正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Canada could send aid to Cuba. It chooses not to. Perfidious Canada’s state broadcaster does not list sanctions as a cause of Cuba’s crisis. Its coverage is propaganda, masking complicity while gaslighting Canadians about preventable suffering. It asks: “What explains a country that has hit rock bottom, drawing so... much aggressive attention from the most powerful country on earth and why now?” The next ten minutes explore Trump’s business interests, Rubio’s family history, Florida exile politics, and presidential legacy. Canada never enters the frame. This is the Anglo-American Empire explaining itself to itself, and Carney’s narrative arm narrates it as “complicated.” It isn’t complicated. A country is being strangled. The most powerful power in the hemisphere is tightening the grip—and the CBC never centers the fact that Canada could act independently if Canada were sovereign. Canada is not a nation that has failed to act—it is a client state constitutionally incapable of action. The CBC does not center Canada’s capacity to act independently because Canada does not act independently. It relays. It complies. It performs virtue while holding the knife—because the knife is not its own.show more

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

93,945 subscribers

14,674 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE BIG QUESTION: SHOULD TRUMP FINALLY HIT IRAN'S INFRASTRUCTURE? History does not repeat, but it rhymes loud enough to hear. In 1945, Japan was finished. Its navy was gone. Its cities were burning. Its war machine could not replace what it lost. And still the leadership would not surrender. Iran today looks eerily familiar. Its radar sites keep getting flattened. Its small boats keep getting sunk. Its missile stockpiles keep getting hit. And still Tehran keeps shooting, mining, and lying its way through every ceasefire it signs. To be clear, nobody is talking about the weapon that finally ended Japan's war. Trump is not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, and nobody serious is suggesting he would. That is not the parallel. The parallel is the dilemma itself. What do you do with an enemy that is beaten by every rational measure, yet refuses to act like it? Trump has tried to solve that puzzle the hard way, the careful way. Hit the drone depots. Hit the coastal radar. Leave the power plants standing. Leave the water desalination facilities alone. Spare the bridges and highways ordinary families use every day. He said it himself. He does not want to punish a population for the sins of a regime they never chose, and he does not want American taxpayers footing the bill to rebuild a country we did not break in the first place. But restraint only works on an enemy capable of reading the signal. Iran keeps proving it cannot, or will not. So the real question is not whether Iran is beaten. It clearly is. The real question is what finally convinces a regime that will not admit defeat, without turning millions of ordinary Iranians into collateral damage for their leaders' stubbornness. That is the needle Trump has to thread. Escalate enough to end this, without becoming the very thing his restraint was designed to avoid. The world will be watching which targets he chooses next as closely as it watches whether Iran ever really surrenders at all.

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE BIG QUESTION: SHOULD TRUMP FINALLY HIT IRAN'S INFRASTRUCTURE? History does not repeat, but it rhymes loud enough to hear. In 1945, Japan was finished. Its navy was gone. Its cities were burning. Its war machine could not replace what it lost. And still the leadership would not surrender. Iran today looks eerily familiar. Its radar sites keep getting flattened. Its small boats keep getting sunk. Its missile stockpiles keep getting hit. And still Tehran keeps shooting, mining, and lying its way through every ceasefire it signs. To be clear, nobody is talking about the weapon that finally ended Japan's war. Trump is not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, and nobody serious is suggesting he would. That is not the parallel. The parallel is the dilemma itself. What do you do with an enemy that is beaten by every rational measure, yet refuses to act like it? Trump has tried to solve that puzzle the hard way, the careful way. Hit the drone depots. Hit the coastal radar. Leave the power plants standing. Leave the water desalination facilities alone. Spare the bridges and highways ordinary families use every day. He said it himself. He does not want to punish a population for the sins of a regime they never chose, and he does not want American taxpayers footing the bill to rebuild a country we did not break in the first place. But restraint only works on an enemy capable of reading the signal. Iran keeps proving it cannot, or will not. So the real question is not whether Iran is beaten. It clearly is. The real question is what finally convinces a regime that will not admit defeat, without turning millions of ordinary Iranians into collateral damage for their leaders' stubbornness. That is the needle Trump has to thread. Escalate enough to end this, without becoming the very thing his restraint was designed to avoid. The world will be watching which targets he chooses next as closely as it watches whether Iran ever really surrenders at all.

Bill Mitchell

33,676 次观看 • 2 个月前

Donald Trump: “They have their banks here, Bank of Canada, big beautiful banks.” Buddy. The Bank of Canada is Canada’s Federal Reserve. It is not a retail bank. It does not have a branch in America. You cannot open a chequing account there, refinance a house there, or wander in and demand the manager. That is the institution that sets interest rates, not the one that hands out debit cards and toasters. Bank of America is a bank. Bank of Canada is a central bank. One sells you a credit card. The other sets the price of money. Different job. Different building. Different continent of competence. The “big beautiful banks” you’re thinking of are RBC, TD, BMO actual commercial banks that do operate in the United States. The Bank of Canada is the maple-flavoured Fed. It does not have a drive-thru in Florida. If this is how you’re handling a basic two-word institution name, maybe don’t put yourself in charge of a trade negotiation. You can’t hammer Canada for “not allowing American banks” while simultaneously inventing a Bank of Canada branch that does not exist. That’s not tough bargaining. That’s mixing up the central bank with Bank of America because both names contain the word “Bank.” Please stop naming institutions after hearing two words and assuming they have a kiosk. Next week you’ll be demanding we close the Royal Bank of England stand at JFK.

Donald Trump: “They have their banks here, Bank of Canada, big beautiful banks.” Buddy. The Bank of Canada is Canada’s Federal Reserve. It is not a retail bank. It does not have a branch in America. You cannot open a chequing account there, refinance a house there, or wander in and demand the manager. That is the institution that sets interest rates, not the one that hands out debit cards and toasters. Bank of America is a bank. Bank of Canada is a central bank. One sells you a credit card. The other sets the price of money. Different job. Different building. Different continent of competence. The “big beautiful banks” you’re thinking of are RBC, TD, BMO actual commercial banks that do operate in the United States. The Bank of Canada is the maple-flavoured Fed. It does not have a drive-thru in Florida. If this is how you’re handling a basic two-word institution name, maybe don’t put yourself in charge of a trade negotiation. You can’t hammer Canada for “not allowing American banks” while simultaneously inventing a Bank of Canada branch that does not exist. That’s not tough bargaining. That’s mixing up the central bank with Bank of America because both names contain the word “Bank.” Please stop naming institutions after hearing two words and assuming they have a kiosk. Next week you’ll be demanding we close the Royal Bank of England stand at JFK.

Legally Ms. Juno

364,795 次观看 • 26 天前

Today a group of Muslims prayed next to the Ministry of Defence, facing the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial. As I have said before, choosing to pray in this way in public is a political act. It is a social statement and, yes, it is an act of domination. Anybody who understands Islamism understands that the domination of public spaces is part of the modus operandi. It is done so Islamists can show who is in charge - and to show other Muslims and the wider public that the authorities will bend to their will. There is quite obviously no need to pray here. The decision to do so is symbolic and pointed. It is not welcome. We have freedom of religion in this country, which is why there are mosques. But we are not a Muslim country and this is not welcome. It should be stopped.

Today a group of Muslims prayed next to the Ministry of Defence, facing the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial. As I have said before, choosing to pray in this way in public is a political act. It is a social statement and, yes, it is an act of domination. Anybody who understands Islamism understands that the domination of public spaces is part of the modus operandi. It is done so Islamists can show who is in charge - and to show other Muslims and the wider public that the authorities will bend to their will. There is quite obviously no need to pray here. The decision to do so is symbolic and pointed. It is not welcome. We have freedom of religion in this country, which is why there are mosques. But we are not a Muslim country and this is not welcome. It should be stopped.

Nick Timothy MP

1,478,182 次观看 • 3 个月前

TWIN FLAME LOVE IS NOT A SPARK THAT FADES WITH ME. It is not sustained by excitement, romance, or constant closeness. It is sustained by truth. This is why it does not burn out. Twin flames share a frequency, not just emotions. Even when they are apart, the connection continues to exist because it is not dependent on words, actions, or physical presence. It lives in the nervous system, in memory, in the way awareness shifts after the meeting. Once activated, it does not return to what it was before. This love does not consume itself the way ordinary passion can. It matures. It moves through phases of intensity, silence, confusion, distance, and clarity, yet the core recognition remains unchanged. What changes is the capacity of each person to hold it without fear. When separation happens, the love does not disappear. It reorganizes. It turns inward and begins to work on unresolved wounds, attachment patterns, and old survival responses. The connection stays alive because it is no longer ted by chasing or longing, but by integration. Twin flame love endures because it is not trying to prove itself. It does not require constant reassurance. It is quiet when needed, intense when allowed, and steady beneath all cycles. Even in moments of doubt, something deeper continues to recognize the other as familiar, safe, and true. This is why twin flame love does not burn out. It is not fueled by emotion alone. It is carried by awareness. And awareness, once awakened, does not extinguish. ~ Twinflame Infinity ✨🙌🏽💫

TWIN FLAME LOVE IS NOT A SPARK THAT FADES WITH ME. It is not sustained by excitement, romance, or constant closeness. It is sustained by truth. This is why it does not burn out. Twin flames share a frequency, not just emotions. Even when they are apart, the connection continues to exist because it is not dependent on words, actions, or physical presence. It lives in the nervous system, in memory, in the way awareness shifts after the meeting. Once activated, it does not return to what it was before. This love does not consume itself the way ordinary passion can. It matures. It moves through phases of intensity, silence, confusion, distance, and clarity, yet the core recognition remains unchanged. What changes is the capacity of each person to hold it without fear. When separation happens, the love does not disappear. It reorganizes. It turns inward and begins to work on unresolved wounds, attachment patterns, and old survival responses. The connection stays alive because it is no longer ted by chasing or longing, but by integration. Twin flame love endures because it is not trying to prove itself. It does not require constant reassurance. It is quiet when needed, intense when allowed, and steady beneath all cycles. Even in moments of doubt, something deeper continues to recognize the other as familiar, safe, and true. This is why twin flame love does not burn out. It is not fueled by emotion alone. It is carried by awareness. And awareness, once awakened, does not extinguish. ~ Twinflame Infinity ✨🙌🏽💫

🧬Maxpein🧬

18,135 次观看 • 8 个月前

Twin flame love is not a spark that fades with time. It is not sustained by excitement, romance, or constant closeness. It is sustained by truth. This is why it does not burn out. Twin flames share a frequency, not just emotions. Even when they are apart, the connection continues to exist because it is not dependent on words, actions, or physical presence. It lives in the nervous system, in memory, in the way awareness shifts after the meeting. Once activated, it does not return to what it was before. This love does not consume itself the way ordinary passion can. It matures. It moves through phases of intensity, silence, confusion, distance, and clarity, yet the core recognition remains unchanged. What changes is the capacity of each person to hold it without fear. When separation happens, the love does not disappear. It reorganizes. It turns inward and begins to work on unresolved wounds, attachment patterns, and old survival responses. The connection stays alive because it is no longer fed by chasing or longing, but by integration. Twin flame love endures because it is not trying to prove itself. It does not require constant reassurance. It is quiet when needed, intense when allowed, and steady beneath all cycles. Even in moments of doubt, something deeper continues to recognize the other as familiar, safe, and true. This is why twin flame love does not burn out. It is not fueled by emotion alone. It is carried by awareness. And awareness, once awakened, does not extinguish. ~ Twinflames.Infinity ✨🙌🏿💫

Twin flame love is not a spark that fades with time. It is not sustained by excitement, romance, or constant closeness. It is sustained by truth. This is why it does not burn out. Twin flames share a frequency, not just emotions. Even when they are apart, the connection continues to exist because it is not dependent on words, actions, or physical presence. It lives in the nervous system, in memory, in the way awareness shifts after the meeting. Once activated, it does not return to what it was before. This love does not consume itself the way ordinary passion can. It matures. It moves through phases of intensity, silence, confusion, distance, and clarity, yet the core recognition remains unchanged. What changes is the capacity of each person to hold it without fear. When separation happens, the love does not disappear. It reorganizes. It turns inward and begins to work on unresolved wounds, attachment patterns, and old survival responses. The connection stays alive because it is no longer fed by chasing or longing, but by integration. Twin flame love endures because it is not trying to prove itself. It does not require constant reassurance. It is quiet when needed, intense when allowed, and steady beneath all cycles. Even in moments of doubt, something deeper continues to recognize the other as familiar, safe, and true. This is why twin flame love does not burn out. It is not fueled by emotion alone. It is carried by awareness. And awareness, once awakened, does not extinguish. ~ Twinflames.Infinity ✨🙌🏿💫

Cosmic Insights 🌻

14,295 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 BREAKING: This is how our Sun will die. Not explode. Not collapse into a black hole. It will shed itself. As the core runs out of fuel, the structure holding the star together begins to fail. So it does something unexpected: It releases its outer layers… to stabilize. What we see as a “nebula” isn’t just debris. It’s a star rebalancing itself. In my view: Stars don’t just die. They resolve instability. And what’s left behind… is the most stable state it can reach. So the real question is: If stars follow this rule… Does everything?

🚨 BREAKING: This is how our Sun will die. Not explode. Not collapse into a black hole. It will shed itself. As the core runs out of fuel, the structure holding the star together begins to fail. So it does something unexpected: It releases its outer layers… to stabilize. What we see as a “nebula” isn’t just debris. It’s a star rebalancing itself. In my view: Stars don’t just die. They resolve instability. And what’s left behind… is the most stable state it can reach. So the real question is: If stars follow this rule… Does everything?

TheNewPhysics

24,742 次观看 • 5 个月前

Elon Musk just told you exactly how America loses. Not to a better algorithm. Not to a smarter engineer. To itself. Elon Musk: “When you’re dealing with the government, common sense doesn’t make sense. It’s like arguing with the DMV. It’s impossible.” America split the atom, put men on the moon, and built the internet. It is now losing a civilization-defining race because it cannot get out of its own way. Not because the talent is gone. Not because the capital dried up. Because we built a machine that processes instead of builds. Every decision climbs ten levels. Every level costs a meeting. Every meeting births a committee. Every committee buries the idea in a report. And somewhere in that report, the urgency dies. This is not bureaucracy as inefficiency. This is bureaucracy as a national security threat. China does not debate internally. Beijing does not convene committee reviews. They identify the objective. They resource it. They execute. While America is still scheduling the kickoff call, China is pouring concrete. Look at what Musk built. SpaceX landed an orbital rocket booster in eleven years. NASA has five times the budget and cannot get astronauts home. Tesla scaled a global manufacturing operation while legacy automakers were forming task forces to study the transition. xAI stood up one of the most powerful supercomputers on earth in 122 days. Not years. Not after the third approval cycle. 122 days. The difference is not money. The difference is not genius. The difference is that Musk runs his companies the way civilizations used to run themselves when they still believed impossible things were worth attempting. Flat. Fast. Ruthless about what matters. No ten layers of sign-off. No thirty-person approval chain for a decision one person should make. No process worship dressed up as due diligence. A small group of exceptional people. A clear mission. The authority to execute without asking permission. That model built the moon landing. It built the transcontinental railroad. It built every institution America now holds up as proof of what this country can do. Then we forgot how to run it. We replaced builders with administrators. We replaced decisions with processes. We replaced urgency with compliance theater. And now we are asking that bloated machine to win the most consequential technological race in human history. The AI war is not being fought in the code. It is being fought in the gap between when a builder decides to move and when the institution permits it. That gap is where civilizations end. America does not have a talent problem. America does not have a capital problem. America has a bureaucracy problem. And nobody inside that bureaucracy has a single incentive to fix it. Musk is not fighting China. He is fighting the version of America that forgot how to move. The country that pours the concrete first does not just win the race. It writes the rules everyone else spends the next century living under.

Elon Musk just told you exactly how America loses. Not to a better algorithm. Not to a smarter engineer. To itself. Elon Musk: “When you’re dealing with the government, common sense doesn’t make sense. It’s like arguing with the DMV. It’s impossible.” America split the atom, put men on the moon, and built the internet. It is now losing a civilization-defining race because it cannot get out of its own way. Not because the talent is gone. Not because the capital dried up. Because we built a machine that processes instead of builds. Every decision climbs ten levels. Every level costs a meeting. Every meeting births a committee. Every committee buries the idea in a report. And somewhere in that report, the urgency dies. This is not bureaucracy as inefficiency. This is bureaucracy as a national security threat. China does not debate internally. Beijing does not convene committee reviews. They identify the objective. They resource it. They execute. While America is still scheduling the kickoff call, China is pouring concrete. Look at what Musk built. SpaceX landed an orbital rocket booster in eleven years. NASA has five times the budget and cannot get astronauts home. Tesla scaled a global manufacturing operation while legacy automakers were forming task forces to study the transition. xAI stood up one of the most powerful supercomputers on earth in 122 days. Not years. Not after the third approval cycle. 122 days. The difference is not money. The difference is not genius. The difference is that Musk runs his companies the way civilizations used to run themselves when they still believed impossible things were worth attempting. Flat. Fast. Ruthless about what matters. No ten layers of sign-off. No thirty-person approval chain for a decision one person should make. No process worship dressed up as due diligence. A small group of exceptional people. A clear mission. The authority to execute without asking permission. That model built the moon landing. It built the transcontinental railroad. It built every institution America now holds up as proof of what this country can do. Then we forgot how to run it. We replaced builders with administrators. We replaced decisions with processes. We replaced urgency with compliance theater. And now we are asking that bloated machine to win the most consequential technological race in human history. The AI war is not being fought in the code. It is being fought in the gap between when a builder decides to move and when the institution permits it. That gap is where civilizations end. America does not have a talent problem. America does not have a capital problem. America has a bureaucracy problem. And nobody inside that bureaucracy has a single incentive to fix it. Musk is not fighting China. He is fighting the version of America that forgot how to move. The country that pours the concrete first does not just win the race. It writes the rules everyone else spends the next century living under.

Dustin

32,158 次观看 • 6 个月前

77 years… and China is still moving forward. On October 1, China is not simply celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the country, but highlighting a journey that has completely transformed it. From a country that emerged from decades of war and poverty to an industrial and technological power competing in the industries of the future and building cities and infrastructure on a massive scale. What stands out is that China does not see its achievements as a finish line, but as one stage in an ongoing project of modernization and development.

77 years… and China is still moving forward. On October 1, China is not simply celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the country, but highlighting a journey that has completely transformed it. From a country that emerged from decades of war and poverty to an industrial and technological power competing in the industries of the future and building cities and infrastructure on a massive scale. What stands out is that China does not see its achievements as a finish line, but as one stage in an ongoing project of modernization and development.

China pulse 🇨🇳

14,947 次观看 • 3 天前

The White House is not a museum that has to stay frozen. It is the working house of the American presidency. The Supreme Court is right to let the ballroom move forward now. ABC just reported that the Court formally granted the Trump administration’s request to keep building. That is the correct call. A president should be able to finish a state room worthy of the country instead of getting boxed in by people who treat every beam as a political crime. Opponents wanted a halt. They dressed it up as preservation and process. What they wanted was a stalled pit on the East Wing so they could say he failed. The Court refused to give them that. America hosts the world in that house. Allies, rivals, funerals, inaugurations, state dinners. A proper ballroom is not vanity. It is capacity. It is security built into the same complex. It is the country acting like it intends to last. Finish it. Make it beautiful. Let Trump and Melania walk the floor when it is done. The people who hate the idea will hate the finished room too. That is their problem. America will enjoy the ballroom for generations to come. It is a gift to our collective future.

The White House is not a museum that has to stay frozen. It is the working house of the American presidency. The Supreme Court is right to let the ballroom move forward now. ABC just reported that the Court formally granted the Trump administration’s request to keep building. That is the correct call. A president should be able to finish a state room worthy of the country instead of getting boxed in by people who treat every beam as a political crime. Opponents wanted a halt. They dressed it up as preservation and process. What they wanted was a stalled pit on the East Wing so they could say he failed. The Court refused to give them that. America hosts the world in that house. Allies, rivals, funerals, inaugurations, state dinners. A proper ballroom is not vanity. It is capacity. It is security built into the same complex. It is the country acting like it intends to last. Finish it. Make it beautiful. Let Trump and Melania walk the floor when it is done. The people who hate the idea will hate the finished room too. That is their problem. America will enjoy the ballroom for generations to come. It is a gift to our collective future.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

15,804 次观看 • 29 天前

🇮🇪 A man in Ireland is on camera telling a mosque to kill the loudspeaker. Five times a day the call to prayer is treated as a public announcement the neighbourhood did not vote for. The clip’s exact street has not been independently pinned. The argument has. Dearborn residents have already petitioned their city over the same thing. Worship inside a building is a right. Broadcasting it across other people’s bedrooms is a noise issue. Churches do not get a free pass to wake a street at dawn either. Equal rules, or it is not a rule. If the volume is legal, say so and enforce the limit. If it is not, turn it down. A country that cannot say “keep it on your property” has already surrendered the pavement.

🇮🇪 A man in Ireland is on camera telling a mosque to kill the loudspeaker. Five times a day the call to prayer is treated as a public announcement the neighbourhood did not vote for. The clip’s exact street has not been independently pinned. The argument has. Dearborn residents have already petitioned their city over the same thing. Worship inside a building is a right. Broadcasting it across other people’s bedrooms is a noise issue. Churches do not get a free pass to wake a street at dawn either. Equal rules, or it is not a rule. If the volume is legal, say so and enforce the limit. If it is not, turn it down. A country that cannot say “keep it on your property” has already surrendered the pavement.

🇬🇧💥𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝕱𝖔𝖗 𝕭𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖆𝖎𝖓💥🇦🇺

147,879 次观看 • 1 个月前

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

88,596 次观看 • 6 个月前

The clinical term is malignant narcissism. There is a specific kind of man who walks into a room and immediately begins rearranging it. Not the furniture. The people. By minute four, he has forgotten the names of half of them. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system. The clinical term is malignant narcissism. It sits at the intersection of four things: narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial features, paranoia, and sadism. The sadism part is what people miss. He does not simply lack empathy. He has inverted it. He reads your emotional state with the precision of a surgeon, then uses that information like a scalpel. Maximum discomfort. Minimum legal risk. Otto Kernberg, the psychiatrist who formalized the concept, called it one of the most dangerous personality structures a human being can carry. Not because it is loud. Because it is effective. And because it is almost impossible to name while you are standing inside it. History keeps producing the same man. Robert Maxwell looted his employees’ pension funds while they trusted him completely. Hundreds of millions. He knew the whole time. There is no evidence he experienced this as a problem. Silvio Berlusconi governed Italy like a man who had confused the country with his personal property. Laws bent to fit his legal situation. Courts were hollowed out when they became inconvenient. People who spent time close to him reported the same thing afterward: you left the conversation certain you had agreed to something. You just could not remember what. Charm makes you feel good about yourself. This makes you feel good about him. There is a difference. It takes most people years to locate it. The pattern has a shape. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. It begins with grandiosity so complete it functions as a worldview. Other people exist in one of three categories: instruments, obstacles, or audiences. He is perfectly pleasant to all three, for exactly as long as they remain useful. The moment that changes, so does he. The switch is not gradual. It is a door closing. It continues with a specific relationship to truth. He does not lie the way ordinary people lie, defensively, to avoid consequences. He lies the way a chess player moves pieces. If I can make you accept a false thing, I have demonstrated power over your reality. If you push back, I do not retreat. I escalate. The goal was never the fact. The goal was always the submission. It sustains itself by dismantling anything capable of judgment. Independent courts. A free press. Rival centers of power. These feel to him not like inconveniences but like attacks. The structure that can judge him is the structure that must be broken. This is not calculated. It is reflexive. It is as automatic as flinching. The frightening thing is not that these men exist. The frightening thing is the gap between when the room starts rearranging itself and when anyone names what they are watching. That gap can last years. Decades. Sometimes it outlasts the man entirely, and the next generation inherits the rearranged room and calls it normal. By the time someone says it plainly, the furniture is long gone. And he is already in the next room. Gandalv

The clinical term is malignant narcissism. There is a specific kind of man who walks into a room and immediately begins rearranging it. Not the furniture. The people. By minute four, he has forgotten the names of half of them. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system. The clinical term is malignant narcissism. It sits at the intersection of four things: narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial features, paranoia, and sadism. The sadism part is what people miss. He does not simply lack empathy. He has inverted it. He reads your emotional state with the precision of a surgeon, then uses that information like a scalpel. Maximum discomfort. Minimum legal risk. Otto Kernberg, the psychiatrist who formalized the concept, called it one of the most dangerous personality structures a human being can carry. Not because it is loud. Because it is effective. And because it is almost impossible to name while you are standing inside it. History keeps producing the same man. Robert Maxwell looted his employees’ pension funds while they trusted him completely. Hundreds of millions. He knew the whole time. There is no evidence he experienced this as a problem. Silvio Berlusconi governed Italy like a man who had confused the country with his personal property. Laws bent to fit his legal situation. Courts were hollowed out when they became inconvenient. People who spent time close to him reported the same thing afterward: you left the conversation certain you had agreed to something. You just could not remember what. Charm makes you feel good about yourself. This makes you feel good about him. There is a difference. It takes most people years to locate it. The pattern has a shape. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. It begins with grandiosity so complete it functions as a worldview. Other people exist in one of three categories: instruments, obstacles, or audiences. He is perfectly pleasant to all three, for exactly as long as they remain useful. The moment that changes, so does he. The switch is not gradual. It is a door closing. It continues with a specific relationship to truth. He does not lie the way ordinary people lie, defensively, to avoid consequences. He lies the way a chess player moves pieces. If I can make you accept a false thing, I have demonstrated power over your reality. If you push back, I do not retreat. I escalate. The goal was never the fact. The goal was always the submission. It sustains itself by dismantling anything capable of judgment. Independent courts. A free press. Rival centers of power. These feel to him not like inconveniences but like attacks. The structure that can judge him is the structure that must be broken. This is not calculated. It is reflexive. It is as automatic as flinching. The frightening thing is not that these men exist. The frightening thing is the gap between when the room starts rearranging itself and when anyone names what they are watching. That gap can last years. Decades. Sometimes it outlasts the man entirely, and the next generation inherits the rearranged room and calls it normal. By the time someone says it plainly, the furniture is long gone. And he is already in the next room. Gandalv

Gandalv

23,407 次观看 • 6 个月前

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

John Turner

21,029 次观看 • 12 天前

Here it is. The US seems to have wanted a trade deal with Canada as a whole and not navigate local red tape such as language requirements. "They made changes, including threats on the French language and Quebec culture, and Canadian culture." How did it threaten the Quebec culture? What is the threat to Canadian culture in this trade deal considering we have whole parts of Canada that don't resemble anything of Canadian culture after the Liberals' mass immigration...is it the Dairy Supply Management?

Here it is. The US seems to have wanted a trade deal with Canada as a whole and not navigate local red tape such as language requirements. "They made changes, including threats on the French language and Quebec culture, and Canadian culture." How did it threaten the Quebec culture? What is the threat to Canadian culture in this trade deal considering we have whole parts of Canada that don't resemble anything of Canadian culture after the Liberals' mass immigration...is it the Dairy Supply Management?

Kirk Lubimov

90,438 次观看 • 1 个月前

This is not a border dispute. It is a sermon. A Hamas leader on a Gaza stage tells seven million Palestinians abroad to stop warming up. There are Jews everywhere, he says. Attack every Jew on Earth. Slaughter them. Kill them. With Allah’s help. The crowd is not a war room. It is a public. Hamas did not invent that sentence. Hamas is but one franchise of it. Islamic Jihad says the same thing with a different logo. Hezbollah wraps it in Khomeini and the language of “the Zionist entity.” The Houthis put “death to Israel, curse the Jews” on a flag and call it governance. The regime in Tehran funds the network and calls the Jewish state a tumor. Different uniforms. Same theology. For them, Jewish sovereignty is an insult to Allah, and Jewish lives outside the land are not off-limits. That is why “from the river to the sea” is not a housing policy, and why October 7 was not an accident of occupation. The target list in this clip is not a soldier at a checkpoint. It is Jews as such, wherever they are. Once the enemy is a people, not a government, there is no ceasefire that satisfies the idea. There is only a pause. Western coverage keeps shrinking this to one militia and one strip of coast because a regional ideology is harder to manage than a “peace process.” Factions are useful that way. They let you condemn Hamas on Tuesday and treat Hezbollah as Lebanese politics on Wednesday and the Houthis as a shipping problem on Thursday. The preacher does not bother with those folders. He names the Jews and asks the diaspora to start. If you want to understand the war, start with what they say when they are not fundraising in English. The map they want is not two states. It is a world with fewer Jews in it, sanctified as duty. Hamas is the local office. The ideology is the corporation.

Mor Edge Insight

74,915 次观看 • 18 天前

STUNNING: THEY LOST THE COURT BATTLE BUT THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WAR ISN'T OVER! The Supreme Court sided with the birth tourism industry six to three. Fine. The Constitution says what it says. But losing one battle does not mean surrendering the country. Because here is what the left does not understand. A visa is not a birthright. It is a privilege, and privileges can be revoked. The State Department already proved it. One embassy alone yanked more than a hundred visas from parents who flew in just to deliver a citizenship prize and fly home. Investigators found over four hundred suspected cases in Europe tied to coaching companies selling the whole package like a vacation package to Disney World. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin laid it out plainly. "They'll come in the eighth month, maybe one, two, three weeks left, give birth here." That is not tourism. That is a loophole wearing a tourist visa as a costume. Stephen Miller said it best. America needs to "think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary" basis. A nation that cannot control its own front door is not a nation, it is a hotel lobby. DOJ is not waiting around either. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed prosecutors are now going after these schemes with everything on the shelf, from visa fraud to wire fraud to identity theft. If you lied to get in, you can be charged like you lied to get in. The Constitution protects the child born here. It does not protect the con artist who lied on a visa application to manufacture that birth in the first place. The court ruled on citizenship. It did not rule that America has to hand out visas to anyone gaming the system. That fight just moved to a different battlefield, and this administration is already there.

STUNNING: THEY LOST THE COURT BATTLE BUT THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WAR ISN'T OVER! The Supreme Court sided with the birth tourism industry six to three. Fine. The Constitution says what it says. But losing one battle does not mean surrendering the country. Because here is what the left does not understand. A visa is not a birthright. It is a privilege, and privileges can be revoked. The State Department already proved it. One embassy alone yanked more than a hundred visas from parents who flew in just to deliver a citizenship prize and fly home. Investigators found over four hundred suspected cases in Europe tied to coaching companies selling the whole package like a vacation package to Disney World. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin laid it out plainly. "They'll come in the eighth month, maybe one, two, three weeks left, give birth here." That is not tourism. That is a loophole wearing a tourist visa as a costume. Stephen Miller said it best. America needs to "think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary" basis. A nation that cannot control its own front door is not a nation, it is a hotel lobby. DOJ is not waiting around either. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed prosecutors are now going after these schemes with everything on the shelf, from visa fraud to wire fraud to identity theft. If you lied to get in, you can be charged like you lied to get in. The Constitution protects the child born here. It does not protect the con artist who lied on a visa application to manufacture that birth in the first place. The court ruled on citizenship. It did not rule that America has to hand out visas to anyone gaming the system. That fight just moved to a different battlefield, and this administration is already there.

Bill Mitchell

38,336 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is EXTREMELY BIG by 🇨🇦 Canada 🔥🔥 🇺🇸 Trump at 9:00 AM: "We’re putting tarrifs on Canada because we’re the supreme leader of the world." 🇨🇦 Canada at 9:30 AM: "We declare that now 🇨🇳 China will lead the new world order. 🇺🇸 The U.S. does not deserve that position. It has repeatedly violated global trade law for years." 🔥 This is a MASTERSTROKE by CANADA 🔥

This is EXTREMELY BIG by 🇨🇦 Canada 🔥🔥 🇺🇸 Trump at 9:00 AM: "We’re putting tarrifs on Canada because we’re the supreme leader of the world." 🇨🇦 Canada at 9:30 AM: "We declare that now 🇨🇳 China will lead the new world order. 🇺🇸 The U.S. does not deserve that position. It has repeatedly violated global trade law for years." 🔥 This is a MASTERSTROKE by CANADA 🔥

InfoGram

67,018 次观看 • 1 个月前

Trump is right to call Kristen Welker out. If she will lie about his endorsement record, she will lie about anything. Bill Maher already corrected himself on air after Trump sent him the numbers. Maher is a comedian. Welker is supposed to be a news anchor. Calling a mid-90s win rate “mixed results” is not a slip. It is a narrative. The press has done this for decades. Soften every win. Inflate every loss. Then act shocked when people stop trusting the product. Calling that out is one of the most useful things Trump does. Accurate information is not optional. A country that lets anchors rewrite the scoreboard on purpose is not informing the public. It is managing it. Report it to the FCC. Fine the network. Make the lie expensive.

Trump is right to call Kristen Welker out. If she will lie about his endorsement record, she will lie about anything. Bill Maher already corrected himself on air after Trump sent him the numbers. Maher is a comedian. Welker is supposed to be a news anchor. Calling a mid-90s win rate “mixed results” is not a slip. It is a narrative. The press has done this for decades. Soften every win. Inflate every loss. Then act shocked when people stop trusting the product. Calling that out is one of the most useful things Trump does. Accurate information is not optional. A country that lets anchors rewrite the scoreboard on purpose is not informing the public. It is managing it. Report it to the FCC. Fine the network. Make the lie expensive.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

13,958 次观看 • 1 个月前

If the Universe’s only way to realize itself is through intelligent beings, why did it not protect life during earth’s evolution? Or does it have other purposes — and are we merely a byproduct of its creation? : If the Universe can only know itself through conscious minds, why did it let life on Earth teeter on the edge of extinction dozens of times? Asteroids, ice ages, supervolcanoes, and mass die-offs all struck without mercy. No shield, no mercy, no intervention. That silence is the answer. The Universe is not a guardian. It is an arena. It does not care whether intelligence ever arises, survives, or dies. The emergence of minds is not its goal; it is an accidental side effect of laws that permit complexity. We are not protected children of a loving cosmos. We are the rare, fragile spark that sometimes flickers into being inside an indifferent storm. Our existence proves nothing about cosmic purpose. It only proves that, out of countless dead rocks, one managed to keep the spark alive long enough to ask why. The Universe has no obligation to us. We have an obligation to the spark. That is the whole story.

If the Universe’s only way to realize itself is through intelligent beings, why did it not protect life during earth’s evolution? Or does it have other purposes — and are we merely a byproduct of its creation? : If the Universe can only know itself through conscious minds, why did it let life on Earth teeter on the edge of extinction dozens of times? Asteroids, ice ages, supervolcanoes, and mass die-offs all struck without mercy. No shield, no mercy, no intervention. That silence is the answer. The Universe is not a guardian. It is an arena. It does not care whether intelligence ever arises, survives, or dies. The emergence of minds is not its goal; it is an accidental side effect of laws that permit complexity. We are not protected children of a loving cosmos. We are the rare, fragile spark that sometimes flickers into being inside an indifferent storm. Our existence proves nothing about cosmic purpose. It only proves that, out of countless dead rocks, one managed to keep the spark alive long enough to ask why. The Universe has no obligation to us. We have an obligation to the spark. That is the whole story.

Zafar Mirzo | Quotes

272,822 次观看 • 10 个月前