Duke Kell

@FurkanGozukara @LuckyPuppy86 Truly free… tell that to the female residents of Iran. I think you ment to say “free to oppress and kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them”… or you don’t know what Freedom is… typical European leftist…

@LuckyPuppy86 they are fighting for survival to become truly free

Absolute bombshell on CNN. CNN confirms precise Iranian strikes have caused unprecedented destruction to the majority of US military sites. At least 16 American installations are heavily damaged and virtually unusable. The Pentagon is hiding a massive defeat.

@zei_squirrel The anti establishment grunge bands now simping for the global cabal was not on my bingo card in 1992, screaming “More government now” But here we are and somehow they have also not grown out of the vagrant look…despite being worth millions…

Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam on Israel: "I swear to god there's some people out there just ready to kill and go across borders and take over land that doesn't belong to them, and they should get the fuck out. We don't want to give them our taxes to drop bombs on children. No more!"

@Houseofyogi It’s sad, but most of the people who believe the “Trump is threat to democracy” can not be reasoned with. I work with highly educated people and they refuse to accept anything beyond the narrative… look at all the responses in this feed, gleeful ignorance

Trump Derangement Syndrome: The Real Insurrection A businessman from New York who had never held office, never served in government, never been part of the machine, ran for president in 2016. The Clinton campaign wanted him to. An internal DNC memo from April 2015 called it the "Pied Piper" strategy: elevate Trump, Cruz, Carson. "Tell the press to take them seriously." They wanted him because they thought he'd be the easiest to destroy. 63 million Americans didn't get the memo. They voted for the guy who wasn't a politician. Wasn't groomed by donors. Wasn't part of the DC corruption machine. 306 electoral votes. 30 states. And the people who rigged the game to get the opponent they wanted couldn't accept the result when they lost to him. Five Senate Democrats drafted impeachment frameworks in December 2016. Six weeks before inauguration. Before he signed anything. They had the conclusion before he took the oath. They just needed the evidence. Not on January 6th. Starting January 20th, 2017. Everyone wants to talk about insurrection. Nobody wants to talk about the one that ran for four years. They manufactured the evidence. The Steele Dossier. Funded by the Clinton campaign. Laundered through a law firm, an opposition research shop, a former British spy, and a Russian national named Igor Danchenko who told the FBI his information was "rumor and speculation." FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok wrote internally they were "unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." Same guy who texted a colleague about Trump winning: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Offered Steele a million dollars to verify a single claim. He couldn't. Durham concluded the FBI could not corroborate a single substantive allegation. Mueller: three years, $30 million, no collusion. Intelligence reports later assessed that key parts of Steele's material were themselves RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION. The people screaming about Russian interference spent three years amplifying Russian disinformation to destroy a sitting president. They used the fake evidence to spy on Americans. The FBI took that unverified dossier funded by one campaign and used it to get FISA surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a member of the opposing campaign. Secret court. Secret warrant. Opposition research treated as intelligence. The Inspector General found 17 significant errors and omissions in the warrant applications. Danchenko, the primary source, had been flagged by the FBI's own counterintelligence division. Subject of a full investigation into his Russian intelligence contacts. The FBI's response: put him on their payroll from 2017 to 2020. While the country went to war with itself over a story he made up. The press didn't just cover the lie. They built it. And they fanned the flames of insurrection. FBI Director Comey personally briefed Trump on the dossier. The meeting was immediately leaked to BuzzFeed, who published it in full. The New York Times published: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence." The FBI's own Strzok had already flagged the claim internally as inaccurate. The headline stood. The coverage accelerated. The Washington Post and New York Times won Pulitzer Prizes for their Russia coverage. For reporting built on a dossier the FBI couldn't verify. No retractions. No corrections. No Pulitzers returned. The Russia coverage built the machine. They used it on everything. They told you he called neo-Nazis "very fine people." He didn't. The full quote, on camera: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally." Snopes confirmed it in 2024. Didn't matter. Biden launched his entire 2020 campaign on the lie. The BBC spliced two clips from his January 6th speech, filmed 50 minutes apart, into one quote. Cut "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Replaced it with "fight like hell." Made it sound like a direct call for violence. Their director-general resigned. Their head of news resigned. Days before the 2024 election. The press built the permission. Congress used it. They tried to remove him before, during, and after. Democrat Al Green introduced impeachment articles in 2017. Before Mueller concluded anything. Then said it on camera: "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Rashida Tlaib, day one in Congress: "We're going to impeach the motherf***er." First impeachment: a phone call with Ukraine. Purely partisan. 230 to 197. Zero Republicans. Second impeachment: seven days. No committee hearings. No formal investigation. Fastest impeachment in American history. Against a president who had already lost and was leaving office in a week. Jerry Nadler, 1998, arguing against Clinton's impeachment: "Impeachment is an undoing of a national election." Twenty years later the same man led the charge to impeach Trump. Same seat. Opposite position. Only thing that changed was the name on the door. The data proves none of it was about principle. Oxford studied four administrations. Bush. Obama. Trump. Biden. Support for violating democratic norms tracked one variable. Not values. Not ideology. The jersey. Democracy Fund: 24% of Americans changed their position on congressional oversight between 2019 and 2022. Of those who flipped, 83% moved in whichever direction served their party. They elevated him because they thought he'd lose. He won because 63 million people were tired of being managed. Fabricated evidence. Secret surveillance. A weaponized press. Two impeachments. All dressed up as patriotism. They couldn't buy him. So they tried to bury him. When that didn't work they tried to remove him. When that didn't work they doctored the footage. Question an election and you're a threat to democracy. Fabricate evidence to overturn one and you're defending it. That's the deal they sold you. And half the country bought it without reading the receipts. TDS was never a syndrome. It was a permission structure. It told you the threat was so big the rules didn't apply anymore. And you believed it. The rules always apply. That's the whole point of having them. Stop being an NPC. I hope you understand what's at stake.

Truth is now considered a right-wing conspiracy. That’s the chilling line from Melanie Phillips that stopped me in my tracks. She explains how we’ve reached a point where simply stating observable reality — whether it’s basic biology defining a woman or pushing back against blanket accusations that all white people are inherently bad — gets you branded as evil. Not wrong. Evil. Therefore you must be silenced, cancelled, or erased. No debate. No evidence allowed. She calls it cultural totalitarianism: a Manichean worldview where one ideology claims a monopoly on goodness, progress, and reason itself. Dissent isn’t argued with — it’s treated as a moral threat that has to be removed. The deepest irony? In an era that smugly ditched religion in the name of superior rationality, we’ve ended up rejecting reason, evidence, and open inquiry altogether. We’re so “rational” we’ve dispensed with the very tools of rationality. It doesn’t add up. Her take has me wondering how we got here — and how quickly disagreement turned into moral excommunication. Anyone else seeing this pattern play out in conversations lately? Where have you felt truth itself become off-limits?

Senator Rand Paul researched and found that everything Bernie Sanders and AOC have been saying about their views for socialism have been an outright lie This is very important information “Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders often point to Scandinavia is the model for what the U.S should become — When (Bernie Sanders and AOC) talk about democratic socialism, (Bernie Sanders says) ‘I'm not looking at Venezuela, I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden’” But that’s just not true Rand Paul “We learned that actually Bernie is too much of a socialist for Scandinavia, that he probably could not get elected in any of the Scandinavian countries — When he started talking about Denmark being socialist, the prime minister of Denmark came out publicly and said, Bernie, quit it. You're, you're bad for business. We are not socialist. And if the rest of the world thinks Denmark's socialist, they won't come here and invest money. Denmark is far from socialist planned economy.” Not only is Denmark not socialist, but the other countries Democrats point to as examples are very wrongly depicted “We found that basically it's not true that the Scandinavian countries are socialist. Basically they have private property, private stock exchange when different freedom or economic indexes are listed. They're in the top 10 of the most free countries. Now, they do have a big welfare state, but we also learned that what Bernie promises and what AOC promises in our country is untrue. They say, we're gonna have a lot of free stuff that a socialist state gives you, but only the rich people are gonna pay for it. Only the top 1%. Turns out when you look at Scandinavia, everybody pays for it. - Particularly starting at the working class, paying a 25% sales tax - Then an income tax of 60% starting at 60,000 - And really the rich in our country pay a lot more. — The rich pay a lot more in our country than they actually do in Scandinavia. So his whole stick it to the rich, you know, thing that he's promoting isn't true in Scandinavia. He says, in our country, the corporate income taxes, the evil corporations aren't paying enough. Well, guess what? In Scandinavia, there have been 15 points below our corporate rates for 2 decades” Meaning, it’s the working class who would ultimately pay insane taxes for Democrat’s plan for socialism “It's sad that people still think Scandinavian countries are socialists.“

“At one point, I thought being on the left was a mental problem. The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that it never worked anywhere, and they refused to accept it. Therefore, I thought it was a mental problem. I mean, some kind of block that doesn't even let them see the numbers. They are enemies of numbers. They hate numbers. I don't know if lefties hate water or numbers more. I mean, I don't know if they hate bathing more than numbers. But what I discovered is that being on the left is a disease of the soul. The left is built on envy, hatred, resentment, and unequal treatment under the law. They are very violent, and since they have no way or arguments to answer, they go for physical violence. Lefties always, let's say, resort to physical violence and all kinds of violent manifestations because they are unable to refute the arguments.”

The moment the West decided evidence no longer mattered — if it got in the way of utopia. Melanie Phillips (former Guardian journalist): “Objective evidence was cast aside because it was too inconvenient. The very idea of reason and rationality was dismissed. All these ideologies — multiculturalism, lifestyle choice, deep green environmentalism, moral relativism — were utopian. They promised perfection. Anyone who brought facts against them wasn’t just wrong… they were evil.” Result? - Evidence became “right-wing” - Dissenters were bullied, ostracized, fired, threatened - The Guardian itself became the heart of this ideological machine… until she fell foul of it. When ideology is sacrosanct and the world must be perfected, facts become the enemy — and truth-tellers become heretics. Have you watched this shift in real time — where inconvenient evidence gets labeled “hate” or “misinformation”? Which sacred ideology do you think has done the most damage to open debate? Your honest take 👇

@AdamKinzinger Socialism and by extension communism is the biggest threat to a capitalist society, followed closely by Islamist extremism, both the left has embraced, that you refuse to see it doesn’t make it less true.

So now Democrats are more of an enemy than Russia or China. The evil that permeates trumps soul grows and grows. Every Christian leader that does not speak up is complicit.

@brianschatz Democrats have been in charge of Hawaii for 70 years, every single so called solution has been tried and yet we still have a huge problem with hunger, poverty and homelessness… all while politicians like you line your pockets and promise utopia.

For the amount of money the Pentagon is requesting for this insane war we could eliminate hunger in America for a decade. The problem in our country is not a lack of money, it’s a lack of moral clarity.

Let Them Eat Strawberries: A Lesson on Capitalism This video from @ItsNathanEmery was likely served into my algo as rage bait, but it prompted a valuable lesson on capitalism for people who are frustrated with "the system" and seeking a solution. Capitalism is always the closest thing to blame and when it's done over light piano music from a friendly-toned voice and likely a well-meaning family man. You could almost think he's right. The real culprit is bloated, inefficient bureaucracy, not capitalism. Certainly capitalism is not without flaw, but it is the single most effective system for improving quality of life for the most people, driving innovation and allocating resources efficiently. The competition and incentive structure is why the world is a prosperous as it is. This simplistic breakdown explains capitalism through strawberries and why the education system has failed so many people. This video could be hours long, but for brevity hopefully this gives a generalized overview that drives less people to communism and more people to embrace how great capitalism actually is.

.@JMilei: “Feminism, diversity, inclusion, equity, immigration, abortion, environmentalism, gender ideology...” “These are all various heads of the same beast aimed at justifying the state’s expansion through the appropriation and distortion of noble causes.”

“El socialismo no procede del pueblo. Es una doctrina de intelectuales que tuvieron la arrogancia de creer que podían planificar mejor la vida de todos” Margaret Thatcher

“There have always been ignorant people, but they haven't always had college degrees to make them unaware of their ignorance. Some people imagine that they are well informed because they have memorized a whole galaxy of trendy dogmas and fashionable attitudes.” — Thomas Sowell

Boudreaux: "Hayek became increasingly convinced that... the real challenge liberalism faced was the abuse of science and reason ... If people worship science too much, they think all we have to do is put some really intelligent, well-educated PhD technocrats in power in Washington and they can tell us how to live—and of course, they can't."

Carl Menger destroyed two thousand years of economic fallacy with a single insight in 1871: value is subjective, existing only in the mind of the individual valuer. The classical economists—from Adam Smith to David Ricardo—had spent centuries chasing their tails, convinced that value somehow resided in objects themselves, whether through labor content or production costs. Menger obliterated this nonsense by pointing out the obvious: a glass of water means nothing to a man by a river but everything to one dying of thirst in the desert. This breakthrough wasn't just academic—it was revolutionary. By grounding value in human choice and preference, Menger laid the foundation for understanding how markets actually work. Prices don't reflect some mystical "intrinsic worth" but emerge from countless individuals making subjective judgments about their personal wants and needs. And this happens spontaneously, without any central planner needed to "coordinate" anything. The implications were devastating to statist economics before statist economics even fully existed. If value is subjective, then government price controls become acts of pure violence—bureaucrats literally imposing their subjective valuations on millions of others through force. If value emerges from individual choice, then socialism becomes impossible by definition. You cannot centrally plan what exists only in the minds of individuals. But the establishment couldn't let this stand. The subjective theory of value made government intervention look like what it is: economic barbarism. So they spent the next century constructing elaborate mathematical models to obscure Menger's simple truth. British pedophile John Maynard Keynes and his disciples built entire careers on ignoring subjective value, pretending that wise technocrats could somehow calculate what only individual actors can know. The Austrian revolution began with Menger recognizing that value lives in human minds, not in objects—and every government economist has been running from this truth ever since.

If a man has no friends, pay attention...

The Marxist game exposed...

This is one of the Most Powerful Video’s I Ever Seen! 🙏

Why are Democrats suddenly so vulgar? "F--- Trump!!" "F--- ICE!!" When did this become normal? And what does it signal about this political moment? It's more than bad manners. It's a signal that they're done debating and ready to literally destroy their opposition.

It’s not the start of World War 3. It’s not Iraq 2.0. It’s about the Islamic Republic and our chessmatch against China.