Triumph of Rome ☦️

Conservatives simply refuse to take power or rule They’ve been told that the Constitution demands this and that anything short of total surrender is a betrayal of the founders I’ve done my best to convince them otherwise but that increasingly seems impossible

Why is it okay for Algeria to kick out a million Frenchmen but wrong for France to kick out a million Algerians? Why is everyone allowed to engage in population transfer except the West?

"In three weeks, the Frenchmen and women of Algeria, whether they be Christian or Jew, Spanish or French in origin, were thrown into the sea. 'The suitcase or the coffin' – that, you may recall, was the graceful operational slogan of this radical action. It did not arouse the slightest indignation within the international community." - Renaud Camus, Enemy of the Disaster

“Our baby was born in Rivendell. That means she’s an elf and gets to vote now.”

“My access to man flesh your taxes pay for is a human, errr, orcish, right! Saruman the Wise says so!”

Wow

Thread with excerpts from "The Information State" by Jacob Siegel (2026). Thesis: The Information State is a new form of political regime that "governs by controlling the codes and protocols of the digital public arena, which it uses to engineer the public’s compliance."

This thread is a sobering reminder of how close we came to totalitarian one-party rule via the fusion of public and private control over information. If Democrats ever take power again, they will absolutely finish the job. @arctotherium42 is a high-quality follow.

A few years ago I knew a very nice Muslim guy. He worked for the police service and I played football with him every week. He was kind, thoughtful and I thought he was an all round decent chap. One week he didn't turn up for the usual football game and concerned, I asked one of his work mates in the police where he was. I found out that his sister was in an abusive, arranged marriage and had run away from her husband. Now you may think that this “decent chap” would be taking time to support his sister in this terrible time. It turns out that he and other members of his family tracked her down, tied her to a chair and beat her to a pulp for bringing shame on the family. This sort of mentality just isn't compatible with the British way of life. We can never understand the driving forces behind some of these people as it is totally alien to us.

I had a discussion with a Reform supporter defending why Nigel Farage dropped the inquiry. According to him, Rupert’s inquiry was “useless” because he couldn’t actually do anything about it before he is elected. EXACTLY! We must expose what the fuck is going on NOW so that voters can choose the candidate who WILL fix the problem with MASS DEPORTATIONS.

日本で情報流通を独占していた人々は、極めて左派的かつ恣意的に、取り扱う情報を偏らせてきました。 日本は、ポリコレ的に極めて後進的で、報道に不自由が有って、世界から軽蔑されていると思い込まされていたのです。私たちは長い間、全くの暗闇の中に居たのです。

I wanted to thank my American bros. Do you remember this meme? I'm the person in this picture, and I was happy to see it go viral everywhere. Thanks! The M1911 is awesome!

Banger 😂

Julius Caesar did nothing wrong. The Optimates had spent the last 100 years kicking Roman citizens off their land so the rich could replace them with foreign slave labor. They killed every reformer who tried to stop them. Caesar was the moderate option. They killed him too.

If you’re a wife you need to understand 99% of media you see is trying to convince you to hate your husband/children. If you cannot handle this and stay grounded, log off. Constant stream of anti-family, spousal resentment propaganda. Most modern divorces are a result of this.

They will kill your daughters and if you put up murals to them, they will cover them up Wake up

They erase the murals becuase they want this to happen again and again and again The Democratic Party is a machine that turns tax dollars into murdered white people

Ok, since I hadn’t seen this reply. With respect to RHG, this kind of aggressive midwittery is frustrating. First of all, I can’t believe I have to say this, but in any transaction, the money you *make* is not equal to the money you receive; it is equal to the money you receive *minus your costs.* In business terms, profit equals revenues minus costs. The Romans were able to extract a lot of resources out of their provinces, but at great *cost*: military occupation, administration, all that road building, etc. The American Empire extracts comparatively fewer resources out of its protectorates, but at an order of magnitude lower *cost*. Indeed, the Romans knew this, since they not only had provinces that they administered directly but they also had many provinces that they controlled *through local proxies* known as client kingdoms. And they *preferred* this arrangement, precisely because it was cheaper. When they converted a client kingdoms to a province, it was usually at great reluctance because the client was too incompetent. Many Senate debates where senators oppose conquering a new province because they know even though Rome will be able to extract more resources it will do so at greater cost so that the *net profit* to Rome will be lower. This is a recurring theme in Roman history as RHG should know. The Romans viewed administering provinces as a *burden* and client kingdoms as the *ideal scenario*. Another reason why client kingdoms are a good formula is, of course, public perception. If the kingdom looks independent, it’s less plausible that the local population will revolt. "Client kingdoms" is a phrase invented by later historians. Local rulers were called thing like "rex socius" and "rex amicus", "allied king", "friend king" ("friend and ally", sound familiar?) because the perception that they were sovereign helped everyone. This arrangement helped everyone. Which is why empires have used it throughout history. Middle school maps show territories with one color, but in reality empires had, along with directly-administered provinces, proxy kingdoms and realms which had various degrees of internal and sometimes even external autonomy. If you look at a map of Napoleonic Europe, it’s just a big blue blob, but that blob was made up of entities like "the Confederation of the Rhine" and "the Kingdom of Italy" and "the Batavian Republic." When Napoleon annexed the Netherlands, it was not because he was drunk with power, it’s because his Dutch proxies were taking bribes to bust sanctions on Russian oil—er, evade the Continental Blockade. He would have preferred not to annex and directly administer the Netherlands and keep it as a formally-independent client state. During the great era of European colonialism, this arrangement was known as a "protectorate". For example, formally, the Kingdom of Morocco was never a French colony. Instead, the totally sovereign Kingdom of Morocco signed a treaty with the French Republic whereby the latter would offer to PROTECT it militarily against FOREIGN threats, to protect it’s SOVEREIGNTY. The French never conquered Morocco, oh no, it liberated it. A protectorate, a treaty between equal and sovereign nations whereby the bigger one offers to protect the smaller one militarily, is of course in no way comparable to NATO, which is a treaty between equal and sovereign nations whereby the bigger one offers to protect the smaller ones militarily. I could go on. But the basic principle, that interest of an empire is not to maximize gross resource extraction but *net* benefit, should be easy to grasp. The Romans did. There’s a story that Queen Victoria was asked what her favorite province of the British Empire was, and she quipped, Portugal. The joke, of course, is that Portugal was never a province—but, as a longstanding (and subordinate) ally it had a lopsided trade deal with Britain, supported it politically, etc. Most of the benefits of empire, none of the costs.

Respectfully, there are five Articles of Confederation:1781-1789 2nd Republic (what conservatives think we have) :1789-1865 3rd Republic of the 14thA:1865-1933 4th Republic the New Deal 1933-1965 5th Republic Civil Rights Regime 1965-present

Evangelicals are partly to blame for the collapse of Middle Eastern Christianity. They are the biggest supporter of wars which destroy Christians. But it goes way deeper than that. They view Christians like Assyrians in Iraq as a pawn to expand their footprint as "authentic" Christians. They can be so brazen that they even set up local organizations & try to convert *Apostolic Christians* to *their* brand of American Christianity. Imagine destroying an Apostolic, Aramaic speaking Christian community which is 2000 years old. Then setting up an NGO to convert them to Megachurch Protestantism through bribery & handouts. Isn't that insane?