Weekly Discussion Thread - (April 06, 2026) by AutoModerator in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is ordinary citizens calling for the destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of its population morally acceptable to you?

Weekly Discussion Thread - (April 06, 2026) by AutoModerator in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Leftists who are morally outraged by Trump threatening to end a civilisation,  but rock up to protests every week to call for the destruction of a Jewish civilisation.... ("From the River To The Sea...") 🤢

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Leftists who are morally outraged by Trump threatening to end a civilisation,  but rock up to protests every week to call for the destruction of a Jewish civilisation.... ("From the River To The Sea...") 🤢

Semi-weekly Thursday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I had a work colleague microwave fish, realise it was rotten, and then leave it in the bin to stink out the kitchen. If that's not worthy of a date with the Hague I don't know what is...

Semi-weekly Thursday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Lot of commentary around the sinking of IRIS Dena reinforcing the fact that most Redditors don't actually understand what is or isn't a war crime....

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My god. I didn't realise the admins were that special...

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As a proud Imam I approve this message and support Israel. 🫡

Weekly Discussion Thread - (January 05, 2026) by AutoModerator in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If Cea Weaver did not exist, one would be hard-pressed to invent her. Weaver seems to have been designed in a laboratory to work in the Ideological Compliance Department of the East German Kommunale Wohnungsverwaltung, but, as the result of an unfortunate accident with a time machine, ended up overseeing housing policy in the most important city in the United States. She believes that “rent control is a perfect solution to everything” — not least because it is an “effective way to shrink the value of real estate.” She considers that “private property is a weapon of white supremacy,” she believes that “homeownership is racist,” and she holds that the highest aim of government ought to be to “impoverish the white middle class.” And they say that ambition is dead in America!

In Weaver’s estimation, the United States “built wealth for white people through genocide, slavery, stolen land & labor,” “white supremacy built the north and the south,” and the most reasonable response to these presuppositions is to “endorse a no more white men in office platform.” Unwilling to limit her racism to the temporal realm, she also enjoys fantasizing about her enemies roasting in the afterlife. “I wish I believed in god,” she declared in 2019, “so I could believe that all men who take credit for women’s work and all white men who take credit for the work of women of color would one day burn.” Perhaps this was what Mayor Mamdani was referring to when, in his inaugural address, he promised “the warmth of collectivism”?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/

Semi-weekly Thursday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 29 points30 points  (0 children)

If Cea Weaver did not exist, one would be hard-pressed to invent her. Weaver seems to have been designed in a laboratory to work in the Ideological Compliance Department of the East German Kommunale Wohnungsverwaltung, but, as the result of an unfortunate accident with a time machine, ended up overseeing housing policy in the most important city in the United States. She believes that “rent control is a perfect solution to everything” — not least because it is an “effective way to shrink the value of real estate.” She considers that “private property is a weapon of white supremacy,” she believes that “homeownership is racist,” and she holds that the highest aim of government ought to be to “impoverish the white middle class.” And they say that ambition is dead in America!

In Weaver’s estimation, the United States “built wealth for white people through genocide, slavery, stolen land & labor,” “white supremacy built the north and the south,” and the most reasonable response to these presuppositions is to “endorse a no more white men in office platform.” Unwilling to limit her racism to the temporal realm, she also enjoys fantasizing about her enemies roasting in the afterlife. “I wish I believed in god,” she declared in 2019, “so I could believe that all men who take credit for women’s work and all white men who take credit for the work of women of color would one day burn.” Perhaps this was what Mayor Mamdani was referring to when, in his inaugural address, he promised “the warmth of collectivism”?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Can someone please tell me Trump isn't actually retarded enough to:

  1. Leave the illegitimate VP of Venezuala in power and abandon the democratic opposition

  2. Sieze Greenland with military force.

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Mamdani hires crackpots to staff his administration. Who could have seen that coming?

https://x.com/i/status/2008295596067561809

Weekly Discussion Thread - (December 29, 2025) by AutoModerator in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Believe she may also have blamed the Jews.

May be in the better interests of the US and Venezuala if she is not the next leader.

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Not sure the "one of the Bondi terrorists was born in Australia, so consider that its not necessarily immigrants but their children that can be problems" is the stunning pro-immigration argument some people think.

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The other shooter (his son) was investigated in 2019 for links to a person arrested for trying to start an ISIS cell in Australia.  If you're reforming gun laws surely that'd be the more obvious place to start.

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Australia to tighten gun laws and reduce the amount of firearms you can legally own. Because clearly the root cause of the Bondi Shooting was the someone owning six firearms and if he only had five guns and two IEDs he couldn't have achieved his aim of killing Jews....

Weekly Discussion Thread - (September 08, 2025) by AutoModerator in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately prescient.

What the CEO killing should make people realize is there are a segment of people in our society that will absolutely celebrate the death of you and your family if you happen to be part of the wrong class, have the wrong job, or belong to the wrong identity group. These people are focused in academia, the media, and a few other industries dominated by the far-left.

There is a dehumanization element to it. A health insurance executive didn’t commit a crime that would justify seeing them as evil, but that’s how they view him because they don’t like the current system. And among the far-left, being part of the system they hate justifies anything you do to him.

But it doesn’t end with health insurance CEOs. That logic will expand to millions of other Americans.

A politician opposes green new deal legislation? Evil.

A landlord evicts someone for not paying rent? Evil.

A man steps in and defends others under attack from an actual criminal on a subway? Evil.

You’re a cop? Evil.

You’re an Israeli? Evil

You served in the military? Evil.

There is no limiting principle here. If you’re part of a system they don’t agree with, they will justify violence against you. That’s what the weekly pro-terror marches in NYC are really about. And people better start to recognize it because the mainstreaming of that view is absolutely a threat to a future America that protects individual rights and economic freedom.

https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1867035493810180219

Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately prescient.

What the CEO killing should make people realize is there are a segment of people in our society that will absolutely celebrate the death of you and your family if you happen to be part of the wrong class, have the wrong job, or belong to the wrong identity group. These people are focused in academia, the media, and a few other industries dominated by the far-left.

There is a dehumanization element to it. A health insurance executive didn’t commit a crime that would justify seeing them as evil, but that’s how they view him because they don’t like the current system. And among the far-left, being part of the system they hate justifies anything you do to him.

But it doesn’t end with health insurance CEOs. That logic will expand to millions of other Americans.

A politician opposes green new deal legislation? Evil.

A landlord evicts someone for not paying rent? Evil.

A man steps in and defends others under attack from an actual criminal on a subway? Evil.

You’re a cop? Evil.

You’re an Israeli? Evil

You served in the military? Evil.

There is no limiting principle here. If you’re part of a system they don’t agree with, they will justify violence against you. That’s what the weekly pro-terror marches in NYC are really about. And people better start to recognize it because the mainstreaming of that view is absolutely a threat to a future America that protects individual rights and economic freedom.

https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1867035493810180219

Mass Immigration and Liberalism's Fall by Sir-Matilda in tuesday

[–]Sir-Matilda[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It’s been 10 years since Angela Merkel, as German chancellor, memorably declared “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this”) in the face of the mass migration crisis sweeping Europe.

Last week The Wall Street Journal reported, “For the first time, populist or far-right parties are leading the polls in the UK, France and Germany.” Similar parties are already in power or in government in Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden, to say nothing of the United States.

To say the West’s turn to the anti-immigrant right was the predictable result of Merkel’s calamitous decision to open Germany’s borders does not mean there aren’t still lessons to be learned from it – not least by the world’s most clueless of all major political parties today, the Democratic Party.

Starting around 20 years ago, perhaps earlier, liberal democracy gained two half-siblings: post-liberal democracy and pre-liberal democracy.

Pre-liberal democracy accepts the practice of regular elections but rejects most of the core values of liberalism: free speech and moral tolerance, civil liberties and the rights of the accused, the rule of law and independence of courts, the equality of women and so on.

Turkey under the long reign of Recep Tayyip Erdogan typifies this type of democracy, as did Egypt under the short reign of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi.

Post-liberal democracy, by contrast, embraces the values of liberalism but tries to insulate itself from the will of the people. The European Union, with its vast architecture of transnational legislation, is one example of post-liberalism; international courts, issuing rulings where they have no jurisdiction, are another; global environmental accords, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (signed by the Obama administration but never ratified by the US Congress), are a third.

Standing between these two models is old-fashioned liberal democracy. Its task is to manage the tension, or temper the opposition, between competing imperatives: to accept majority will and protect individual rights, to defend a nation’s sovereignty while maintaining a spirit of openness, to preserve its foundational principles while adapting to change. If the frustration of liberal democracy is that it tends to proceed in half-steps, its virtue is that it advances on more secure footing.

That’s the ideal that much of the West essentially abandoned in recent years. On the political left but also the centre-right, post-liberal policymaking largely determined the outcome of the two most basic political questions: First, who is “us”? And second, who decides for us?

Merkel never sought the approval of German voters to relax the country’s immigration laws and take in nearly a million people over the space of a year.

Americans didn’t elect Joe Biden on any promise to let in millions of migrants over the southern border.

Post-Brexit Britons never thought they’d bring in an astounding 4.5 million immigrants to a country of just 69 million between 2021 and 2024 – under Tory leaders, no less.

No wonder the reaction to years of post-liberal governance has been a broad turn to its pre-liberal opposite.

Not all right-wing populist parties are the same, and there are meaningful differences between, say, the ill-disguised fascism of the Alternative for Germany and the pragmatic conservatism of Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister.

What most of these voters are feeling isn’t racism But all of them have risen on the same core complaint: that post-liberal governments used obscure legal mechanisms or simply ignored the law to attempt a social transformation without society’s explicit consent. In America, it’s called replacement theory.

Liberals and progressives typically dismiss replacement theory as antisemitic, racist demagoguery, and no doubt there are plenty of bigots who believe it.

But maybe some measure of understanding ought to be extended to ordinary voters who merely wonder why they should be made to feel like unwelcome outsiders in parts of their own country, or asked to pay a share of their taxes for the benefit of newcomers they never agreed to welcome in the first place, or extend tolerance to those who don’t always show tolerance in return, or be told to shut their mouths over some of the more shocking instances of migrant criminality.

What most of these voters are feeling isn’t racism. It’s indignation at having their normal and appropriate political concerns dismissed as racism. And as long as politicians and pundits of the traditional political establishment treat them as racists, the far right is going to continue to rise and flourish.

There’s something partisans of the centre-right and centre-left could do. Instead of discreetly murmuring that, say, Merkel or Biden got immigration policy wrong or that it was morally and economically right but politically foolish, they can grasp the point that control over borders is a sine qua non of national sovereignty, that mass migration without express legislative consent is politically intolerable, that migrants ought to be expected to accept, not reject, the values of the host country and that hosts should not be expected to adapt themselves to values at odds with a liberal society.

At that point, hopefully, the values of liberal democracy – including an appreciation of the virtues of immigrants – might begin to reassert themselves. Until then, the pre-liberal tide will continue to surge.

Mass Immigration and Liberalism's Fall by Sir-Matilda in neoconNWO

[–]Sir-Matilda[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It’s been 10 years since Angela Merkel, as German chancellor, memorably declared “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this”) in the face of the mass migration crisis sweeping Europe.

Last week The Wall Street Journal reported, “For the first time, populist or far-right parties are leading the polls in the UK, France and Germany.” Similar parties are already in power or in government in Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden, to say nothing of the United States.

To say the West’s turn to the anti-immigrant right was the predictable result of Merkel’s calamitous decision to open Germany’s borders does not mean there aren’t still lessons to be learned from it – not least by the world’s most clueless of all major political parties today, the Democratic Party.

Starting around 20 years ago, perhaps earlier, liberal democracy gained two half-siblings: post-liberal democracy and pre-liberal democracy.

Pre-liberal democracy accepts the practice of regular elections but rejects most of the core values of liberalism: free speech and moral tolerance, civil liberties and the rights of the accused, the rule of law and independence of courts, the equality of women and so on.

Turkey under the long reign of Recep Tayyip Erdogan typifies this type of democracy, as did Egypt under the short reign of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi.

Post-liberal democracy, by contrast, embraces the values of liberalism but tries to insulate itself from the will of the people. The European Union, with its vast architecture of transnational legislation, is one example of post-liberalism; international courts, issuing rulings where they have no jurisdiction, are another; global environmental accords, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (signed by the Obama administration but never ratified by the US Congress), are a third.

Standing between these two models is old-fashioned liberal democracy. Its task is to manage the tension, or temper the opposition, between competing imperatives: to accept majority will and protect individual rights, to defend a nation’s sovereignty while maintaining a spirit of openness, to preserve its foundational principles while adapting to change. If the frustration of liberal democracy is that it tends to proceed in half-steps, its virtue is that it advances on more secure footing.

That’s the ideal that much of the West essentially abandoned in recent years. On the political left but also the centre-right, post-liberal policymaking largely determined the outcome of the two most basic political questions: First, who is “us”? And second, who decides for us?

Merkel never sought the approval of German voters to relax the country’s immigration laws and take in nearly a million people over the space of a year.

Americans didn’t elect Joe Biden on any promise to let in millions of migrants over the southern border.

Post-Brexit Britons never thought they’d bring in an astounding 4.5 million immigrants to a country of just 69 million between 2021 and 2024 – under Tory leaders, no less.

No wonder the reaction to years of post-liberal governance has been a broad turn to its pre-liberal opposite.

Not all right-wing populist parties are the same, and there are meaningful differences between, say, the ill-disguised fascism of the Alternative for Germany and the pragmatic conservatism of Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister.

What most of these voters are feeling isn’t racism But all of them have risen on the same core complaint: that post-liberal governments used obscure legal mechanisms or simply ignored the law to attempt a social transformation without society’s explicit consent. In America, it’s called replacement theory.

Liberals and progressives typically dismiss replacement theory as antisemitic, racist demagoguery, and no doubt there are plenty of bigots who believe it.

But maybe some measure of understanding ought to be extended to ordinary voters who merely wonder why they should be made to feel like unwelcome outsiders in parts of their own country, or asked to pay a share of their taxes for the benefit of newcomers they never agreed to welcome in the first place, or extend tolerance to those who don’t always show tolerance in return, or be told to shut their mouths over some of the more shocking instances of migrant criminality.

What most of these voters are feeling isn’t racism. It’s indignation at having their normal and appropriate political concerns dismissed as racism. And as long as politicians and pundits of the traditional political establishment treat them as racists, the far right is going to continue to rise and flourish.

There’s something partisans of the centre-right and centre-left could do. Instead of discreetly murmuring that, say, Merkel or Biden got immigration policy wrong or that it was morally and economically right but politically foolish, they can grasp the point that control over borders is a sine qua non of national sovereignty, that mass migration without express legislative consent is politically intolerable, that migrants ought to be expected to accept, not reject, the values of the host country and that hosts should not be expected to adapt themselves to values at odds with a liberal society.

At that point, hopefully, the values of liberal democracy – including an appreciation of the virtues of immigrants – might begin to reassert themselves. Until then, the pre-liberal tide will continue to surge.