Think Putin only wants Ukraine?Or that theres no other wannabe Putins? If you tolerate whats happened to Ukraine,don't complain if it happens to your own country. But luckily,most people still know some history & realise appeasement is no way to dealing with Hitlers or Putins.

The "spheres of influence" poison that led to two world wars & that post-WWII international law was intended to avoid. (Despite disgracefully allowing Soviet occupation of E Europe.) Attractive to authoritarians like Xi and Putin, but the US is supposed to be on the other side.

‼️IMPORTANT: It is very important to explain the situation the Trump administration has put Ukraine in at this moment: Ukraine does not have access to Starshield, while Starlink speeds are insufficient for effective use either on the battlefield or for protecting civilians. On top of that, Washington is demanding that Ukraine stop targeting russian oil refineries. At the same time, the Pentagon has blocked supplies of Patriot missiles to Ukraine. Secretary @PeteHegseth himself has even blocked the possibility of receiving missiles already purchased by Europeans for Ukraine through the PURL program. And even that is not all. The U.S. is also blocking other countries from transferring Patriot missiles from their own stockpiles to Ukraine. These supplies are more than crucial for Ukrainians at this point because the Ukrainian people are enduring the worst russian attacks so far and preparing for even harder times this winter. And what is this for? Why? For God’s sake, I have no logical explanation for this.

Literally, Ukraine just offered a Ceasfire last week, for 60 days, and elections, RUSSIA REJECTED IT, AND TRUMPS IGNORING IT 🤷‍♂️

Abdul El-Sayed told a reporter yesterday that scrutiny of him is “the same thing that they did to JFK when he ran for president… the notion that because he was Catholic, that somehow he had dual loyalty.” I have written about JFK. That claim is a grotesque perversion of history. In 1960, no Catholic had ever been elected president. Al Smith’s 1928 landslide loss was driven in large part by Protestant fears—rooted in centuries of Reformation conflict and reinforced by nativist suspicion—that a Catholic president would answer to the Vatican rather than the Constitution. JFK met it head-on in Houston in 1960, pledging absolute separation of church and state, and the charge collapsed because there was nothing under it. That is not what is happening with El-Sayed. Being Muslim is not the disqualifier. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, serves as Minnesota’s attorney general. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib serve in the House. Zohran Mamdani is mayor of New York City. CAIR’s own 2026 directory counts roughly 255 Muslim elected officials nationwide, including four in the House and dozens in state legislatures. Voters have repeatedly elected Muslims to state and federal office without treating their faith as disqualifying. The issue is not prayer; it is politics, associations, and family ties to an ideology that rejects the secular liberal order El-Sayed claims to defend. El-Sayed flatly denied on Meet the Press any family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which the U.S. listed this year as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity for material support to Hamas. His half-sister, University of Chicago professor Eman Abdelhadi, has posted otherwise. In 2012 she wrote: “My family has long been MB,” though she added that it “navigated the political sphere poorly/destructively.” In 2013 she wrote that she had “family jailed for being a part of it.” She also wrote of her mother’s early-1970s Brotherhood activism in college. Their mother, Fatten Elkomy, later worked for the U.S. arm of a charity network Treasury designated in 2004 for supporting al-Qaeda; she was never charged. El-Sayed calls the posts “hearsay” and distances himself from his mother by saying he wasn’t raised by her. But his flat denial and his sister’s own words can’t both be right. There is more. El-Sayed confirmed on camera that his sister-in-law was on the federal terror watchlist. She sued, a district court ruled in her favor, and an appeals court reversed. The FBI won’t say where she stands now. No one accuses him of any role. His father-in-law is a longtime board member of the Islamic Society of North America. None of these questions are about how he prays; they are questions about reported links to an organization whose Egyptian branch the United States has now formally labeled for supporting terrorism. After a man rammed a vehicle into Temple Israel synagogue near Detroit in an attack authorities treated as targeted at Jews, El-Sayed’s response included the line “hurt people hurt people.” He later apologized under pressure from Jewish Democrats, saying he should not have offered “context” that trampled on the victims’ pain. That is not the language of someone simply defending religious freedom. He has also campaigned repeatedly with Hasan Piker, who in 2019 said “America deserved 9/11.” El-Sayed later called the remark “dumb” and said America did not deserve the attacks, but the association remains. Voters are entitled to notice who a candidate chooses to platform. JFK faced prejudice against his faith. El-Sayed faces reporting on his family’s documented embrace of a group now designated by the U.S. government for supporting Hamas, his own comments after an attack on a synagogue, and his political alliances. Equating the two is not a defense of religious liberty. It is an attempt to weaponize a real historical injustice in order to shut down legitimate questions about radicalism and national security. The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does not require voters or journalists to pretend that family ties to a designated terrorist organization, or responses to domestic terrorism, are off-limits simply because the candidate is Muslim. History is not a prop for that evasion.

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.

The White House cut intel to Ukraine, restricted Starlink, struck a Russian diesel deal, halted sanctions, and now wants to use frozen Russian assets as “peace” leverage and revive Nord Stream. If Trump were a Russian asset, what would he do differently?

The riots in France are not as simple as just 'immigrants against France'. It's much worse than that. Watch any of the clips going viral on X. It's just not the Algerians and Moroccans indulging in the violence, looting, and destruction of common property, though of course they are. It's also people who appear visibly to be native French people of all ages. What they share in common is an ideology and worldview, what the French often call 'Islamo-gauschisme'. They have a single shared, hated enemy: the West. The Palestine flags are not a coincidence. The migrant cohorts and the Left hate Israel because they see it as an "Ultra-White" Western colony, a kind of holdover from pre-colonisation. In their eyes, the global project of 'decolonisation' has barely begun – their aims go much further than just moaning about British Museum property – and yet it has (in their view) failed at the first stage because it has failed to annihilate Israel. It's the itch that keeps itching. Palestine is an empty signifier – as the late Ernesto Laclau would have termed it – which is empty precisely because it overflows with the meaning poured into it. And they believe they're engaged in a global campaign to topple Israel – but, and this is *crucial* – not just Israel. Israel is, in their view – and they repeatedly say this openly – simply the first domino. Once it falls, so they say, so will the rest of the West. And then we'll finally live in a Communist utopia. There's generations of young people in the West – not just of immigrant background but of native stock – who believe all of this. What they seem not to understand is that particularly the Islamists among them do not share the goal of a Communist utopia. Nothing could be further from the imagination of the Algerian in the Banlieue than a stateless, classless, moneyless society, in which one might hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic. We saw much the same dynamic at play in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Khomenei was carried to power on a wave of unrest by a mixture of student intellectuals, communists, organised Islamist movements, and vast numbers of the public who could have been swayed in various ways in the moment. In the end, Khomenei came to power, and the organised Islamists hanged the communists from cranes and tortured them to death in prisons. It's the only way that sort of alliance ever ends.

Voici François-Louis Artois d’Hauteville, 15 ans, un jeune Français issu d’une ancienne lignée normande. Il manifeste contre le manque de professeurs de philosophie dans son établissement — sa matière de prédilection. L’an dernier, un remplaçant a dû condenser en un seul semestre, à marche forcée, l’ensemble du programme consacré à Hegel et à Kant. François a été le seul de sa classe à tenir le rythme : il avait déjà lu La Phénoménologie de l’esprit. Ses camarades, eux, peinaient à suivre, découvrant à peine cette œuvre en parallèle de la Critique de la raison pure. Il a bien tenté de les aider après les cours, mais ces séances empiétaient sur ses engagements bénévoles dans une maison de retraite et sur ses leçons de violoncelle. Voilà pourquoi, sur cette photo, il consulte sur son téléphone un cours consacré à la lecture des partitions et aux fondements de la musique classique.😇🇫🇷

Pour moi, c'est l'image la plus horrible de ce 17 octobre: Un couple d'octogénaire dépouillé de tout, en pleine rue, laissé à moitié nu. Comme si les Rolex, les Vuiton, les Hermès, les Dior, les Sephora pillés n'étaient pas suffisants pour la revente. L'image qui devrait être un signal d'alarme pour tout l'occident. L'image d'un pseudo président qui a perdu le contrôle. Qui a totalement échoué envers son peuple. L'image d'une gauche radicale qui a sacrifié votre propre identité pour faire de votre pays une zone de guerre, aux arrières-plans culturels qui n'ont rien à voir avec les vôtres. Cette image est effrayante!

This is absolutely INSANE! Meet Mohammed Yaseen. He was a member of an Al Qaeda group that beheaded Brit Ken Bigley. He then joined ISIS where he worked as a guard at two mass killings and a deadly public stoning. He was arrested in Germany and served nearly 5 years in prison for being a member of Isis. After he was released, Germany didn't deport him, so he broke into our country on a small boat because he heard we 'accept everyone'. He was jailed for 2 years for illegal entry, then released early after 6 months. This is despite hearing in court that he 'posed a danger to the whole of the UK' and he had a 'deep and lengthy involvement in terrorism and Islamic extremist ideology'. He's eligible for deportation, but the Foreign Office raised concerns that if we deport him to Iraq he could face 'mistreatment' for being a terrorist. He has reapplied to stay in the UK, which halts any deportation proceedings and it will cost taxpayers' £85,000 a year to keep him here. It get's worse... if and when he uses the ECHR to fight his case, we are potentially on the hook for another *£500,000* in legal aid. He's been put in a bail hostel in Windsor and able to walk the streets. WHAT TF ARE WE DOING TO OURSELVES?! This country is utterly broken.

A mother was referred to Prevent and visited by police at home because of her visit to Israel and her interest in“Jewish issues”. In yet another shocking case, Holly Passmore, a mother of two from County Durham, was visited at home last July by two plain-clothes police officers who wanted to know why she had recently travelled to Israel. The officers told Ms Passmore, who cares for her severely autistic nine-year-old son, that it was a “safeguarding issue”. A police intelligence report seen by The Telegraph reveals that the referral said she “over-identified with the conflict between Israel and Palestine” and was “supportive of Israel to the point that she has travelled to Israel”. It also described her as having “MH” — meaning mental health — issues and being “vulnerable to negative influence”. Three days after the visit, Ms Passmore lodged a complaint. Two more officers, including a superintendent, then came to her home. “They said that, clearly, I’m not a terrorist,” she recalled, explaining that they were keen to reassure her that police did not consider her a threat or an extremist. “I thought that was strange at the time. You don’t usually end up with a superintendent on your couch.” Ms Passmore’s concerns deepened when she discovered that her NHS records had been updated to describe her as a “vulnerable adult”, before later being changed to say she was no longer vulnerable. It is now even more clear that Prevent is being weaponised by activists to silence people for their lawful and legitimate views. These vexatious complaints also waste police time and resources. Enough is enough. Read more in @Telegraph 👇

When Holly Passmore heard a knock at her front door at about 11am on July 4 last year, she assumed it was an Amazon delivery. Instead, the 44-year-old mother-of-two from County Durham found two plain-clothes police officers on her doorstep wanting to know why she had recently visited Israel ⤵️ telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10…

👀

I forgot Karoline Levitt did in fact have that dawg in her and did not allow herself to be pushed around. Obviously, I have no love for MAGA but Karoline was no slouch.

Ukraine's strikes on Russian oil refineries is not impacting US gas prices: report trib.al/oCPYr3R

🚨BREAKING: This new chart from @TheStudyofWar overlays Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries with the price of diesel fuel. There is NO CORRELATION between strikes on Russian refineries and spikes in the price of diesel here in the U.S. They are not driving up prices here.

There is no treaty or agreement of any kind where NATO promises not to expand. There is a signed agreement where russia explicitly accepts NATO enlargement.

Imagine 1941, when German aircraft were bombing British cities, Europe was under the Nazi boot, and Churchill was desperately trying to save his country from Hitler's onslaught. And then, at that very moment, US President Franklin Roosevelt suddenly announces that the main problem is not Hitler, who is occupying foreign territories and killing people, but the stubborn British, who simply refuse to agree to a peace deal. Worse still, they keep bombing German industrial facilities, damaging the economy of the Third Reich and creating difficulties for international trade. The American president is terribly outraged. After all, his voters need cheap fuel, the economy needs stability, and he himself needs good approval ratings. So instead of helping Britain, he calls Hitler, negotiates the supply of German goods, proposes easing economic restrictions, and threatens to cut Churchill off from weapons and intelligence unless he stops destroying German industry. And to finally persuade the Führer to come to the negotiating table, American mediators even propose returning some of Germany's frozen state assets. All in the name of peace, naturally. And, of course, for the sake of the American economy, which should not have to suffer simply because some stubborn British people refuse to surrender. Now try to imagine what history textbooks would look like if Roosevelt had actually behaved this way. What if he had called Hitler a wonderful negotiating partner, demanded that Churchill surrender territory, and simultaneously tried to convince Americans that Germany needed to be allowed to make money because otherwise it would refuse to make peace? What if, instead of Lend-Lease, Britain had received an American ultimatum: stop bombing German factories because we need to lower prices before the elections? What would we say about such a president today? Would we call him a brilliant negotiator who was simply protecting his country's economic interests? Or would we say that, for his own benefit, he was helping the Nazi war machine while simultaneously depriving its intended victims of the means to defend themselves? Fortunately, history took a different path. Roosevelt secured the passage of the Lend-Lease Act, and the United States began providing massive assistance to the countries resisting Hitler even before America formally entered World War II. But today, watching Donald Trump's actions, I increasingly find myself wondering what Europe's fate would have been if a politician with the same attitude toward aggression, human lives, and personal profit had occupied the White House back then.