Meme - Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacleod: "BREAKING: The United Nations has voted 123-3 in favor to condemn the enslavement of millions of Africans and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The three countries voting against it? USA Israel Argentina. Nearly all of Europe abstained."
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "Context: the resolution wasn't just a condemnation of the slave trade; it also called for reparations and described slavery as "the gravest crime against humanity," which some countries rejected as creating a hierarchy of crimes (over genocide, etc.)."
Naturally, left wingers were spreading misinformation, claiming that this was just about condemning slavery as practised by white people
Meme - BBC News (UK) @BBCNews: "UN votes to recognise slavery as 'gravest crime against humanity'"
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "UN did not recognize slavery as the "gravest crime', only the transatlantic slave trade, and it also calls for "reparations" to be paid. Most historical slavery is not covered by this resolution, and none of the current slavery."
Wanjiru Njoya on X - "The corrupt UN wants to pass a resolution blaming Europe for slavery. "it will label the European-led slave trade as history’s greatest crime ... the 1,300-year-long Arab trade in African slaves will not be mentioned.""
Wilfred Reilly on X - "Nonsensical. Slavery Was Very Bad, but the idea that we can definitively identify the worst thing in history - and that it was the 10-20% of the historical human slave trade led specifically by whites - is just damned absurd. Some other contenders:
The Mongol Conquests
The Fall of Rome
WW2/the Holocaust
The Black Death
New World population collapse
Communism
The Steppe and Bantu Migrations
The Arab conquests/slave trade
Etc."
Blake Neff on X - "The best part of this dumb map is Mauritania voting with the anti-white coalition when it literally at this very moment has widespread slavery, having only criminalized it ~20 years ago and never seriously enforcing said law. This vote is about attacking white countries and trying to shake them down for money. That’s it."
Kyle Becker on X - "True. And no one talks about Thomas Jefferson's condemnation of slavery in the draft Declaration of Independence. Or the banning of the importation of slaves in 20 years' time in the Constitution. Or the 3/5th clause that weakened representation for southern states in the South. Or the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in a Civil War that resulted in the emancipation of slaves. Enlightenment thinkers were openly hostile to slavery. They were the true progressives whose thinking led to the end of the inhumane practice in the world. There was real blood spilled by hundreds of thousands of white people in the mid-19th century to end the abominable practice of slavery. This nefarious institution had existed in ancient times. Mesopotamia. Egypt. Persia. Greece. Rome. All of these civilizations had their version of slavery. The Ottoman Empire was notorious for the practice. African peoples trafficked slaves to Muslims and Europeans. It is an institution that is nearly as old as human society itself. It was not a practice limited to the enslavement of Africans. This is a mythologized, selective history that was advanced by neomarxists to sow division in the West. In the mid-19th century, America, Britain, and even Russia had undertaken reforms to end slavery. Slavery, however, exists in the world today. But not in the West. In China. In North Korea. In Pakistan. Even in India. The history of slavery has been cherrypicked and bastardized in order to exclusively blame white Anglo-Saxons for a practice that was nearly universal — until they ultimately put an end to it."
Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 on X - "The Slave Trade Reparations Trap Is Already Set
On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Britain and other former colonial powers enter into "good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice" for the transatlantic slave trade. It passed 124 to three. Britain abstained. The government called this a principled stand. James Kariuki, Britain's chargé d'affaires at the UN, said the UK "continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text." Strong words. The problem is that this government has already demonstrated, in precise detail, exactly how much those words are worth. The man who championed this cause from the backbenches is now Deputy Prime Minister. In 2018, Lammy told Parliament he wanted not just an apology but reparations. In 2020, he said the process of "repairing" Britain's colonial past was "obviously financial." He is now the second most powerful figure in the government. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, said that same year that there was "a moral and legal" case for compensation. These are not old positions they have repudiated. They are positions they have declined to retract. The African Union's legal strategy is no secret. Their experts plan to seek an ICJ advisory opinion establishing reparations as a matter of international obligation. They chose this route because it worked. A previous ICJ opinion on Chagos prompted Starmer to hand over £30 billion of British sovereign territory rather than "break international law." The reparations movement noted the outcome. Tuesday's resolution is the first brick in the same foundation. The abstention is not a defence. It is a waiting room. Look at who voted in favour. China. Iran. Russia. India. This is the moral coalition that has appointed itself arbiter of Britain's historical guilt. China, which runs the largest forced labour system currently operating on earth. Iran, whose government funds proxy militias and whose record on human rights requires no elaboration. Russia, prosecuting a war of territorial conquest in Europe. These governments did not vote yes because they have thought seriously about Atlantic slavery. They voted yes because a financially and legally weakened Britain serves their interests, and because Western self-flagellation is a gift that keeps giving. The resolution contains a revealing admission. Its supporters openly ranked the transatlantic trade as more grave than the Arab slave trade, which ran for 1,300 years and took millions of Africans across the Sahara and Indian Ocean. The reason given: scale and duration. By that measure, the Arab trade should face equal scrutiny. It does not. The resolution targets Western nations and leaves others untouched. Some historical criminals are in the dock. Others helped write the charges. The US representative said so plainly. He rejected the idea of ranking atrocities by political convenience and accused the resolution's backers of using history as a weapon. Only the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against. Britain could not manage even that. There is a pattern here that is no longer possible to mistake for coincidence. Gibraltar. Chagos. And now this. Each time, the same sequence: international legal pressure applied, ministers express disagreement, then Britain writes the cheque. Starmer did not create the reparations movement. But he handed it its proof of concept. The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them. When the ICJ opinion arrives, and the Foreign Office begins its familiar audit of what international law requires, that question will answer itself.
"The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them.""
Daniel Hannan on X - "Every country practised slavery. African nations more enthusiastically and more recently than most. So why go after Britain, which is unique in its determination to stamp out the foul trade? Why not, say, China or Nigeria or Saudi? Because Britain keeps inviting its enemies to have a go. It will not sanction countries that back motions like this. Incredibly, it would not even vote against the motion."
UK should pay slavery reparations, says UN - "The resolution was announced by John Mahama, Ghana’s president, following a meeting with repatriation experts in Accra in 2025. The meeting was supported by the Open Society Foundations, an international fund founded by George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire. The Telegraph previously revealed that the organisation, along with a host of charities and funds, had pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the reparations movement."
Winston Marshall on X - "Worse than the 70-80 million killed by Mao? Worse than the 20-60 million killed in Soviet Union? Worse than the millions of Hindus killed in Medieval India? Worse than the Arab slave trade of 14m Africans? The UN is just a tool for those who hate the West"
Templarpilled on X - ">be British Empire
>decide that you want to end slavery
>no, not just in your own lands, that would be nothing special
>slavery is so evil it needs to go worldwide
>unleash the Royal Navy
>show everyone who rules the waves
>countless brave sailors now won't return home
>but it's worth it
>the future generations will be thankful for their sacrifice, right?
>right?"
Escaping the Woke Jungle, ‘National Geographic’ Reclaims Its Legacy - " A lot of the problems with NatGeo during this time most likely stemmed from its editor-in-chief, Susan Goldberg. Goldberg left a job at Bloomberg News for National Geographic in 2014, where she stayed until she was replaced in 2022 by current editor Nathan Lump. In preparation for the reopening of the new museum, I purchased three recent issues of National Geographic. I was pleasantly surprised. The March 2026 issue features stories about the resurrection of the traditional Scottish language; an archaeological dig to find the remains of ancient Vikings; jazz cafes in Japan where vinyl listening is popular; and a photo essay on “the kaleidoscopic beauty of swamps.” The April issue features a cover story on a newly discovered shipwreck from the Byzantine Empire; a story on the introduction of modernist architecture into national parks; and a story on a stunning new dinosaur museum in Abu Dhabi. February’s National Geographic featured a cover story on non-alcoholic beer (I’m a fan); a wonderful piece on the popularity of country music in Brazil; and an exploration with wolf hunters in Kazakhstan."
The Left’s War on Reality - "From equating masks worn by immigration officers and police with the masks worn by terrorists and criminals—often by the very same people who once demanded permanent masking during COVID—to reflexive political opposition that requires taking a complete 180-degree turn from where someone stood on an issue just a week ago, it seems clear, at least to me, that we are in the middle of a war on objectivity. The examples themselves are revealing. In the case of immigration enforcement, the individuals being deported are frequently criminals and often associated with criminal organizations, which creates an obvious and rational reason for officers to conceal their identities. Even so, their affiliation with law enforcement is plainly visible on their uniforms and equipment. As for the second example, the absurdity is self-evident. Apparently intellectual honesty and consistency are no longer considered essential virtues in public debate... We are drawn to narratives in which confusion is resolved and truth ultimately triumphs over uncertainty. Progressive ideology, by contrast, often depends on people never recognizing objective reality at all. Instead, it thrives on attention to the sizzle of the steak rather than the quality of the meat—or even whether the steak exists in the first place. Many contemporary political movements operate on precisely this principle. The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, was fueled in part by the “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative in the Ferguson case, a claim later shown through investigation and forensic evidence to be false. Similarly, the slogan of a “Gazan genocide” often circulates without reference to population data, military realities, or the historical context of the conflict. These narratives persist not because they are objectively accurate but because they generate powerful perceptions of injustice. Those perceptions become politically valuable, and institutions often hesitate to challenge them directly, fearing that doing so might provoke unrest—or simply destroy a politically useful storyline. The real danger lies in what happens over time. Uncorrected perception gradually hardens into a kind of pseudo-objective truth. What begins as a claim becomes an assumption. What begins as an assumption eventually becomes “conventional wisdom.” Once that happens, the original facts scarcely matter at all. This is why movements built on perception work so hard to protect those perceptions. It is also why progressive rhetoric so often relies on ambiguity, euphemism, and carefully constructed narratives rather than direct engagement with empirical reality. Objective truth is dangerous to such systems because it collapses the illusion—and that is precisely why objectivity itself has become the enemy. Truth, after all, is very difficult to control once it gets loose."
Senator Chris McDaniel | Facebook - "We didn’t wake up one morning and decide to hate each other. Somebody pushed first. For years now, we’ve been told that government is a “social contract.” An implied bargain among citizens about how we live together. Fine. If that’s the framework, then conservatives have offered clear, reasonable terms. We’ll leave you alone, in exchange for you leaving us alone. That means we keep the fruits of our labor. We raise and educate our children. We worship our God. We keep our firearms. And we exercise our rights as they’re recognized pursuant to the Constitution. That bargain requires restraint on both sides. Conservatives have honored it. The polarization we see today didn’t come from conservatives tearing up that deal. It came because the Democratic Party hurried toward Socialism and then declared the old terms unacceptable. Positions that were once debated became mandatory. Cultural preferences hardened into moral commands. Longstanding compromises were reopened and treated as proof of moral failure. And anyone who declined to follow wasn’t reasoned with. They were labeled. Racist. Bigot. Extremist. Deplorable. Threat to democracy. That name-calling didn’t follow polarization. It produced it. Conservatives didn’t move. We stayed where we were. We still believe in limited government, free enterprise, religious liberty, parental authority, and constitutional boundaries. Those principles didn’t change. The measuring stick did. When the Democrats moved the line, they pulled off a neat trick. They redefined everyone who stayed put as radical. Not because our views changed, but because their philosophy of government no longer tolerates restraint. And that’s the rub in this so-called social contract. A contract only works if both sides agree to limits. But the modern Democrats’ view of government isn’t built on restraint. It’s built on management. On supervision. On the idea that private choices are public problems to be fixed. Indeed, structural revolution is their admitted goal. Once that premise takes hold, leaving people alone is no longer an option. Pressure becomes inevitable. So the pressure comes. A regulation here. A mandate there. A curriculum shift. A licensing scheme. A “reasonable” restriction. More force and coercion, resulting in a culture re-made. Always justified. Always framed as necessary. Always aimed at someone else, until it isn’t. And when conservatives push back, we’re told we’re the aggressors. That insisting on being left alone is hostility. And that defending constitutional limits is extremism. But that flips the idea of a social contract on its head. One side offering peace while the other insists on control isn’t a contract at all. It’s leverage. Conservatives didn’t cause this polarization. We didn’t break the agreement. We simply refused to chase a moving target. For a long time, we tried to restrain ourselves anyway. We tried to act in good faith. We absorbed the punches, the lectures, the accusations, and the persistent demands to apologize for beliefs we’d held our entire lives. We were told to take it quietly, for the sake of “civility,” even as the rules kept changing and the pressure kept mounting. Eventually, people get tired of being hit. So conservatives did something different. We stopped looking for someone to respectfully explain our position. Instead, we hired someone to punch back. That’s where Donald Trump came in. Not as a philosopher. Not as a pastor. Not as a model of decorum. But as a counterpunch. As a refusal to keep apologizing. As a signal that we were done pretending the blows weren’t landing. Trump didn’t create the anger. He revealed it. He didn’t invent the conflict. He named it. And he didn’t polarize America. He gave voice to millions of Americans who were tired of being told to sit down, shut up, and take it. You may not like the punch. You may not like the man throwing it. But don’t pretend it came out of nowhere. It came after years of pressure. And here we are in 2026, unhappy witnesses to a republic in decline. At the end of it all, I just hope we don’t hate the Democrats more than we love the Constitution. While fighting monsters, we should be careful not to become one ourselves."
evan loves worf on X - "Yeah leftists don’t like war crimes"
Wilfred Reilly on X - "Unless they're the GOOD war crimes, against the BAD people. The Tutsis The cock-a-roaches The Kulaks The 9 year old daughters of Wermacht soldiers The Indian businessmen The Jewish businessmen The ethnic Chinese businessmen Batista's men The burnt nuns in Spain The 7th Cavalry The Boer Me You On and on it goes."
Elizabeth May just sponsored a petition asking Parliament to declare an LGBTQ genocide in Canada. : r/CanadianConservative - "The word "genocide" officially has no meaning or value anymore."
"I've never heard of a genocide where the population is growing."
Meme - CNN @CNN: "Have you ever noticed the popularity of white robots? The reason for these shades of technological white may be racism, according to new research."
William Strunk, Jr. @cdrusnret: "Since robots are slaves, CNN thinks they should be black, not white."
Grievance mongering woke people will never run out of "problems" to "solve"
Javier Milei Quotes (Fan) on X - "Javier Milei: “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.” “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.”"
Thread by @xwanyex on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "These people very obviously hate white people. So much of the world makes sense if you just allow yourself to say that out loud. I know it still sounds cringe to a lot of you, but it also just happens to be the truth.
I make this exact point quite often, but there was an old Ezra Klein interview with Sam Harris about the legacy of Charles Murray in which Klein argued that we don’t need to wait for racists to literally say the words, “I am a racist. I hate Black people.” in order to conclude that they are a racist. If that standard applies to the works of Charles Murray, for crying out loud, then it obviously extends to very large portions of the mainstream left. I am asking you and Ezra Klein and everybody else to apply this exact same logic to the left, at which point you will see quite clearly that they hate white people. It explains everything that is otherwise confusing. They just simply hate white people. They hold white people to a different standard. They think of white people differently from people of all other races. They feel animosity toward white people in their very gut. They think that white people are particularly vile, vicious, and violent. Let yourself let the world make sense."
Jacked Catman on X - "Murray does not hate black people. Saying things like IQ predicts crime and IQ has different distributions within race isn't bias, it's truth. Kendi/others are clearly anti-white. There is no objectivity to the analysis, no hard truths. The comparison is unfair to Murray."
wanye on X - "Let me be clear: I’m saying that the same argument fits *much better* when applied to the left than it does to Charles Murray, who I believe to be a good and honorable person. If Klein, on the other hand, thinks that it applies to Murray, then he *must* think the same of almost the entire left."
MAZE on X - "Gavin Newsom's wife recalls telling prisoners at San Quentin about running over and killing her sister with a golf cart. She said that she wasn't punished because it was an accident but that the prisoners are doing life even though theirs was "probably an accident too.""
wanye on X - "There are many things to dislike about progressivism, even just from a purely aesthetic point of view, and so we spend a lot of time on here ridiculing it on that basis, but it’s important always to remember that the main problem with progressivism is that it’s not true. It’s actually just not true that accidentally running over your sister when you’re seven years old is the equivalent of murdering someone or committing some other violent crime. It’s actually just not true that most people in prison are innocent. It’s actually just not true that most of the people in prison committed their crime unintentionally. When you talk to progressives, what you find is that they hold views about the world that are just simply not true. Maybe the aesthetics would still be bad, even if their claims were true, but their claims are not true."
I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 on X - "Leftist claims grass lawns are based on “white supremacy” and are “racist,” and she wants to bring back unkempt landscapes with weeds."
Will Tanner on X - "She is largely correct Leftism is both inextricably intertwined with anti-whiteism, at this point, and is entropy incarnate: to have a well-maintained and attractive lawn is to show one cares about order and aesthetic appeal, and is willing to expend resources on cultivating that rather than funneling resources into the biomass beast of the welfare state. As the left wishes to smash all beauty, cultivation, and civilization with equality, replacing laws with weeds is indeed the leftist thing to do"
captive dreamer on X - "Gavin Newsom's wife: we have to use the powers of government to stop boys from becoming right wing"
simon evans on X - "Every clip I see of this woman, she is more and more nakedly “saying the quiet part out loud” evil. As always, one of the biggest tells of the mad LW ideologue is the throwaway, unchallenged “we know”. And of course oblivious to the fact that it’s precisely the hyper progressive atmosphere she has created in her home that is driving her son towards the comparatively fresh or at least breathable air of Andrew Tate."
It's telling that she is openly saying that she wants the government to enforce her political ideology onto tech companies and entrench it after they leave office. Government censorship and reeducation are good when they push the left wing agenda
Andy on X - "Political content on instagram is funny. Virtually all right wing content is videos of things happening in the world.. virtually all left wing content is rants and lectures."
Kangmin Lee | 이강민 on X - "It's because right-wingers live in reality, while left-wingers refuse to. Right-wing content = showing videos of looting, murders, and unhygienic, dysfunctional third-world behavior Left-wing content = rants and complaints from their own bedrooms about how women don’t need men and jailing people is racist"
Rupa Subramanya on X - "Islamic private schools in Canada are expanding rapidly, supported in provinces like Alberta by public funding, and, in certain cases, by financing linked to the Islamic Development Bank, where Iran is among the largest shareholders. My latest."
Time to shut down Catholic schools. There's no reason for the state to be funding religious education
