre froide s'est gagnée avec des missiles et du PIB. La seconde se gagnera avec des écoles, des médias libres et des modèles d'IA. Celui qui écrit les valeurs dans les machines écrira le prochain 1989. Cette fois, ne nous trompons pas de victoire. Au travail.

A MESSAGE TO ALL SANE REPUBLICANS: He pardoned 1,600 violent criminals. You said nothing. He bulldozed the East Wing. You said nothing. He interfered with the release of the Epstein files. You said nothing. He took over the Kennedy Center and renamed it after himself. You said nothing. He accepted a $400 million airplane as a personal gift. You said nothing. He threatened Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil. You said nothing. He tariffed just about everyone but Russia, causing inflation and instability worldwide. You said nothing. He attacked a nation during mediated negotiations. You said nothing. His ill-conceived war killed 175 children on day one. You said nothing. He alienated and insulted our allies. You said nothing. His ICE Army terrorized and murdered U.S. citizens. You said nothing. He committed murder on the high seas. You said nothing. He co-opted the Justice Department and directed it to prosecute his political enemies. You said nothing. It’s time to start talking. By Christina Lorey

Trump crashed out. The moment he was challenged and asked for evidence after claiming the 2020 election was rigged, the mask slipped. The childish temper tantrum, the infantile insults, the angry meltdown, the walk-off, this is the unstable, unhinged man with the nuclear codes and the power of the presidency. Not just a racist, an adjudicated rapist, a pathological liar, a serial adulterer, and convicted felon, but a certified nutcase is running the United States government.

Xiaoma, a polyglot, was invited to give a speech at a high school for Language Week, and he delivered the entire speech in Gen Alpha slang.

Even Arab leaders admit it. Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see. Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective. Ok, so let us set that aside. Now watch this. In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada. Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance. He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises. The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978. This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel. When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias. The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return. This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today. If you value the truth, please share.

As a woman of Muslim heritage, I can tell you this conversation is decades overdue and millions of women know it. A good day to be alive.

Jeg er ret ligeglad med, om en politiker er muslim, kristen, hindu eller buddist, så længe de ikke bruger deres tro som en identitet og i deres politiske virke. Faktisk skal de slet ikke nævne, hvad de tror på, hvis det er irrelevant for deres virke i Folketinget eller som minister. Jeg er helt klar over, at Samira Nawa er demokrat. Jeg forholder mig til, at hun ønsker at stå med et ben i hver lejr, selvom hun VED, det er umuligt. Derfor har nogle, incl. mig selv, været pågående om, hvordan hun brugte sin tro i sin valgkamp. Det er fuldstændig rimeligt. Ligeså rimeligt ville det være at gå til en kommunist eller meget reaktionær højrenational. Sådan er demokrati. Men når det gælder Samira, bliver vi beskyldt for racisme, hvilket er fuldstændig utilstedeligt, fordi alle gør det samme imod andre politikere, der har en ikke-demokratisk religiøs eller ideologisk tro. Vi SKAL spørge ind til valgtes overbevisning, fordi det handler om at bevare demokratiet. Os, der ikke er bange for ikke at være politisk korrekte, bliver vitterlig lagt for had af islamisterne og deres støtter. Nu er der startet et rygte om, at jeg er alkoholiker. Ved godt hvem der har startet det, og skyldes vel min TV optræden om, hvordan vi var i 70'erne, og at jeg kan nyde et par glas rødvin. Jeg har måtte blokere mange, der kaldte mig alkoholiker og glædede sig til min død. Det koster at kæmpe for demokratiet. Det koster at stå forrest i kampen. Men det koster ikke noget at holde sin mund, som Samira har gjort. Det gør så også, at islamisterne jubler og endda giver hende et hijab på. NEJ, det er ikke mig. Det er Mohamed Abdi Kahn, der har givet Samira en hijab på. FORDI for alle dem er det vigtigst, at hun er muslim. Pyt med om hun kan sit virke som klimaminister, bare hun har hijab på. Vi borgerlige er nu i opposition, fordi vi har fået den mest røde og mest udlændinge- og islamisme ligeglade regering i mange år. Derfor må vi alle stå sammen og kæmpe for at bevare stumperne af et Danmark, vi kan give videre. #dkpol #dkmedier @radikale #regeringen

Det er ikke mange måneder siden at Moderaternes klimaminister forhandlede et nyt 2035 mål. Hans primære position var, at et luftigt mål ikke i sig selv var nok. Virkemiddel og finansiering skulle anvises. Klogt nok. Her endte det med 82% reduktion. Virkemidlet var CCS, da transport-sektoren ikke kunne absorbere nye krav, da elektrificeringen mangler grid, og man ville fordyre alting (inkl. fødevarer), og landbruget var midt i implementeringen af grøn trepart, som inden de overhovedet var rigtigt i gang, så skulle forliget genåbnes. Industrien er der allerede laver regler som reducerer (og det er måske ikke lige nu, at det er klogt at mindske vores industrielle kapacitet). Så det blev CCS. Som har den fordel at det ikke mindsker aktiviteten i samfundet. Men har den ulempe at det er dyrt at hente den næste marginale procent mod mål over 82%. Så da ingen kunne anvise anden finansiering eller bedre virkemidler, så endte det med 82% og CCS. Fint. Nu har M så giftet sig med den yderste venstrefløj og så er dette pludselig skrevet ind i regeringsgrundlaget: "Drivhusgasudledningerne reduceres med mindst 85 pct. i 2035 i forhold til niveauet i 1990" Ingen anvisning af virkemiddel og ingen finansiering peget på. Vi ved alle der sad i lokalet at det bliver rigtig dyrt. Og vi ved alle, at M ministerens position var at virkemiddel og finansiering skulle anvises. Det er så ikke længere Ms position. De måtte også her bøje sig for de rødes krav om noget, så M kunne indfri deres egne ambitioner om nogen. Så kan disse nogen, stå til pynt ved roret, mens skibet sejles direkte i modsat retning, af hvad de sagde de selv ville sejle. Sådan går det når man afslører sine præferencer om ikke at vægte politikken over ministerposter. og samtidigt afsværger sig sit alternativ. Så giver man de andre en meget stor forhandlings-styrke, som de konverterer til rød politik. Så bliver man en galeonsfigur uden indflydelse, og ikke kaptajn som faktisk har indflydelse. Så jeg - og garanteret også galeonsfigurerne hos M - er ret spændte på hvad der mon kommer af dyre tiltag, og hvor regningen lander. Om Danmark når en af verdens mest ambitiøse klimamål på 82% eller et lidt mere ambitiøst mål på 85% ændrer uendeligt lidt for klodens klima, og det er helt ligegyldigt for argumentet om at være et foregangsland. Begge mål er foran nær sagt alle andre. Kunne vi nå 100 imorgen med et effektivt og billigt tiltag, så var vi alle jo for. Problemet er at det kan man ikke. Skal vi være ambitiøse og kloge, så skal vi kigge mod verdens store udledere og hjælpe dem nedad. Det ville både være foregangsland og med effekt.

NO white person alive today owned slaves. Teach your kids that. NO black person alive today was born a slave. Teach your kids that. Not all white people owned slaves back then. Teach your kids that. Millions of white people fought and died to end slavery. Teach your kids that. People should not inherit guilt from their ancestors. Teach your kids that. People should not inherit victimhood from their ancestors. Teach your kids that. You are responsible for your own actions, not the actions of people who lived 200 years ago. Teach your kids that. America is not perfect, but it is not uniquely evil. Teach your kids that. The West is responsible for some of humanity's greatest advances in freedom, science, medicine, and prosperity. Teach your kids that. Loving your country is not racism. Teach your kids that. Wanting secure borders is not racism. Teach your kids that. Wanting safe communities is not racism. Teach your kids that. Wanting merit over quotas is not racism. Teach your kids that. Questioning political narratives is not racism. Teach your kids that. People should be judged by their character, not their skin color. Teach your kids that. History should be taught honestly, not used as a weapon. Teach your kids that. A nation that teaches its children to hate their heritage will not survive. Teach your kids that. Your country is your home. Protecting it is not something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids that. You do not owe an apology for being born. Teach your kids that. Never let fear of being called names stop you from speaking the truth as you see it. Teach your kids that.

Here’s Fuckface going full Hitler, calling the press the “enemy of the people” because he’s a miserable fucking failure & gets all butthurt if anyone asks a real question. But the child-raping sack of shit’s got it all wrong. HE is the enemy of the people.

The entire mainstream media has spent two weeks harassing and abusing Rupert Lowe. He stands up in Parliament, and reads out the harrowing testimony from multiple rape gang survivors. Not a single channel/paper covers the testimony. That tells you everything you need to know.

Young white men must be looking at the country and thinking - what have we done wrong? What did we do to deserve this? The answer lads, is NOTHING. You're told that you're racist for feeling patriotic, far right for going to the gym, bigoted for having a joke, chauvinistic for enjoying a beer and the football. Blocked from certain jobs/courses in favour of 'diverse' candidates, even though you may well be best qualified. Anti-white racism is absolutely thriving in 2025. Poisonous quotas and DEI, suffocating bright young men of the opportunities they deserve. I dread to think what is being taught in schools across the country. Everything is stacked against you, and nobody will even discuss it. The establishment now openly wants to give white men tougher sentences. Just because we're white? male? What message are we sending here, honestly? It's genuinely disgusting. There is NOTHING wrong with being white. There is NOTHING wrong with being male. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. My advice? Work hard, learn a proper skill, enjoy yourselves, play by the rules and keep plugging away. This woke crap WILL end soon. In the meantime? If you stay positive, stay determined, stay on the right path - you've done absolutely nothing wrong. Keep going. It will get better.

The rape gang inquiry debate in Parliament will take place at 16.30. It will be live-streamed. We urge you all to watch it.