JUST IN: UK Government clarifies adults will still be able to use social media by verifying their identities with digital IDs, facial recognition, passports and credit cards.

🇦🇷 𝓒𝓞𝓛𝓞 🇦🇷 📸 @AFASeleccionEN

You have it backward, insofar as you subscribe to the notion there exists no objective, taxonomic differentiation between left and right that otherwise rests on mutually exclusive ethics. If an individual's applied-ethics deny the individual's life and reason as the unit of moral value, rejecting their rightful claim to the product of their own labor and hence property, they are left. Anyone who believes government's role is to violate while sacrificing others, rather than protect rights, is a leftist. Anyone who embraces altruism as an operative morality is a leftist. That is, Socialists already reject the notion individuals have a right to exist for their own sake. It's a futile exercise of the stolen concept to protest when their lives are negated, crushed under the weight of a morality they already embrace (x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…). At that juncture, it is merely a rhetorical device aimed at their own survival. Suddenly, life matters very much when they're the ones being subjected to expropriation, forced labor and death—but they deserve it, regardless of whether they elected for it at the ballot-box or carried it out with their own hands. It's morally insignificant when a slave-master is enslaved by another, just as it's morally insignificant when a wild-eyed, murderer or rapist is subject to the same while strangled to death in the prison shower. Ernst Rohm, Hans Frank, Rudolf Hess, and Otto and Gregor Strasser all served in the Freikorps Epp, fighting against the Soviet Republic and Communists of Bavaria. Meanwhile, Julius Schreck—founder of the SS and personal chauffeur to Hitler—fought against the Freikorps with Hitler in the Bavarian Red Army (youtube.com/watch?v=UpuGRO72…). As for Kahr, he didn't commit crimes by expropriating and expelling Jews while serving a Socialist revolutionary government? Was this not exactly what Karl Marx—and later Hitler himself—had called for in Zur Judenfrage anyway? How about calling in the Freikorps? Suddenly, you can be regarded Conservative and "right-wing" by serving one Socialist faction or state as you crush the separatist movement of another Socialist faction and their parallel state? But a leftist who fights another faction of leftists does not become "right-wing" or "Conservative" for doing so, unless we regard a "Conservative" to be nothing more than someone who acts to conserve some thing. It is true, in that regard, he did act to preserve the republic, but that republic was also Socialist. Deducing from this illogic, however, even the Communists who fought them would be regarded as "right-wing," revealing an anti-concept that represents a package-deal to destroy further knowledge, undermining the purpose of mankind's development of perceptual symbols to communicate valid concepts for survival. Valid concept formation must be rooted in abstraction from concretes, following observation. Inverting this process of logic to impose upon minds any conceptual revision you wish, then proceeding to misidentify the concretes or referents of other concepts and thus leading to further misintegration—regardless of how widespread its adoption—does not bend reality to your will. Reality is not implicit to consensus. How does this contradiction conform to your alleged dichotomy? It doesn't, unless you abandon the law of non-contradiction altogether and instead embrace contradictions as anyone adept in the dialectic has, just like Hegel and Marx. The Freikorps irregulars and the regular army of the government headed by the SPD's Friedrich Ebert, all of whom fighting for the revolutionary government in Berlin, were deemed to be counter-revolutionaries by Marxists, just because they fought against the Spartacists and other Communists. However, the Bolsheviks weren't counter-revolutionaries, just because they fought against the Mensheviks in Russia. Stalin wasn't a counter-revolutionary, just because he fought against Trotsky. Soviet and Chinese Communists weren't counter-revolutionaries, just because they became embroiled in territorial disputes with one another. Likewise, the Freikorps weren't counter-revolutionary, as they were fighting for a revolutionary Socialist government, headed by the same party in which Karl Marx had been a member, against other Socialist revolutionaries. Yet, historians continue to promote the Marxist propaganda, proclaiming such myths the the Freikorps were counter-revolutionary and "far-right," which has been reduced to nothing more than "you were my opposition," which Socialist factions have no qualms with applying to other Socialist factions who wholesale reject the ethics of Capitalism and thus objectively cannot constitute right-wing opposition. All of them supported the establishment of a totalitarian Socialist state, whether initial or eventual, but I'm supposed to just ignore all the evidence that contradicts all the Socialist apologia engaged in the most pernicious form of Holocaust Denialism (x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…, x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…, x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…), ignoring even the collectivized farming and famine that followed, accept the inversions and revise or strip concepts of all meaning to accommodate modern Socialist reformers who wish to manipulate or control language and perception to protect the reputation of their preferred social-system, all so they can continue replicating the failed experiment while inciting mobs against "counter-revolutionary" opposition just as Hitler's and all other Socialist revolutions had while converting entire nations into plantation-states. The point you miss is the fact it's all bad, but you don't seem to conceptualize that reality because you're a Social Democrat who seems to believe Socialism is going to work this time (x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…, oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mi…), provided subjective consensus elects for it once more while transforming into a total public-state, just as they had in the Weimar Republic, then doubled down by electing Hitler out of the belief the Jews and remnants of Capitalism were responsible for the failures of Socialism (youtube.com/watch?v=Ydx72tT5…)—rather than the simple fact it was immoral, inefficient and never going to yield anything remotely resembling a prosperous state. Had Germany instead embraced reality and abandoned their Idealist delusions repackaged and handed down to them by the long line of Platonists, rejecting Socialism and instead embracing Capitalism, the revolutions, Holocaust and World-Cold War would never have happened, just as the present whitewashing of the Holocaust's ideological underpinnings and Socialism in general would not be underway in the present had the rest of you acknowledged the objective reality observable to all eyes with sight (x.com/VindiceLiber/status/19…). On that note, maybe it does work, provided you regard all its failures, all its slavery, poverty and death as valued ends that define success for you.

🤯🫨Tuve que revisarlo varias veces, releerlo e incluso pellizcarme el brazo para asegurarme de que no estaba en medio de una pesadilla. Pero no. Este es, sin exagerar, el pináculo de la mediocridad: la brillante "solución" que estos gobernantes mononeuronales encontraron para enfrentar una contingencia ambiental seria. #CECOTparaNarcopolíticos. ccp @patriMX @MarthaluzCadena

Samsung can continue to take my money with these android phones. Love them die

Calculating if I can survive till PayDay. 😭

u wan depress ke????