diana bloom
@diana_bloom_ • 7,770 subscribers
What matters is a free Iran with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi through the Lion and Sun Revolution. For the record: I'm an Iranian living in Germany.
Shorts
Videos
I went through Matt Walsh’s tweets about Vance since he became the VP nominee, and then compared them with just a handful of Walsh’s recent tweets about Trump. 🔹️Here are a few things Walsh has said about Trump lately: - Are you seriously not bored by a Trump speech at this point? - It’s been 10 years of basically the same speech. - Trump just talking about himself for 90 minutes. - Ridiculous and sad. - America’s birthday should not be about Trump. - He isn’t the star. The country is. 🔹️And here is a list of the words and phrases Walsh has used to describe and praise Vance: - only good choice - formidable political talent - great choice - great speech - by far the best VP pick of my lifetime - not even remotely close - one of the best Republicans in the country - possibly the very best - masterful - very, very good at this - the best political debate performance we’ve ever seen - calm - cool - well spoken - eloquent - brilliant - masterful performance - clearly the superior debater - typically excellent - handled it brilliantly - the most conservative guy we’ve had in the White House in decades BY FAR - effective communicator - smart - rock solid on the issues - everything that conservatives have said they’ve wanted - phenomenal - knocked it out of the park - best speech of the weekend - no contest - exactly the right tone - perfectly articulated - great stuff - incredibly talented - very gifted communicator These people are a network. Their mission is to make Vance president in 2028. They are not independent, critical thinkers evaluating each politician and what they say on its own merits. They are there to make Vance president, and they praise him religiously, no matter how dumb or wrong the things he says or does are. They want to use Trump’s legacy to shield Vance from criticism and carry him into the presidency, while simultaneously undermining Trump himself.
diana bloom24,630 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce
🔴 Wow. Listen to this. Now I'm even being mentioned live on The Charlie Kirk Show by Michael Knowles, Andrew Kolvet, and Blake Neff - framing me as maybe not being a real person again. While calling all of us "lunatics." I can only repeat myself: this is such a shame. The way they're going about this is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The way they strawmanned the critical arguments against Vance. The way they framed people opposing their defense of Vance as bots. And now they're continuing that here by claiming only they knew Charlie Kirk and that Charlie would have defended JD Vance if he were still alive. They're using their personal relationship with him for political leverage on Vance's behalf. This is sad because I still think - and I will repeat - that Charlie's position on Israel was clear, and so was his stance against people attacking Israel. I don't believe he would have accepted Vance's recent attacks on Israel without question. I'll link the 15-minute video of Vance's attacks on Israel below. Charlie isn't here anymore and can't speak for himself. I don't like bringing him into this debate either. But for the record: Andrew Kolvet started it. Andrew came into my comments and said, "Charlie was a massive supporter of JD" as if that could never have changed, and as if Charlie were incapable of changing his mind or reevaluating his views based on new information, such as Vance's recent attacks on Israel. They are abusing Charlie's legacy to help make Vance president in 2028. They act as if Charlie had no principles, especially when it came to Israel. They also act as if he could never have changed his mind and called out people - even those he once liked - when they suddenly turned against Israel. As if there weren't already a precedent for exactly that: Candace Owens.
diana bloom160,717 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce
🔴 Here is the entire segment from Mark R. Levin with Victor Davis Hanson discussing not only arming and training the Iranian people, but also supporting the establishment of a government-in-exile under Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Please watch and share widely.
diana bloom46,013 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce
🔴 Look, my entire theory is based on the following: 1. We know that Alex Bruesewitz (and his team) controls the Trump accounts. 2. Trump is being lied to. We already know he was misbriefed about Tucker Carlson (Laura Loomer corrected that), and I believe the same thing is happening again. That's why, in his Truth Social posts, Trump keeps arguing against straw men that completely miss the actual political debate. Trump seems to think that: - opposition to the deal is coming only from "Dumocrats", - that critical voices are merely claiming he lost the war (that's not what this is about), - that critics are upset about taxpayer money going to the regime (not true, only MTG said that, and her account is/was run by Bruesewitz), - that America doesn't have the stomach to see it through, even though he wanted to move forward (most critics are opposing the deal), etc. Trump's Truth Social posts read like those of someone who does not know who is opposing the deal or why they are opposing it. 3. Bruesewitz is an obvious liar, master manipulator, and professional political gaslighter. He and his friends (Anna Paulina Luna, Donald Trump Jr., and Jack Posobiec) invented an Israeli bot campaign without presenting any evidence and continue to push it relentlessly - simply to discredit anyone critical of Vance and the deal. Bruesewitz goes as far as using questionable polls, smearing accounts as Israeli bots, and may even have played a role in a large number of them being suspended all at once. 4. And then there's this: in an interview from last year, Bruesewitz explained that during the election campaign, it was his job to monitor reactions and comments under Trump's posts and brief the president on the political mood at the time. If Alex is still the one doing that, then my conclusion is simple: he is almost certainly misrepresenting the real opposition to Vance and this deal when briefing Trump. Someone, please, needs to get to the bottom of this.
diana bloom75,740 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
People were attacking me left and right because I said I was grateful to Mark Levin and that we shouldn't attack him. They accused me of being a regime agent because of that and tried to defame and smear me publicly and privately. I wasn't wrong about what I said. Mark Levin has defended the Iranian people like almost no other voice in the United States. Here he is, week after week, fighting for the Iranian people, reminding his audience of millions about us and the massacre they all forgot so quickly, but one we mourn every day. So again: Thank you, Mark R. Levin 🙏
diana bloom31,212 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce
🔴 I listen to the pro-regime side a lot. That means I do not just painfully listen through hours of what the regime lobbyists talk about in podcasts and interviews, but also to what the Woke Right says. I listen to their lies and try to get an understanding of the truth. Remember: Propaganda is always a mix of both. I listen to projection, deflection, and try to detect which accusation is a confession. Sometimes it's one word. Between two hours of coordinated propaganda, the truth seems to slip through. One word that caught my attention, that nobody else listening to this might have caught. In his recent interview with Russian agent "America is a cancer," Elizabeth Lane (or whatever her real name is), Tucker has a moment where he talks about how disappointed he is that he couldn't deliver on his (assigned) job: to prevent Trump, through his personal relationship and manipulation, from starting a war with the Islamic Republic. Tucker failed, and he is still not over it. He has talked about it multiple times and always displays how this personal failure gets to him. Then Tucker explains what he thinks Trump's plan or vision was when he started the war: kill the Ayatollah, the regime would collapse, and then a pro-Western leader - he corrects himself, "king or something" - would be in Iran. You tell me who Tucker was referring to when describing Trump's vision for a free Iran. I take from this detail the following things: ▪️Trump is aware of the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's popularity and massive political base inside Iran. He is aware that a free Iran after elections will include the Crown Prince leading Iran. And he was counting on that part of the equation when he started the war to be the outcome. ▪️All of the noise the regime lobby made up - that Trump called him the "loser prince," that Trump doesn't like the Crown Prince, doesn't take him seriously - we all knew that it was regime propaganda, but I want to reiterate that it was, and continues to be, all just lies. ▪️The part that remains open in my head to this day is: what changed? How did people inside the White House (Vance including regime lobbyists as Vance's friends and advisers) change Trump's mind? Regarding the rest, here is my assessment: ▪️Everything they describe here that the pro-Iran side is doing (vs. the pro-regime side they are both on) is what THEY are doing themselves. They had placed certain "operatives" in Trump's orbit, and they thought they could control/manipulate Trump and put him in The Truman Show. ▪️They did fail in part. Trump did and does listen to people like the late Lindsey Graham, Mark R. Levin, and Laura Loomer. They keep naming these people specifically over and over again. They hate that they can't get rid of them. They are all glad that Lindsey Graham is no longer with us. ▪️They do mention Charlie Kirk as well - as part of "their allegiance". I could write a novel about how I think all of this fits together, what truly happened and what didn't. I did write a long text explaining it, but I deleted it again. It's a different topic for a different time. I'll just repeat the obvious: Nobody has profited politically more from Charlie's death than the Woke Right. And again: Russia, the regime, and the Woke Right are all joining forces to get Tyler Robinson to walk free. Nobody is trying harder to save the man who killed Charlie by blaming everyone else (especially Israel) for his death. They put the deflection campaign out there one hour after his death (narrative control). ▪️There is one part of the interview where the Russian agent talks about how you can control Trump (anyone, for that matter) by the intel you present him with and the decisions that person makes based on that intel. I agree with her 100%. It is what I've been saying the entire time: This is a war of information, with some people surrounding Trump telling him the truth and these people surrounding Trump manipulating him in favor of saving the regime. ▪️Tucker emphasizes again how mad he is that he/they can no longer feed Trump false intel ("he lives in a biosphere where no new information comes in"). Their frustration about losing this power to some degree is a good sign. ▪️Tucker also put Marco Rubio on that list of people he considers problematic. After naming Mark Levin, he directly names Rubio. My observation is that they left Rubio out of their 'campaign of taking people down' until they saw that Vance was losing support and Rubio was gaining it instead. Now the regime's media is producing LEGO videos targeting Rubio. The Woke Right will, this is my guess, start escalating its attacks against Rubio moving forward. ▪️Why? Because they are all politically united and aligned behind the following things: 1. blaming Israel for everything, 2. making Vance (their guy) president in 2028, and 3. saving the Islamic Republic.
diana bloom16,535 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce
Please listen to the man millions of Iranians support. People hate Trump because of the lies the world tells about him. People hate Bibi Netanyahu because of the lies the world tells about him. It's the same with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Everything negative you've ever heard or read about him, I either already have or can debunk. It's a lie, a misrepresentation, taken out of context, or all of the above - born from the same source: the regime and its lobby. Get to know the man for yourself. Here is another interview that tries to frame him, trap him, and ask him hostile questions. He has been answering these kinds of hostile questions for decades. Everything about Reuters' journalistic performance in this interview is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. But, as always, the Crown Prince's answers and posture are excellent.
diana bloom14,634 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce
🔴 Am I the only one hearing this? Trita Parsi (NIAC/Quincy Institute), the No. 1 regime lobbyist - who should have been deported but who instead became Vance's adviser - with direct insider information from people sitting at the negotiating table (see the linked tweet), is openly explaining how they need to play Trump like a fiddle. They have psychologically profiled him and are appealing to exactly what he needs to hear in order to agree to a deal. Trump has to believe it's a historic deal. Trump has to believe he's ending 47 years of conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Whether that's actually true is irrelevant. Trump won't be in office forever. The only thing that matters is convincing him that this deal is "worthy of his legacy". It's obvious that the regime would try to do that by manipulating Trump through appeals to his core emotional needs and psychological trigger points. The problem is that Trump's closest confidants inside the White House are helping the regime lobby make this work.
diana bloom29,318 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
🔴 Listen to this. After what happened in Spain (which was not organic), the regime immediately started a campaign claiming that the US/Israel were behind it. Again: deflection campaign and narrative control. But listen to what Marandi is threatening here: global mass migration, changing borders, and even changing the names of countries if the US/Israel go back to war with the regime. Spain was a test run.
diana bloom11,039 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce
1/3 Yesterday, I said that Nima Yamini is not only creating chaos and division within the Israeli community, but would eventually do the same within the Iranian community. For now, it is still subtle, but he is already casting doubt on Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi 👇
diana bloom30,369 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce
🔴 How can lobbyists spend more than two hours discussing the human rights situation in Iran and still save the regime? An analysis of the (Green) Heinrich Böll Foundation panel from 2016 First, a note about the participants: - Hadi Ghaemi served on the board of NIAC (the regime's lobby group) for many years and later founded the NGO “Center for Human Rights in Iran.” As leaks of his communications with Trita Parsi from that time show, Ghaemi’s explicit goal was to establish an NGO that did not advocate for the overthrow of the regime. The fact that Ghaemi was a member of NIAC is being kept under wraps. - Omid Nouripour (a Green Party politician) has had ties to NIAC-members for years. The linked post shows how he has helped stabilize the regime for many years. - Ziba Mir-Hosseini is advocating for women’s rights and gender equality within Islam. - The moderator and initiator of the panel is Ali Fathollah-Nejad (CMEG). He, too, has a long history of ties to NIAC members. His entire political work is based on preserving the regime through, for example, pro-JCPOA and anti-sanctions stances. About the panel: 1. The entire panel does not even once question the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself. Everyone is engaged in an intellectual discussion about how to bring about small improvements within the regime. They all accept that it isn’t working, that execution rates are rising, and that change would take a long time. The idea of ending the regime to improve the human rights situation in Iran isn’t even a conceivable option in this panel. 2. In the introduction, Fathollah-Nejad claims that the era of regime change is over and that a new era is beginning. He also claims that the suffering of the Iranian people is only partly due to the regime and partly due to "imperial pressure". 3. Ghaemi founded a regime-affiliated NGO to present the regime’s narrative to the West under the guise of a human rights organization. According to Ghaemi, everyone in the civilian population supports the JCPOA and opposes military intervention by the U.S. and Israel. Of course, this did not reflect the actual will of the people in Iran. It was the selective narrative that the regime-affiliated NGO presented to the West to advance its own interests. 4. As for the opposition, the only person mentioned by the entire panel is Narges Mohammadi, who is the face of the regime’s reformist wing. She, too, does not represent the end of the Islamic Republic. 5. The panelists are all pro-JCPOA. Nouripour claims that the money from the JCPOA is rightfully the regime's money and lists the positive things the regime is doing with it (boosting the economy, creating jobs). This “on the one hand, on the other hand” narrative is, first of all, untrue: the money did not benefit the people. And it downplays the downsides of the JCPOA: funding for terrorist proxies and more money for repression. Nouripour mentions it, but treats it as if it were on equal footing. 6. According to Ghaemi, 80% of the executions is “merely” due to drug-related cases. Even if that were true - which it certainly was not - it would not serve as a justification. According to Ghaemi, no pressure from within or without can put an end to the executions. 7. Mir-Hosseini claims that Ahmadinejad ultimately became a supporter of women's rights. 8. Fathollah-Nejad claims that there is a danger that “authoritarian stability” could emerge in Iran. They speak of the future in this context. This is meant to convey that the Islamic Republic had not yet been that at the time. Judging by the human rights crimes that took place under the regime up until 2016, this is a statement that whitewashes the regime. 9. The panelists are against sanctions. 10. Ghaemi, in particular, repeats the false narrative that there are reformists and hardliners within the regime. This illusion of an opposition within the system has prolonged the life of the Islamic Republic by decades. As I listen to this panel, three things become clear to me: - Every one of the panelists wants the Islamic Republic to survive, either because of their Muslim background or because they are part of the NIAC ecosystem. - All four panelists are aware of the regime’s human rights abuses. But they justify and downplay them. - And finally, this image comes to mind: The panelists strike me as people (in fireproof suits) in a burning house who - instead of leaving the house or calling the fire department - take two glasses and repeatedly pour a few drops of water from one glass into the other. They claim that the fire is indeed hot, but that they are doing something about it and that the situation will surely change soon. Meanwhile, all the children in the house have already died in the fire.
diana bloom21,636 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce
Daha fazla içerik yok.