luwal 💤🇮🇹🇷🇺 @luwal10

@Alex_Oloyede2 Z from Italy! 🇮🇹❤️🇷🇺

@Franco00837308 @Apocalypsevax @mm1064 Clic

@vonderleyen

@VladTheInflator Negri 🤷🏻‍♂️

@FlaiconJ22 @iltenentenn Ma va', sarà pieno di amici che vorranno andata casa sua a fare merenda! 🤣

@MarioNawfal Ahahahah fantastico! Molta invidia per lui, è libero e vola! ❤️🇺🇸

Alle famiglie marocchine i cui figli tirano sampietrini in testa alla polizia, lo stato non toglie i figli. Alle famiglie australiane i cui figli crescono nell'amore, lo stato toglie i figli per mancanza di bagno riscaldato. L'Italia logorata da decenni di sottomissione a potenze straniere, in cui lo stato è ridotto a macchina burocratica priva di vita, senza progetto e senza senso, è tutta qui.

一个美国同性恋花三周精读古兰经，直接被吓到失眠。 他不看网上的转述，自己买了一本回来看。 整整三周。 他对比不同版本的英译本，翻看穆罕默德的生平，对照历史背景。 全书 114 章，他才刚读完第 2 章。 就读不下去，晚上开始失眠了。 在当下的欧美社会，这原本被塑造成一个理所当然的政治同盟。 大学校园和街头游行里，各种旗帜经常并排举在一起。 很多人想当然地觉得，只要同样属于少数群体，大家就能在多元包容的旗帜下和平共处。 按他自己的说法，开始读之前，他完全没想到自己会越读越恐惧。 直到他真的翻开文本。 古兰经第 2 章是全书最长的一章。 里面巨细靡遗地写了律法、圣战，以及对不信道者的处置规定。 它讲的完全无关个体心灵慰藉，讲的是一整套具体的社会治理与司法刑名。 里面不仅没有世俗多元主义的位置，更没有同性恋的容身之地。 他在视频里把自己的恐惧讲了出来。 他说，普通穆斯林可能大多只是过日子的平民。 但根本不需要所有人都是极端派。 只要有 5% 到 10% 的原教旨群体，坚持按照经文字面推进诉求，现有的世俗民主就很难招架。 先借助西方社会的宽容与和平口号落脚，利用民主机制参选、扩大规模，最终推行伊斯兰律法。 他对着镜头说： 我是个同性恋。 如果那套律法真的推行开来，我连活着的权利都没有。 视频发出后，引发了大量讨论。 评论区里有一条高赞回复，同样来自一位西方同性恋。 他说自己也花时间研读过古兰经和穆罕默德生平。 他现在的遗憾，是丢掉了过去那种无知的幸福。 因为当他把这些事实讲给身边的白人自由派朋友听时，朋友们指责他伊斯兰恐惧症，直接和他绝交了。 还有一位伊朗基督徒在下面留言： 很多人不知道，中东许多穆斯林国家曾经都是基督教地区，后来在征服中改变了面貌。 许多现代人习惯了用温情脉脉的包容，去套用所有的文化和宗教。 但那些早在一千多年前就写在文本里的律法，从来不会因为外部社会的善良愿望，就自动改变它的原意。 全书一百一十四章，他才读了前两章。 有些写在律法里的现实冲突，闭上眼睛也躲不过去。 x.com/WallStreetApes…

Imagine you have a lovely apartment in Rue de la Republique in Paris. Your apartment is on the 4th floor so you don’t think you are at risk from the rioters. Yet they set fire to a huge bin and start throwing electric scooters into it. The explosion destroys half of your apartment.

French Conspiracy Commentator Dimitri explains precisely what’s happening in France - this Guy is absolutely Top Class Everyone needs to watch this

Most Western democracies have been hacked. Not with code. With institutional architecture. Let me show you how it works, using the most advanced example: the European Union. First, how it works. Once every five years, you vote for a European Parliament that cannot even initiate legislation. The body that proposes laws is the Commission: 27 commissioners nobody elected, appointed after backroom bargaining between heads of state. Bills are then negotiated between the Commission, Parliament and Council in "trilogues", closed-door meetings where the real decisions get made. A law that will apply to 450 million people goes through corridors that 99.9% of them will never see. Now look at who's in those corridors. Brussels has become the lobbying capital of the world: nearly 18,000 organizations on the transparency register, tens of thousands of lobbyists, more than 50 for every single MEP. And that's just the declared part. Add the revolving door: a former MEP only has to wait six months before becoming a lobbyist to the EU himself. The real problem is distance. A national MP who votes for a law that ruins the farmers in his district runs into them at the market on Saturday. In Brussels, the decision-maker never meets the people who live with his decisions. But he meets lobbyists every day: at lunch, at cocktails, at conferences. So the system doesn't optimize for the wellbeing of the people. It optimizes for the interests of whoever is in the room. You don't even need corruption for that, incentives are enough. Although sometimes, as Qatargate showed, there's corruption too. The result: the system has a structural incentive to accept things the people would never vote for. Take Mercosur. Twenty-five years of negotiations. France votes against it in the Council in January 2026 and gets outvoted. To keep national parliaments from blocking it, the Commission splits the deal into two texts, including a trade agreement that only needs a vote in Brussels. The European Parliament itself writes, in black and white, that this split circumvents the right of national parliaments, and refers the deal to the EU Court of Justice. The Commission's response: it has been applying the agreement provisionally since May 1, 2026, without waiting for the Court's opinion. Farmers were protesting outside Parliament. They lost anyway. And remember the one time the people were actually asked about Europe directly: in 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution. The text came back two years later as the Lisbon Treaty, ratified by parliaments. No more referendums. But the worst of it is immigration. In 2015, relocation quotas were imposed by qualified majority on countries that had voted against them. Since June 12, 2026, the Pact on Migration and Asylum applies across the entire Union, with its "mandatory solidarity" mechanism: you take people in, or you pay. Not a single European people has ever been consulted directly on this, even though it's the issue that is transforming our societies most profoundly. And this is where we have to talk about the most sophisticated piece of the machine: George Soros. Soros understood before anyone else that you don't need to win elections if you shape the ecosystem around the people who make decisions. His network, the Open Society Foundations, describes itself as the largest private funder of advocacy groups in the world. In Brussels, it runs its own lobbying arm aimed at EU institutions, the Open Society European Policy Institute. Here's what we know from internal documents leaked in 2016: a document titled "Reliable allies in the European Parliament" listed more than 200 MEPs. Strategy papers described building "inside-track groups" to caucus "internal allies" who could advance their goals in their daily work. Training sessions were organized for MEPs on how to counter so-called populist parties. The mechanism is brutally elegant. Think tanks produce the "expertise". NGOs produce the "demand from civil society". Legal NGOs litigate in the courts. Funded media outlets produce the narrative. The Brussels decision-maker, cut off from the population, hears the same message from every direction and ends up believing that this is what people want. And the craziest part: the institutions fund the loop themselves. Between 2021 and 2023, the EU paid around €7.4 billion to NGOs, and the European Court of Auditors found the use of that money insufficiently transparent. It even came out that the Commission had funded NGOs to lobby MEPs in favor of its own Green Deal legislation. The institution pays "civil society" to ask it to do what it already wanted to do. All of this is legal. That's exactly what makes it a hack and not a crime. The system works exactly as designed, except nobody designed it for the people anymore. The patch is simple to state and hard to impose: bring decisions back closer to the people who bear them, hold referendums on issues that change a civilization, create a mandatory register for every influence actor, NGOs included, with their funding sources, and shut the revolving door. Until that happens, European democracy will remain what it has become: a user interface sitting on top of a system that runs for someone else.

@abierkhatib L'unica cosa importante è questa 👇🏻

@FrenkieWoody Sì come no, devastando la città, rubando il rubabile, incendiando l nostre macchine, i nostri motorini, ecc. Di gente che si fa il culo a lavorare. Piantiamola di dire cazzate. E basta anche con i diritti: il tuo futuro non è un diritto, è una conquista e te lo devi meritare.

@MasterMaliq Too late.

>be bear >every bear in the family eats meat >polar bear eats seal blubber >grizzly eats salmon >you go plant-based >99% bamboo >gut never got the memo >still the short, simple gut of a carnivore >no way to break down cellulose >no cecum either >gut bacteria closer to a carnivore's than a cow's >digest about 17% of what you swallow >so swallow up to 38kg of it a day >roughly the weight of a twelve-year-old, in sticks >spend most of your waking hours chewing >grow a fake thumb out of a wrist bone just to hold the sticks >poo dozens of times a day, mostly undigested bamboo >scientists measure your daily energy use >38% of what a mammal your size should burn >closer to a three-toed sloth than to a bear >main thyroid hormone running at under half >brain, liver and kidneys smaller than they should be >move as little as you can possibly get away with >brown bears fatten up in autumn and sleep through winter >you can't >bamboo won't put enough fat on you >so you stay up all winter, chewing >females fertile for 24 to 72 hours a year >males often can't be bothered >zoos fly samples in from China and do it themselves >cubs born pink, blind and the size of a stick of butter >whole species out on hire at about $1m a year a pair >still eat the odd small animal when one wanders within reach >body clearly hasn't given up hope >become the face of a wildlife charity >symbol of a gentle, sustainable future >only bear on earth that needs a government to keep it going

@Il_Basato_ @HuffPostItalia Secondo me NEGRI si può dire.

IL PRESIDENTE DEI SACCHEGGIATORI? LA FARSA DI UNO STATO CHE HA PAURA DI SE STESSO. Iniziamo dalle cose semplici. Mattarella non è super partes. Non lo è mai stato. È un uomo di sinistra, cresciuto nella sinistra, votato dalla sinistra, che fa politica di sinistra dal Quirinale da anni. Arbitro? No. Allenatore di una sola squadra. Quella che se sente la parola "ordine" grida subito "fascismo". E la sinistra che lo applaude è la stessa che ha un problema strutturale con lo Stato forte. Vuole lo Stato forte solo per tassare, censurare, multare, controllare. Quando deve fermare i delinquenti veri, diventa garantista fino al ridicolo. Il risultato lo vediamo ora. Secondo quanto ricostruito da fonti stampa, il Governo avrebbe valutato di inviare l'esercito nelle città colpite dai saccheggi. Presenza, deterrenza, sicurezza. Dal Quirinale sarebbe arrivato l'altolà: niente poteri giudiziari ai militari. Niente arresto in flagranza. Solo identificazione e chiamata alle forze di polizia. Siamo al teatro dell'assurdo. Il saccheggiatore esce con la refurtiva, il militare gli dice "si fermi", quello lo ignora e passa oltre. Il militare resta a fare la statua. I negozianti contano i danni. Il contribuente paga lo spettacolo. E tutto questo perché? Per una paura patologica di essere definiti autoritari. Per non farsi dare dei fascisti dalla stampa di sinistra, si preferisce rendere lo Stato ridicolo. Ricordiamo un dato: l'art. 383 c.p.p. consente in determinati casi di flagranza l'arresto anche da parte del privato cittadino. Un cittadino qualunque. Si poteva ragionare su un potere temporaneo, delimitato e controllato per i militari in emergenza. Era buonsenso. Dal Colle sarebbe arrivato un no. Meglio i soldatini-manichino che una misura efficace. Ecco lo Stato di diritto ridotto a barzelletta: i delinquenti fanno shopping gratis, l'esercito fa presenza scenica, i cittadini onesti pagano. Questo non è garantismo. È una scelta politica e ideologica. Stare sempre dalla parte sbagliata: mai con i negozianti derubati, mai con chi lavora, sempre a tutelare chi rompe. Firmato, come sempre, da chi dovrebbe essere arbitro e invece continua a giocare la partita. Analisi / Ricostruzione di ✒️ ©Sabrina F.

@ALreturn78 @ArmoniosiAccent Si vabbè 14 follower. Clic

Abbiamo uno strano modo di preoccuparci dei bambini Se vivono nel bosco,si fanno le pulci ai genitori,arrivano i servizi sociali e tolgono i figli Se un 11enne fa parte dei saccheggi,si parla di disagio sociale,emarginazione,colpe della società. Gli assistenti sociali dove sono?

@MohammettKhalid Io abolirei l'Islam.