BOT

 https://x.com/pulse_leaks/status/2111239169703854520?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Stunning resurfaced footage shows Ugandan Mayor Mamdani saying the plan is to manipulate white leftists into electing 3rd worlders like him Spoken in his 3rd world accent: "You need someone to be a validator, tell them to TRUST US." "Minority communities, because we've never had representation, we are tied to identity. White communities...are more ideology...voters think of themselves first as progressive." Muslim invaders PURPOSEFULLY position themselves as "validators" to manipulate the public into handing over control."

 Hey ASPL, this is what y'all are voting for.

 https://x.com/michaelh_mn/status/2111424416206803012?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

More fraud, while  the executives of an ONG get rich. 

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/2111778944940679600?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

"I don't mean to be so bleak but I don't think "honest conversations" will work to challenge suicidal empathy. Every institution and the culture they're immersed in echo the same lines - "they are French like us" / French history is shameful / kindness is enough / diversity is strength / décoloniser. They are repeated across public media, education, corporate brands, NGOs, and in entertainment, signifying moral status and tribal safety. Her brain adopts the tribal consensus so it doesn't matter how many honest conversations you - as a man - have with women like this. As long as the manufactured consensus holds, dissent registers as a threat to her safety, not as new information. The mass formation layer has to crack first - visible contradictions, institutional overhaul, the cost of the policy becoming undeniable on the street. Otherwise, nothing changes."

 

 https://x.com/brivael/status/2111734645020586474

" 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." (Link to the rest)

 https://x.com/joeoltmann/status/2111608798511239293?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Wow… a sitting United States Senator walked into the University of Chicago and told a room full of students exactly what her side plans to do if they get the power back. Elissa Slotkin says she wants to look at "signature cases" and not just focus on the president "but on the people who enabled him," and then she said the rest out loud like she was reading a grocery list… she wants young people coming out of school to look at a job in the Trump administration and think "Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don't want, and so let me avoid participating in that." Her words, "I want that deterrence message." So let me make sure you heard it right. She is not talking about catching criminals, she is talking about making examples out of people so the next generation of conservatives is too scared to serve their own country. The target is not the man at the top, it is the young person fresh out of college who thought working for their country sounded like an opportunity. Now keep in mind this is the same senator who refused to sit down with the DOJ back in February over her video telling troops they could refuse illegal orders, and who said on camera the Trump administration was using intimidation "to deter others from speaking out" and that "the intimidation is the point." Those were her words eight months ago. Today she wants a deterrence message aimed at kids coming out of school. So which is it, Senator? When they look at you it is intimidation, and when you do it to a young staffer it is policy? I have lived on the receiving end of lawfare for years, and I can tell you the punishment is the process. They do not need to win the case, they need you to drain your savings, lose sleep, watch your family worry, and make sure everybody watching decides standing up is not worth it. That is the whole point and she just admitted it on a stage at the Institute of Politics like she was presenting a policy paper. But hey… they are the party of norms, right? Think I am wrong? Watch the clip again and tell me what "deterrence" means to you. This is what they will do with the gavel and the subpoena power if you hand it to them on November 3. Every young person who loves this country should hear this and do the exact opposite of what she wants… show up, serve, and refuse to be scared off.

@ElissaSlotkin

, message received. We are not going anywhere."

Let the lawfare begin if the DFL takes congress.  They'll do exactly what they bash Trump for. 

 https://x.com/latimes/status/2111204317071888687?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

If ICE raids are aimed at decreasing voter turnout, then it logically follows that illegal aliens are voting. 

 https://x.com/stephen_pax/status/2111175940822741137?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

That's a lot of rapes by immigrants, seems like a problem doesn't it?  (https://afru.com/price-worth-paying-to-end-racism/) Nope, it's just the price innocent women have to pay to end racism. 

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2111411907186102480?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "A look at the financial information of a taxpayer funded charter school in Minnesota called Lionsgate Academy shows it’s getting $33.4 million with ONLY 150 STUDENTS ENROLLED “Graduation rate, 23%…. $34 million, they can't read or write, and their graduation rate is 23%. Why does this school exist? — What is it serving” I looked into it and confirmed that of their over $33 million dollars in annual funding, 99% comes from taxpayers."

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2110905546836779304?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Ho hum, it's just more of Ro Khanna lying and another "trans" DFL shooter. 

 https://x.com/EYakoby/status/2110528554895024219

 "An Abdul El-Sayed supporter said voters are “stupid” and the best way to win is to hide the truth.

Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker nodded in agreement.

“The encouraging thing is that people are stupid.”"

 Well, at least Dan is stupid and he votes. 

 

 "The only hope for this movement, which has been the vanguard of leftism for most of my adult life, is to moderate and make massive mea culpas. I am not optimistic on either front however. The only thing worse than its terrible track record is the constant gaslighting about it. 

The same dynamic plays out everywhere progressives claim to have moderated. On crime. On education. On speech. They adjust their language just enough to avoid total campaigning disasters and PR implosions, but they never question the core conviction that animates everything they do: We are the moral vanguard, and opposition to our program stems from bigotry, ignorance, or malice.

Until progressives actually abandon this worldview—until they apologize for their excesses, reform their institutions, and rebuild relationships with the moderate majority—the reactionary tide will continue rising. The far right will keep winning. And progressives will have no one to blame but themselves.

The time for reckoning is now. Before it’s too late.

Here’s what people like Harris, and also Andrew Sullivan, understand that most progressive critics miss: The problem isn’t just that progressives got specific policies wrong. It’s that they’ve constructed an entire worldview in which very basic things most human beings take for granted are deemed “fundamentally and morally wrong.”

That foreigners are not citizens, and citizens’ interests come first. That children are not adults capable of consenting to irreversible medical procedures. That rapid demographic transformation of neighborhoods affects quality of life. That borders serve legitimate functions. That merit matters. That parents have primary authority over their children’s education and upbringing. And that the wrongness of racism & sexism leave no space for social justice carveouts; racism against Asians, Europeans, and Jews is still racism, sexism against men (misandry) is still sexism, and so forth. 

These aren’t fringe positions held by extremists. They’re baseline assumptions held by overwhelming majorities across every Western, liberal democracy. And progressives have spent fifteen years treating people who hold these views as moral monsters. They are a political movement that has played footsie with far left extremism for ages, and which believes radical, revolutionary social change is not only permissible but necessary, even against the wishes of the voting public.

There’s a reason progressives can’t actually moderate, even when they claim that they want to. It’s embedded in the worldview itself. In the critical theory framework that undergirds modern progressivism, all opposition is rooted in “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” or other forms of structural oppression. This means opponents cannot be reasoned with—because reason itself is a tool of oppression. They can only be opposed, canceled, or demonized.

When Ta-Nehisi Coates says “conversation between [them] and me is probably not possible,” regarding people who disagree on transgender or racial policy, he’s not just being intransigent, he’s being honest. He’s being consistent with critical theory epistemology. If your position stems from structural bigotry rather than legitimate disagreement, what’s there to discuss? You don’t debate with bigots; you defeat them. (“By any means necessary,” said Malcolm X.)

This is why Coates can claim that Charlie Kirk’s public life was defined by “hate”—despite Kirk engaging opponents, debating them publicly, and building a massive following through persuasion rather than coercion or violence. To progressives steeped in critical theory, none of that matters. Kirk opposed progressive positions, therefore he was motivated by hate. And, by extension, his life was forfeit. (Although Klein rejected that extreme at least, and Coates mouthed platitudes about disliking murder generally.)

One doesn't have to agree with Kirk’s views, or even his approach to right-wing activism, to recognise his assassination, a deliberately political assassination by a far left individual with strong ties to the trans movement, was beyond unacceptable. That the harassment and murder of anyone for their views, even an actual racist (which Kirk wasn't), is unacceptable. That the type of people progressivism holds up as evil are, all too often assaulted or murdered (because any amount, beyond none, of such politically motivated crimes is too high).

This framework is politically suicidal. Democracy requires the possibility of persuasion. It assumes that people with different views might be convinced through argument, evidence, and appeals to shared values. Critical theory denies this possibility. It treats political opponents as irredeemable carriers of systemic oppression who must be defeated, not persuaded.

So when progressives lose—when Trump wins, when Reform surges, when voters reject them—they can’t respond with introspection or genuine course correction. Their framework doesn’t allow for “maybe we got it wrong” or “maybe they have a point.” It only allows for “the bigots won” and “we didn’t fight hard enough.”"

 Sorry, no link for this.