Biagio Vincenzo

Sólo para ver como está el patio. Todos en contra de Boca 🇸🇪 Odio a los skaters. Con el mate 🧉 como estandarte. Fan del @elpatovicadeafa

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@emicoroniti El peor twit del 2026

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@GadSaad Talk to @ElPatovicaDeAfa

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

The Left and Islam, these two ideologies should be at war, one claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, secularism, and equality, while the other is rooted in medieval theocracy, submission, and absolute control.

Yet, they’ve formed a perfect symbiotic relationship, using each other for power, influence, and the destruction of Western civilization from within.

For the left, Islam is a weapon.

It is the ultimate tool to dismantle Western values, weaken national identity, and push their own radical agenda.

They don’t care about Islam itself, they exploit it, knowing that the ideology carries a powerful victim narrative that they can weaponize against their political enemies.

The left thrives on oppression narratives.

Islam, with its deep-rooted sense of historical grievance, fits perfectly into the intersectional hierarchy of the “oppressed.”

The left despises Christianity because it upholds traditional morality. But they need a battering ram to dismantle it.

Islam, with its aggressive opposition to Christianity, becomes a convenient ally.

The left knows that Western-educated, patriotic voters won’t buy into their radical agenda.

So they import millions of people from Islamic countries who are more likely to vote for big government, hate Western traditions, and demand “tolerance” while refusing to assimilate.

The more chaos, the better, because a broken society is easier to control.

The left thrives on censorship.

What better way to shut down debate than by labeling any criticism of Islam as “hate speech”?

The left uses Islam as a shield, calling any factual discussion about jihad, sharia, or terrorism “racist.”

But Islam is not a passive tool, it is using the left just as much, if not more.

While the left believes it is controlling Islam, Islam is infiltrating and manipulating the left to expand its dominance.

Islamic jihadists understand that they don’t need a military conquest to take over the West, they just need to infiltrate.

With leftist backing, they gain positions in politics, media, academia, and law enforcement, where they can quietly reshape policy in their favor.

The left’s obsession with open borders and unrestricted immigration is Islam’s golden ticket.

Once a Muslim population reaches a critical mass, it doesn’t assimilate, it dominates.

London, Paris, and Sweden’s no-go zones are the results of Islam using democracy to establish enclaves where sharia law reigns supreme.

Islamic jihadists have learned to disguise their theocratic ambitions under the language of human rights.

They attach themselves to LGBTQ movements, feminist causes, and racial justice protests, even though Islam itself stands against everything these groups claim to support.

It’s a calculated move, gain leftist support, then turn against them when power is secured.

The left believes it can control Islam.

But history shows that every time Islam allies with a non-Islamic force, it ultimately turns against its so-called allies.

The communists in Iran learned this the hard way when they helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, only to be executed en masse by the same Islamic jihadists they had supported.

The same fate awaits the left.

Radical feminists think they’re empowering women, until they’re forced into hijabs.

LGBTQ activists think they’re fighting for equality, until they’re thrown off rooftops.

Socialists think they’re creating utopia, until they find themselves living under the Caliphate.

Islam is not here to be anyone’s pawn. It is here to conquer. And the left, in its blind hatred of the West, is paving the way for its own destruction.

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@SANGREXENEIZE Sangre, su Copa Libertadores 2023 no fue para nada mala. Salvando su pésimo
partido en la final, tuvo un muy buen rendimiento, influyendo para bien en ataque y ayudando al equipo. Un 4 general y un ídolo que pudo ser y nunca lo fue. Su lesión terminó de liquidarlo. Una lástima.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Islamism is Islam without a Caliphate.

Islam lost it's Caliphate in 1924 for the first time ever, and four years later the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to restore the Caliphate, and the Jews who were living in peace as second class citizen under the Islamic Caliphate, suddenly became colonizers because they asked for soverignty.

Some people want you to think that Islam was peaceful, but then "Islamism", which is according to them a political ideology that has nothing to do with Islam, hijacked Islam and made it violent.

The truth is that Islamism was the foreign policy doctrine of the Islamic Caliphate for 1,300 years, and when the caliphate fell, Muslims decided to carry out that foreign policy themselves, as groups.

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@SANGREXENEIZE 16to. Pero tendría altas chances de ser campeón como Platense, Belgrano y Estudiantes.

[DAN @GordoDan_]

Todos los hombres son violadores en potencia. Salvo los violadores de verdad, que son buenas personas en potencia.

[Jonathan Eric Lewis @LewisJonathanE]

There was no Palestinian national identity under the Ottomans, so there were no demands for a Palestinian state

Sure, there was a slowly emerging Arab nationalist movement — largely among Christians, mind you — but there was no coherent sense of "Palestiniannness"

To the degree that Palestinian national identity emerged in the 1930s-1960s, it was almost entirely based on an opposition to Zionism

That makes Palestinian nationalism — whether real or manufactured — structurally unique in that it's the only nationalism that doesn't seek self-determination, so much as the negation of another people's self-determination

[Salvador Cruz Quintana @boroscq]

El wokismo no es simplemente un hijo degenerado de la "French Theory", como si las ideas viajaran solas por el aire y conquistaran universidades por seducción literaria.

Las ideas no mueven la historia por sí mismas. Las ideas se insertan en las instituciones, universidades, editoriales, departamentos, tribunales, partidos, ministerios, fundaciones, empresas, medios de comunicación...

El problema no es Foucault escribiendo en París. El problema es Foucault convertido en aparato administrativo.

El wokismo no es sólo una enfermedad intelectual. Es una ideología funcional de sociedades políticas en descomposición, especialmente en imperios satisfechos que empiezan a perder confianza en su propia estructura histórica.

No es una mera estupidez, es una tecnología de poder. La deconstrucción funciona como una trituración de formas históricas objetivas.

Tritura la nación, la familia, el sexo, la religión, la escuela, la autoridad, el mérito, la continuidad histórica, la idea de verdad, la idea de herencia...

Pero no lo hace desde una crítica racional superior, sino desde una sospecha universal que deja intacto un nuevo dogma.

Porque cuando se destruye una institución real, no aparece el vacío. Aparece otra institución.

Si se destruye la familia, aparece el Estado terapeuta.

Si se destruye la escuela como transmisora, aparece la escuela como laboratorio ideológico.

Si se destruye la nación, aparecen las identidades fragmentarias.

Si se destruye la verdad común, aparece la verdad gestionada por comités, expertos, sensibilidades y censores.

Es decir, la deconstrucción no libera al individuo. Lo entrega a otros poderes menos visibles.

Y no todo es poder, no porque el poder intervenga en las ciencias, en las instituciones o en los discursos.

La geometría no es verdadera porque la imponga una clase dominante. La cirugía no funciona porque la bendiga una institución burguesa. Un puente no se sostiene por consenso discursivo. Un antibiótico no cura por hegemonía cultural.

Hay verdades que no dependen de opiniones, identidades ni relatos, porque están operatoriamente ancladas en la realidad.

Una técnica funciona o no funciona. Un misil alcanza o no alcanza. Una presa resiste o se rompe. Un diagnóstico acierta o mata.

Por eso el relativismo posmoderno vive de una trampa. Niega la verdad en teoría, pero depende de ella en la práctica. Nadie quiere un cirujano deconstructivo cuando le abren el pecho.

El wokismo es una especie de religión política secularizada, pero de baja calidad doctrinal.

Tiene pecado original, que ya no es Adán, sino Occidente.

Tiene culpa hereditaria, que ya no viene por la caída, sino por raza, sexo, clase o nación.

Tiene confesión pública, que son las disculpas rituales.

Tiene herejía, que es la incorrección política.

Tiene inquisidores, que son activistas, burócratas, periodistas y departamentos universitarios.

Tiene salvación, que nunca llega, porque siempre aparece una nueva opresión que purgar.

Pero a diferencia del cristianismo, que al menos construyó catedrales, hospitales, universidades, órdenes, liturgias, calendarios y una idea fuerte de persona, esta religión política produce sobre todo lenguaje administrativo, culpa flotante y vigilancia moral.

No crea una civilización. Administra su resentimiento. Este fenómeno encaja con la izquierda indefinida, aquella que ya no sabe cuál es su sujeto político real.

La vieja izquierda podía equivocarse, pero hablaba de obreros, salarios, producción, propiedad, industria, soberanía, Estado, sindicatos, clases sociales...

La nueva izquierda habla de identidades, heridas, símbolos, sensibilidades, lenguaje inclusivo, privilegios invisibles y subjetividades vulnerables.

Ha pasado de la fábrica al seminario. Del conflicto económico al expediente psicológico. De la organización política a la liturgia moral. De transformar la realidad a fiscalizar el lenguaje. Ya no construye abundancia, gestiona la culpa.

[Krisztina Maria @KrisztinaMaria]

Why Islam cannot coexist with the West.

Let us talk about what political Islam actually is.

Because it is not faith, spirituality or a person’s personal relationship with a God.

It is a political ideology. A law-religion. A total system that regulates everything - what you eat, what you wear, who you love, what you may say, what you may think, and what happens to you if you leave it.

This is not religion in the sense we know it in the West.

It is a political apparatus of power with a God as the supreme argument.

And here is what separates Islam from all other major world religions.

The Quran is not up for negotiation.

Christianity has undergone reformation. Enlightenment. Internal criticism. Theological development over centuries. This created room to separate faith from state apparatus - church from state.

Islam has not undergone that reformation. The Quran is regarded by believing Muslims as the direct and infallible word of God. Not interpreted, not culturally conditioned and not historically relativized.

That means what is written….applies.

Apostasy is punishable by death. This is not the extremists’ interpretation. It is the text.

Blasphemy is punishable by death. ISIS did not invent that. It is the text.

A woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man. It is the text.

When the text cannot be reformed, religion becomes first and foremost law. Not faith or spirituality. Law. And law demands enforcement.

And then there is what the West will not say out loud.

Political Islam has a 1,400 year documented history of expansion. Not invitation. Expansion.

Everywhere it came, local cultures, languages, religions and identities were either wiped out or subjugated.

The same system is now in the West.

Not by the sword….yet.

But through demography, special treatment, legal pressure and intimidation of everyone who speaks against it.

With Western politicians who call it culture. With Western media who call criticism of it hatred. With naive Western sympathizers who defend a system that would kill them for their lifestyle - because among other things they hate America and Israel more than they love their own freedom.

Let me emphasize.

One can have a Muslim background and personally choose freedom over system. It happens. Not often (because it has consequences). But it happens. I respect that.

But Islam as a textually literal, unreformed political law-religion - fully implemented - is incompatible with freedom. With equality. With freedom of speech. With everything the West is built on.

This is not “just an opinion.” It is a consequence of reading what is actually written.

Either you stand on the side of freedom. Or you stand on the side of the system. There is no third choice.

And note this.

Mohammed bin Zayed - the leader of the UAE - is actually the most interesting case in this entire discussion.

In 2005, Zayed told the American ambassador that his biggest concern was Wahhabism and that what could replace the Saudi royal family would be an ISIS-like Wahhabi theocracy.

He saw it. He understood it. And he acted on it.

The UAE has built a system that actively combats political Islam. Not perfectly. But they are on their way.

Zayed has had the Abrahamic Family House built in Abu Dhabi - a mosque, a church and a synagogue side by side. He donated land for the first Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi.

Pope Francis visited the UAE - the first time ever a Catholic pope set foot on the Arabian Peninsula.

The UAE’s foreign minister warned Europe directly in 2017:

“There will come a day when we see far more radical extremists coming out of Europe because of lack of decision-making and political correctness. I am sorry - but that is pure ignorance.”

The bitter point is that Muslim leaders in the Middle East are warning Europe about political Islam. Europe is not listening. And calls those who say the same thing at home racists.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Good luck to all of us.✝️❤️‍🔥🪽

[𝗖𝘂𝗯𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻 𝗛 𝗱𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗶́𝗮 @CubaOrtografia]

El gran engaño moral de la izquierda

Desde hace más de un siglo, la izquierda ha sabido vender el mal con rostro de virtud. Ha dominado el arte de disfrazar la opresión con el lenguaje de la compasión, de envolver el poder absoluto en discursos de igualdad y de convertir la culpa en herramienta política. Es, quizás, la operación moral más exitosa del mundo moderno: convencer a generaciones idiotizadas de que su causa es sagrada mientras llena cárceles, levanta muros y destruye naciones enteras.

En nombre del pueblo, de la justicia o de la libertad, millones de personas fueron sometidas, vigiladas y asesinadas. Sin embargo, la marca sigue viva. Se reinventa, cambia de acento, de bandera y de moda, pero mantiene intacto su núcleo nocivo: el dominio sobre el individuo, la sospecha hacia la independencia y el odio mortal a quien prospera sin pedir permiso al Estado. Detrás de cada revolución roja hay un sacerdote secular disfrazado que promete el paraíso y termina construyendo un infierno administrativo, un país vigilado por burócratas que reparten miseria con aire mesiánico.

El siglo XIX le dio a la izquierda su primera gran mitología: el obrero sufriente, la fábrica opresora, el patrón invisible. Con esa imagen fundacional, Marx y sus apóstoles inauguraron una religión laica con su propio evangelio, su profeta barbudo y su promesa de redención universal. Pero el verdadero milagro no fue la revolución, sino la narrativa. La izquierda descubrió que bastaba con decir que luchaba por los pobres para eximirse de todo juicio moral, incluso cuando los pobres eran los primeros en morir bajo sus tétricos experimentos sociales.

Así se formó el primer disfraz: el del redentor de los oprimidos. Un traje tan eficaz que aún hoy sigue vistiendo a políticos que viajan en jet privado mientras predican austeridad, a dictadores que censuran en nombre del pueblo y a intelectuales de plastilina rancia que se autoproclaman rebeldes desde un aula plenamente climatizada. La izquierda convirtió la indignación en capital simbólico y la culpa en arma ideológica. Todo el que no se arrodilla ante su dogma es un enemigo espiritual, un pecador que debe ser cancelado, exiliado o reeducado.

El segundo disfraz es el del erudito rebelde, el sabio que cree luchar contra el sistema mientras se aprovecha y vive de él. Universidades enteras se transformaron en talleres de ideología, fábricas de resentimiento donde el talento se sustituye por militancia y la razón por emoción. Allí se repite una consigna: el capitalismo es cruel, la revolución es buena y quien no lo entienda necesita terapia de conciencia social. Es el nuevo catecismo de los descerebrados.

El tercer disfraz, el más efectivo y seductor, es el del joven indignado. Ese eterno adolescente político que cree descubrir la injusticia por primera vez en la historia, que se siente héroe porque marcha, que confunde utopía con superioridad ética. La izquierda lo alimenta, lo acaricia, lo convence de que luchar contra el sistema es la forma más pura de existir, aunque siempre termine repitiendo el mismo guion escrito hace más de cien años.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

https://t.co/e7DGopQWlj

[Luis Carlos 🏴‍☠️ One Piece @LuisCarlos]

What is happening in Venezuela?
To my English speaking friends
Paola Romero. Philosopher. / 6 January 2026

[First: thank you for taking an interest in Venezuela, and for having a personal concern for me for my family. My relatives back home are safe.]

For 26 years, Venezuelans have exhausted all democratic and non-violent means to oust the Maduro regime. I cannot hammer this enough. It is from this struggle that we are judging current affairs. And personally, I judge what is happening thinking of my friend Jesus, my university Professor Rocio, and many others I’ve met along the way, how are in prison and have been isolated for more than a year. In short, as I write this, I don’t know if they are alive or dead.

In this sense, the extraction of Maduro is something we celebrate, like drinking a bitter drink: we knew and know that an American-led extraction would bring new, unforeseen problems, but we also knew that we were unable to bring down a dictatorship without force. This is the crux of our conundrum, our source of celebration and worry. Our existential contradiction.

The oil
The idea that the US “is only in for the oil” should be unpacked. Yes, Trump is carving a new world order, on the assumption that America has to recover and oversee control over the Hemisphere. Yet, the idea that Venezuela was an independent, sovereign country, and that the Americans are coming in to take what is ours is WRONG: Venezuela has been invaded and controlled by foreign interests for two decades. China is the major beneficiary of our oil and most importantly our rare earth minerals. The latter are basic for the AI race. Cuba infiltrated our military, so true that 32 Cuban soldiers died in the Maduro extraction operation - he could only trust them. When the US says that they are going to get back the oil Venezuela took from them, they are referring to the debt Venezuela has to American oil companies, due to the mismanagement on the part of ‘chavismo ‘ of the oil industry. The idea that we are little lambs and the wolf is coming to take what is ours is wrong: it was Chavez, and then Maduro and his followers ,who are responsible for looting of our national reserves.

Does this mean Americans won’t do the same? That’s to be seen Before the catastrophic collapse of our oil industry, American paid well, timely and in cash. That paid for the public university I went to, the roads we transit and the preferential oil-dollars that paid for my Masters. We are the result of those golden years of high oil prices. In short, there is nothing morally wrong or politically evil in the fact that we have, and will keep living from selling our oil to the world. The problem is that chavismo, having for a decade the highest ever oil revenues in our modern history, decided to put it in their pockets. The difference this time, we hope, is that the revenue of that public good will be managed by COMPETENT people and under the RULE OF LAW. This is the crux that the extraction of Maduro and a chavismo-led transition presents. Are we heading, step by step, to a more stable and legitimate political system? I cannot answer that right now.

Can good governance, ran by VENEZUELANS and a competitive oil industry, with strong ties to the US, be achieved?

The “transition”
This leads me to the ongoing, minute by minute development of the so called “transition”.

The US has bet on giving chavismo a “chance”, after the extraction of Maduro. There was no way Maria Corina Machado, our leader in hiding and now in exile, could take the reins during this uncertain, fraught and unprecedented period. Venezuela is a mafia state, ruled by the military. Maria Corina, in my opinion, does not have sufficient influence or contact with the illegitimate structures of the regime. That doesn’t make her weak: quite the opposite! It’s been her uncompromising leadership and relentless condemnation of the dictatorship that won her the hearts and votes of Venezuelans. But our votes and the democratic will of the people do not seem to be a currency with enough value to secure us a place in the negotiating table taking place right now. Our present tragedy is that, for the time being, we Venezuelans, the civil society, the democratic opposition, have been left out of the political fight between the two powers, the US and the de facto regime. Partly because our political leaders are either in prison, in hiding or in exile. Partly because the US wanted to guarantee there wouldn’t be military coups following the extraction (for that, they needed to keep parts of the regime in place), partly because Trump personally doesn’t trust the opposition at this very moment and given the high stakes, to be capable of governing. The political value of venezuela’s civil society longing for good governance is a “weak” currency in the table of real politik.

Am I angry? Yes. Does this mean we will never seat on the table? No. Our democratic currency might gain value along the way. Americans need stability domestically to further their economic interest. That’s when we might be useful.

Real politik
In this sense, the Americans are playing real politic, and has assumed those in power as the ones who hold the de facto reigns. This, I think, is a good thing: if Maria Corina was placed in the spotlight to lead the transition, we would have to deal with the “she’s a puppet of Trump” narrative, which would have done huge damage to her. I personally think that it’s better she’s still in hiding.

Delcy Rodirguez, Maduro’s vice president (and a fervent communist), in less than 48 hours has gone from saying they will defend Maduro and fight against `American imperialism’, to saying that they want to cooperate in good faith with the US.

Will they stay for long? Will the chavismo of the transition abide to the requirement of the US? Can their long-held anti imperialism and hated to the US be redressed? They are evil, astute, immoral. But they have an Aquiles heal: they’re ideological and resentful. So I have an instinct, a hunch, that they will not behave as the Americans want them to.

In short, talk of regime change, interventionism, sovereignty, etc seem to me to be old, pre Trump vocabulary that needs to be reinvented to properly understand and analyse what is going on in Venezuela. We are facing an unprecedented situation, that will possibly repeat itself in other parts of this new geo political order that is unfolding. In this sense, Venezuela is a micro experiment and a central piece in the world of powers that are after resources (mainly minerals) in the world of data centres, AI, energy independence and drone warfare. Do I like that world? Do I fear it? That’s nor here nor there. What amazes me is how many people are suddenly very offended and concerned about what is happening in Venezuela, but who never worried about our political prisoners, the loss of our political rights, the looting from the part of chavismo, the days without electricity and the hunger Venezuelans faced in the last 15 years. Why so worried now? We are sadden to see how the Trump hate is bigger and so powerful that overrides the real worry: that Venezuelans have been fighting for their freedom for years, alone, without arms, without resources.

What’s next?
Am I worried? I am cautiously optimistic. I don’t care if America has good intentions regarding Venezuela: they have economics and political interest. That doesn’t mean that our interests cannot align with theirs. The US needs some minimal political stability in Venezuela to guarantee its own economics plans. Those minimal conditions (rule of law, competitive markets, the recovery of the oil industry, etc) are, from the point of view of Venezuelans, conditions we haven’t had and have longed for for 25 years. The issue, for us, is not “they are going to take our oil”: our oil has already been taken, misused, and the industry destroyed. The issue for us is recovering a minimal set of constitutional rights and to be able to participate and I am sure win!) elections that will lead to our political participation in leading the country: to finally have a go! This will have a cost.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The Left's Permanent Alliance With Tyranny

The Western Left is trapped in a pattern that no failure ever corrects.
It is not ignorance. It is not naivety. It is a habit of mind – a reflex so ingrained it now operates without thought. Wherever power sets itself against the West, the Left leans toward it. Wherever a regime defines itself in opposition to America, Britain, or Israel, the Left suspends its moral faculties and rebrands that abdication "principle".

Venezuela is only the latest proof. The collapse of Nicolás Maduro's regime should have been uncontroversial. A bankrupt state. A stolen election. A population driven into exile by hunger, fear, and repression. A dictatorship propped up by force and foreign patrons. Yet the British Left responded not with relief, but with rage – not at the tyrant, but at the country that removed him. The moment the United States acted, the verdict was fixed. Whatever followed was irrelevant.

This is not a lapse. It is a pattern. For half a century, the British Left has attached itself to strongmen and movements whose only consistent trait is hostility to the West. Castro, Mao, Chavez, Saddam, Hamas, Iran – the names change, the instinct does not. Each was excused, romanticised, or rebranded as "resistance" while their victims were written off as collateral or lies.

The logic is brutally simple. The Left no longer judges regimes by how they treat their people. It judges them by whom they oppose. If a government crushes dissent, rigs elections, jails opponents, or starves its population, that is unfortunate but negotiable. If it also defines itself against America, that brutality becomes contextual, even admirable. Tyranny is forgiven so long as it points in the right direction.

That is why Jeremy Corbyn can call on Britain to "stand with Venezuela" while Venezuelans flee by the million. Why Diane Abbott can thunder about international law when Washington acts, yet fall silent when regimes gun down protesters. Why Ken Livingstone could fawn over Hugo Chávez even as Venezuela slid toward ruin. The people on the receiving end never matter. The alignment does.

This is why the Left's supposed anti-imperialism is a sham. American power is condemned as predatory, but Chinese expansion is waved through as development. Washington's influence is treated as neocolonialism, while Beijing's ports, mines, and debt traps are ignored. Xi Jinping builds a global empire and escapes scrutiny because his project weakens the West. That alone is enough.

Donald Trump's role in Venezuela only sharpens the reflex. Because Donald Trump acted, the act itself must be illegitimate. Trump is incidental. Had another American president done the same thing, the language would soften. When Trump does it, legality is rediscovered, sovereignty invoked, and dictators recast as victims. The rule is absolute: America must always be wrong.

This is not moral seriousness. It is inversion. Good and evil are not weighed; they are assigned. Freedom movements backed by the West are dismissed as puppets. Authoritarian regimes opposed to the West are treated as misunderstood. The Left does not fail to see oppression. It sees it and looks away, because acknowledging it would disrupt the story it tells itself about history, power, and blame.

The tragedy is not that the Left keeps backing lost causes. It is that it keeps backing the wrong side of human suffering. Again and again, it chooses ideology over people, posture over truth, and grievance over liberty. Venezuela strips away the last excuse. What remains is a political culture that would rather see a country burn than concede that the West might sometimes be right – and it will not stop.

"That is why Jeremy Corbyn can call on Britain to "stand with Venezuela" while Venezuelans flee by the million."

[Uri Kurlianchik @VerminusM]

The people who pretend to be horrified by the US capturing a criminal dictator cheered when the Palestinians snatched babies from the cradle and dragged bleeding girls from a music festival. Please forgive me if I don't give a shit about your feelings.

[Andersson Boscán @AnderssonBoscan]

Levantarse y ver la noticia de la caída de Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela. Así se siente:

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@SoyFeudaleM La con de tu madre Feudale.

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@_onlyscott Boca Juniors man. What the heck.

[Biagio Vincenzo @milangamate]

@MartinoliCuri Eric

[Casey Babb @DrCaseyBabb]

If you aren't aware of what's going on right now, let me break it down for you. Jews worldwide are being hunted down and killed. It's only day three of Hanukkah, and already we've seen:

1. Jews murdered by a jihadi father-son duo in Australia that seriously wounded many people, including my friend @Ostrov_A (thinking of you, brother).

2. Students at @BrownUniversity were murdered in a class being taught by Rachel Friedberg, a Jewish professor who leads the school's Judaic Studies program.

3. A Jewish professor of nuclear physics at M.I.T. was murdered in his home today.

4. Orthodox Jews in New York were violently assaulted on the subway.

5. Violent Palestinian protestors disrupted a peaceful Hanukkah celebration in Amsterdam. Dozens were arrested after police had to physically surround families celebrating the holiday to protect them.

6. A Jewish family in California had their home hit by gunfire because they had Hanukkah decorations up. One of the criminals shouted, "Free Palestine."

7. An Islamic terrorist attack has been foiled in Poland at a Christmas market.

8. An Islamic terrorist attack has been foiled in Germany at a Christmas market.

9. A Palestinian terrorist attack was foiled in California.

10. France has cancelled its NYE celebrations because of the terrorist threat level.

11. Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre has said that a terrorist attack in Canada is now "a realistic possibility."

I've been studying terrorism for 20 years, and I've never seen things this bad. The West is under attack – full stop. The question now is, what the hell are we going to do about it?