Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
AOC after losing another debate to an misogynistic N@z! #Colonized #Conquered #BreedWhite #Interracial #WMLF #RaceTraitor #BWC #BWCOnly #WhitesOnly #Bleached #Raceplay #WhiteOwned
42,036 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![Oh my, James Kirchick, where does one begin with that one? He's a grifter. Full stop. He's grifted off of losing every campaign he's ever touched or worked on and being WRONG about everything he opines on. He took his ball, went home, and left his party. But in the socialist political-left, he's treated like an "expert" (a perennial loser) who lost every race he's ever worked on. *Oh, but wait, and it gets better. Then, he signed up as digital minion, surrogate, and hatchet man for the Biden 2024 ***reelect*** (whilst being paid by MS NOW...literally as a Biden WH/Reelect surrogate on WH government and Biden Campaign DL talking points) AND carried the water for LITERALLY the worst campaign and candidacy in the history of contemporary American politics. *Oh, but, wait...yes .... just when you think it can't ....it DOES gets better. *THEN Tim throws Biden (and team) under the bus the morning after the June debate and continues to do so for MONTHS after Biden dropped out. Then blames Biden for the reason Kamala lost and the reason we are stuck with Trump (As if HE wasn't part of the problem from the very beginning). You can always count on Tim being WRONG from the start because he has the worst analytical instincts of ANYONE covering politics in the entire media landscape. He's ill-experienced, ill-informed, and ill-suited, YET, he monetizes off of all of his consistently WRONG analysis and opinions .... so therefore he deserves credit!!!! *Who is being played --- his audience or the useful idiots who pay him for always being behind the curve and WRONG? LOL. *But, hey, don't take my word for it. just ask another former MS NOW Political Analyst Steve Schmidt: "[Tim] you can find him online jumping out of a bush.... "😂👇](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2039862370659627476/amplify_video_thumb/2039862264342384640/img/FAO3Yk_0XWcAXVJe.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
![[KimSungSooTV] Misunderstandings and Truths About K-pop Demon Hunters!! What Should We Invest In Under the Changing Environment? Kim Sung-soo (current affairs and culture critic) and Kim Heon-sik (popular culture critic.) Praising K-DNA is just nationalistic hype (국뽕)? – An important case study analyzing the current state of industries related to K-DNA. Kim Heon-sik: No, that’s not it. Yes, so let me explain why the concept of “nationalistic pop” (국봉) came about. It was during the military regime that this idea was artificially pushed—basically to promote their own authority and propaganda. For example, under Park Chung-hee’s rule, there were forced attempts to instill pride in Korea through cultural support. But the truth is, there were also misunderstandings about Hallyu (the Korean Wave). For instance, I know someone who mistakenly presented this idea together with American scholars, and those papers are still circulating today. They argue that Hallyu was created by government support. And this keeps spreading overseas. So, people who study these things in an elite, academic context think they’re playing a decisive role—but the reality is, K-pop and K-content came about naturally as part of the market, in the private sector. To put it simply: it was made by fans. Fans created it. Fans are the most important part. As long as fans remain at the center, artists can keep creating content that fits the global environment. I’ve been asked the same question for 25 years: “How long will Hallyu last?” My answer is always that it’s not something forced or controlled from the top. It’s a cultural product born out of cultural democracy, with fans at the center. That’s why it has naturally earned respect. So to call it 국봉 (nationalistic pop)? That’s just not right. Then by that logic, is Britpop “nationalistic pop”? Honestly, what frustrates me is that people keep asking me questions like that… Kim Sung-soo: There were people who kept throwing questions at me and leaving nasty comments like that. Since I’ve been consistently defending NewJeans on broadcasts, they’d say things like, “Well, once NewJeans fades from memory, that’s it. That’s how pop culture works. Once they’re out of sight, they’re gone.” And they were saying that right in front of a cultural critic. Unbelievable. But look at reality now. Has NewJeans disappeared? No. The thirst for them has only grown stronger. Can a single capitalist suppress the massive yearning of so many fans? They can’t. It’s impossible. People still love The Beatles even now. Kim Heon-sik: Of course—that’s cultural DNA carrying on. Kim Sung-soo: If those people were right, The Beatles should have been forgotten long ago. Kim Heon-sik: But that’s just talking about the physical body. Cultural and artistic DNA endures, and NewJeans’ DNA is no different. Kim Sung-soo: NewJeans is a group that has completely changed the paradigm of Korean girl groups. If there are cultural critics who refuse to acknowledge that, you can just ignore them. Because before NewJeans, K-pop’s peak was defined by groups like KDH (K-pop Demon Hunters) and BLACKPINK, and even aespa can be counted at that summit. Idols used to be constructed as characters, tied to a fixed worldview and narrative, constantly producing music to match those characters. But NewJeans isn’t like that. They don’t come with a pre-packaged storyline. Instead, they build their stories out of everyday life. They’re lively, witty, talented teenagers you could easily find around you. So how can they be idols? Because in a prosumer society, if people around them think, “They’re cool,” society elevates them into idols. And that’s why those kinds of idols actually last longer—they were created by us, they resemble us, and they share our era. That’s why we can stay connected to them for longer. If idols are constructed as aliens or supernatural beings, eventually that feels unnatural. Kim Heon-sik: Ah, that connects back to what we could call the original SM model of K-pop. Idols who looked almost inhuman, like beings from the East, like gods, or like aespa—giving the feeling of aliens, even physically. That model still has its place, but it no longer dominates. New generations—especially Gen Alpha and Gen Z—align much more closely with the NewJeans paradigm. Now, if we connect this to the whole nationalistic hype (국뽕) debate: the funny thing is that there are actually more people overseas than in Korea who show respect (respec) for this culture. If it were just “nationalistic hype,” why would foreigners, who have no stake in Korean nationalism, be showing it? That would be contradictory, right? Kim Sung-soo: So, to put it simply, KDH (K-pop Demon Hunters) is an incredibly important case. It re-illuminates the cultural value we’re enjoying right now and proves just how many industries are possible under “K-DNA.” At the core of this, again, are the consumers — the fans. For example, from what I know, KDH was practically the only Netflix title that hit it big with almost no marketing. Kim Heon-sik: I’ll be honest: when they first announced it back in 2021 as a theatrical anime called K-pop Demon Hunters, and then no news followed, I thought it would be a flop. They barely promoted it, so I figured it wasn’t worth watching. But then, when it suddenly dropped in June, my phone was blowing up with messages, and I thought, “Fine, I’ll check it out.” And after watching — wow. It was a revolution. It was so well-made, completely unexpected. After that, a lot of things happened. Kim Sung-soo: In my case, I really felt how cut off from reality I’d become because of being blacklisted. Journalists only ever called me to talk about Korean dramas, never about K-pop or popular culture. It’s like the mainstream had erased my name. Nobody reached out to me about KDH (K-pop Demon Hunters). Then one day, my son just came out for dinner, turned on the TV, and started watching it. I knew the series had been released, but honestly, I thought, “That’s going to be a flop.” Still, since my son was watching, I sat with him. Eventually, he went back to his room to play games, but I stayed behind and watched until the end — then I even rewatched it by myself. I got choked up. That’s the kind of emotional impact it had. Kim Heon-sik: Even among my friends, I hear the same thing. Their kids enjoyed it so much, but when they themselves watched, they found it deeply moving too. That doesn’t mean the show itself is childish — it’s just that if you’re not usually paying attention, you won’t catch its layers. There’s a certain depth to it. Once you understand the broader context, it really clicks. Kim Sung-soo: K-pop, in fact, is a unique global genre. Yes, it was initially planned by producers, but it quickly grew beyond their control — maybe the first genre ever to do so. Kim Heon-sik: Today, it’s almost a living organism, self-sustaining. That’s why it’s dangerous to analyze it only from a producer’s perspective. When people say, “K-pop has problems,” yes, but the real issue lies with the capitalists — the management — not the artists or the content. That’s why now, more than ever, it’s important to support groups like NewJeans and works like KDH — they represent the healthier, fan-centered side of the culture. And KDH has something that speaks to all ages. Take Golden, sung by Huntrix — it reflects modern psychology precisely. Look at BTS’s message of “Love Yourself.” That’s not just a slogan; it’s rooted in psychology. Since the Renaissance, humans have emphasized the importance of selfhood. If you can’t love yourself, you can’t love others. If you love yourself, then you can love others, and from there you can love community, society, even humanity. Golden carries that exact same message. That’s why people who feel powerless or invisible in real life find healing through this work. Content like this isn’t just entertainment; it’s therapeutic. That’s why I don’t want people to see K-pop simply as “ours” or as nationalistic pride. At its core, cultural content is about healing, and that’s the perspective we need to adopt. Kim Sung-soo: For example — yes, spoiler here — Jinu could sacrifice himself in place of Rumi because he had already answered her question. Someone who doesn’t love themselves cannot sacrifice for another. Only someone who has achieved self-love can give themselves up. That’s why that scene hits so hard, especially for Western audiences. Sacrifice alone doesn’t move people; sacrifice rooted in self-understanding and love does. I even cried when Bada covered Golden ( At the end of her cover video, she says, “The person who wrote this really knows what despair is.” That’s why she cried too. And it’s the same for so many artists — S.E.S, Fin.K.L, and others — who endured hardships and pain yet remained. We shouldn’t objectify them just because they’re celebrities. Instead, we should recognize how the culture we share operates and heals us through those mechanisms. Kim Heon-sik: If I were to sum up K-pop’s worldview and identity: it’s centered on youth. It reflects their struggles and anxieties. Everyone was young once, and those feelings never completely disappear. Growth is key — growth through pain, through shortcomings, through personal and social struggles. Overcoming them and offering hope — that’s what K-pop tries to do. It doesn’t pretend the world is perfect; it says, “We can endure, and we can move forward together.” That’s why values like “we” and “togetherness” are always emphasized. So when music and content are created with that worldview — youth, growth, struggle, shared hope — that’s what makes it K-content, K-pop. It transcends nationality or ownership. It’s about establishing the identity of our content for what it is. Kim Sung-soo: Honestly, I hope these perspectives even reach our president. Kim Heon-sik: I was surprised when President Lee Jae-myung, unlike President Yoon’s administration which rushed to meet Netflix executives, instead chose to meet artists. The result of the meeting isn’t what matters — the signal it sends is. That’s the kind of precedent I hope continues. Kim Sung-soo: Our president must invest in people. Investments elsewhere are meaningless if not centered on people. Yet right now, there’s so little support for artists. So I’ll end with this: KDH is not “국뽕” (cheap nationalism). KDH is the culture itself — the culture we’re living and enjoying today. Watch the full video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1959263295426416869/amplify_video_thumb/1959262545061330944/img/qgOXFqyUyu97SeH3.jpg)
