Movie Message @MovieMessage

For the first time in recorded history, a civilization has decided that the most enlightened virtue is to surrender its culture, heritage, women, and children without putting up any defence. Suicidal empathy shall prove to be the demise of the West.

Horror w Hiszpanii. Około 20 ofiar śmiertelnych, płonące ulice, splądrowane sklepy i domy, Hiszpanie bici i upokażani. Służby bezradne. Obywatele pozostawieni sami sobie. Tak się kończy lewacka ideologia.

x.com/i/article/2079…

.@realBrandonGill is a rock star. I love this guy. Watch him eviscerate the Director of the Smithsonian, “Is Mickey Mouse racist?” She can’t exactly answer it. Then, he asks if being “polite” is white supremacy? This is brilliant.

@EricSyfdroid1 @ManagerTactical It was brilliant.

@TheChelseaForum @ChelseaFC It’s awesome. England are soft. Get over it. Enzo is amazing. I hope he stays.

@CFCPys England is weak.

Hello Mrs. Owens, You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson "wasn't even there." That you felt "confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk." He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: "I am, I'm sorry." He engraved "Hey Fascist! Catch!" on the ammunition a month before he used it. You said police "didn't even question" Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it. You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson's DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days. You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater. You called Erika Kirk a "clinical psychopath" to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was "an occult ritual." You said Charlie was "sitting in a pentagram." You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu. You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man's name. And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson's own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They're challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely. Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him. So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath. Every single one failed. I don't know why you did this. I'm not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I've spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man's murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow. The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality... under oath, on the record, where it counts. I'll be here for all of it... because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and @TPUSA and @MrsErikaKirk from evil.

@frankmikesmith And they got booted out of the World Cup early.

@libsoftiktok It’s so sad. She’s trying so hard, but reality is a bitch.

@CFCPys @NickRTFM Lukaku is slow and stupid.

All this crying from Europe is because of one thing and one thing only: The rest of the world is terrified that we’re getting good at soccer

@MenInBlazers Ask allah to help.

@stoolpresidente They’ll say he should have been under more control, but I hear you.

A critical element that the "rulebook purists" arguing Balogun deserved a red card are conveniently overlooking: BALOGUN was the one who was challenged from behind. The Bosnian player played *through* Balogun from behind and placed himself in the path of Balogun's natural step. When he begins taking that step, Balogun has no idea the Bosnian player would even be in front of him. In that sense, you can't really even consider his move a "challenge." It was simply a step that incidentally landed in the same place the opponent's foot did. In fact, the reason Balogun's step came down so hard is *because* the Bosnian player challenged into him and knocked him off balance. This is not "reckless" or "excessive force" by any stretch of the imagination. The red card was *obviously* unjustified from the outset. The only thing FIFA got wrong here is not immediately suspending the red card after the match. x.com/KanekoaTheGrea…

@markgoldbridge But Neymar cried well.

@WasEinHumburg Piss off you big crybaby.

Grok does: VAR (Video Assistant Referee) protocols, per IFAB/FIFA guidelines, limit slow-motion replays mainly to factual elements like point of contact in physical offences (e.g., fouls/tackles), player/offence position, ball out of play, or handball facts. Normal/realtime speed is used for judging the intensity or seriousness of an offence. In Folarin Balogun’s red card incident (USMNT vs. Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2026 World Cup round of 32), this came up controversially. The on-field ref initially saw no card (not even a yellow). VAR recommended an on-field review based on slow-motion and still images showing the opponent’s ankle buckling under contact during a 50/50 ball challenge. Former Premier League ref Andy Davies (and others) called it a misapplication: Slow-mo distorted the play, exaggerating intensity and leading to the red for serious foul play (SFP). Protocols say slow-mo shouldn’t drive the recommendation or intensity assessment—realtime should. The review shouldn’t have happened based on that footage. The tackle looked bad in slow-mo/freeze-frames (and might meet red card criteria by letter of the law), but critics argue it was accidental in normal speed, context mattered, and VAR overreached. This has fueled debate on slow-mo biasing decisions by removing real-time flow. Bottom line: The rule exists to prevent slow-mo from turning marginal plays into harsher calls. Many see Balogun’s red as a clear breach

You can’t isolate a freeze frame and build your case, mate. I don’t care how long you’ve played. US player was running toward the ball, Paraguayan player ran -at- the US player and caused a shoulder-to-shoulder collusion. Balogun had to put his foot somewhere in the aftermath and it happened to be on his ankle. It looks awful in a still frame, but it’s not a foul, which is what the referee decided in the moment. VAR illegally intervened, telling the referee to look at slow-mo and still frames (just like you are now), which they are only supposed to use for issues like timing of when a ball is kicked. They should not have been involved at all because no foul was called. Everything is worse in slow-mo and freeze frame. But just because balogun fell on the guy doesn’t mean he should be issued a red card. Messi, on the other hand, putting studs on a players calf while running behind him, not even trying to get the ball, is a different scenario.