Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

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。

Destructive position

Preeti

28,559 subscribers

16,085,001 次观看 • 4 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

Secretary Kennedy is using his position to advance a dangerous pseudo-science agenda and putting the lives of Americans at extreme risk. I’m demanding accountability from RFK Jr., who’s been doing his destructive work in secret.

Secretary Kennedy is using his position to advance a dangerous pseudo-science agenda and putting the lives of Americans at extreme risk. I’m demanding accountability from RFK Jr., who’s been doing his destructive work in secret.

Rep. Frank Pallone

23,693 次观看 • 1 年前

Lavrov: We're not going to go to war with Europe, we don't even have thoughts like this. London, leaders of the European Commission in Brussels, most of the countries that are NATO and EU members take an honestly destructive position on the Ukrainian issue.

Lavrov: We're not going to go to war with Europe, we don't even have thoughts like this. London, leaders of the European Commission in Brussels, most of the countries that are NATO and EU members take an honestly destructive position on the Ukrainian issue.

Anton Gerashchenko

167,984 次观看 • 8 个月前

‘I think Israel's a THREAT’ — Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones ’Israel has one trump card: it's nuclear weapons. And you don't want to put Israel in a position where they feel they have no choice but to use those weapons’ 'REALLY destructive things could happen'

‘I think Israel's a THREAT’ — Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones ’Israel has one trump card: it's nuclear weapons. And you don't want to put Israel in a position where they feel they have no choice but to use those weapons’ 'REALLY destructive things could happen'

RT

63,735 次观看 • 2 个月前

Zelenskyy: I cut out destructive ideas from the new peace plans. Ukraine won’t trade territory. Russia wants what it wants — we know it 100%. The U.S. understood my position clearly. Our views with Russia differ. I want the U.S. to stay in the middle and push real steps. 3/

Zelenskyy: I cut out destructive ideas from the new peace plans. Ukraine won’t trade territory. Russia wants what it wants — we know it 100%. The U.S. understood my position clearly. Our views with Russia differ. I want the U.S. to stay in the middle and push real steps. 3/

Tymofiy Mylovanov

16,944 次观看 • 8 个月前

Just six months ago, Chuck Schumer voted for this same clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution, and insisted we could not possibly shut the government down because it would be so destructive! But now, solely because he’s afraid of a Marxist primary challenge in NY—he’s REVERSED his position. It’s selfish. It’s foolish. And it’s hurting real Americans.

Just six months ago, Chuck Schumer voted for this same clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution, and insisted we could not possibly shut the government down because it would be so destructive! But now, solely because he’s afraid of a Marxist primary challenge in NY—he’s REVERSED his position. It’s selfish. It’s foolish. And it’s hurting real Americans.

Speaker Mike Johnson

252,217 次观看 • 11 个月前

Mao’s central planning killed at least 70x more people than both atomic bombs combined. His Great Leap Forward economic campaign that seized the farms resulted in the famine that killed 15 to 45 million Chinese. At the same time, Japan was rebuilding into the world’s 2nd largest economy through markets and holding that position for over 40 years. Central planning again showing it is more destructive than atomic bombs.

Mao’s central planning killed at least 70x more people than both atomic bombs combined. His Great Leap Forward economic campaign that seized the farms resulted in the famine that killed 15 to 45 million Chinese. At the same time, Japan was rebuilding into the world’s 2nd largest economy through markets and holding that position for over 40 years. Central planning again showing it is more destructive than atomic bombs.

Rothmus 🏴

20,399 次观看 • 26 天前

EMERGENCY ALERT! Tucker Carlson Warns That The Israeli Government Has Sent Clear Signals That They Are Preparing A Massive 9/11 Style False Flag That Could Go Nuclear. ‘I think Israel's a THREAT’ — Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones 'Israel has one trump card: it's nuclear weapons. And you don't want to put Israel in a position where they feel they have no choice but to use those weapons’ 'REALLY destructive things could happen'

EMERGENCY ALERT! Tucker Carlson Warns That The Israeli Government Has Sent Clear Signals That They Are Preparing A Massive 9/11 Style False Flag That Could Go Nuclear. ‘I think Israel's a THREAT’ — Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones 'Israel has one trump card: it's nuclear weapons. And you don't want to put Israel in a position where they feel they have no choice but to use those weapons’ 'REALLY destructive things could happen'

Alex Jones

1,161,886 次观看 • 2 个月前

Welcome to Flight 2026!! We are prepared to take off into the New Year! Please make sure your Attitude and Blessings are secured and locked in an upright position. All self-destructive devices should be turned off at this time. All negativity, hurt and discouragement should be put away. Should we lose Altitude under pressure, during the flight, reach up and pull down a Prayer. Prayers will automatically be activated by Faith. Once your Faith is activated you can assist other passengers. There will be NO BAGGAGE allowed on this flight. The Captain (GOD) has cleared us for takeoff. Destination— GREATNESS IN 2026 MUCH LOVE! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! BLESSINGS, PEACE, HEALTH, WEALTH, LOVE, MERCY, GRACE, FAVOR, JOY AND MORE IN 2026🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉 - The Raymond’s

Welcome to Flight 2026!! We are prepared to take off into the New Year! Please make sure your Attitude and Blessings are secured and locked in an upright position. All self-destructive devices should be turned off at this time. All negativity, hurt and discouragement should be put away. Should we lose Altitude under pressure, during the flight, reach up and pull down a Prayer. Prayers will automatically be activated by Faith. Once your Faith is activated you can assist other passengers. There will be NO BAGGAGE allowed on this flight. The Captain (GOD) has cleared us for takeoff. Destination— GREATNESS IN 2026 MUCH LOVE! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! BLESSINGS, PEACE, HEALTH, WEALTH, LOVE, MERCY, GRACE, FAVOR, JOY AND MORE IN 2026🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉 - The Raymond’s

Usher Raymond IV

41,341 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨BREAKING NEWS: China Sides With Hamas and Calls For Israel To Back Down Saying "Israel's actions have gone beyond self-defense” ⚠️ China’s public position here indicates they currently see the U.S. as extremely weak with Joe Biden as president. 4 days ago China sent fighter jets to monitor and warn a U.S. Navy patrol aircraft that flew through the Taiwan Strait. They are aggressively setting the stage for an invasion of Taiwan before Joe Biden is removed from office in 2024. If they invade, WW3 will be unofficially underway and de-escalation will become an extremely difficult task. All hell may break loose! By the time Joe Biden’s reign is over, it may go down as the most destructive/damaging 4-year period in modern history. (Video shows recent China military drills near Taiwan)

🚨BREAKING NEWS: China Sides With Hamas and Calls For Israel To Back Down Saying "Israel's actions have gone beyond self-defense” ⚠️ China’s public position here indicates they currently see the U.S. as extremely weak with Joe Biden as president. 4 days ago China sent fighter jets to monitor and warn a U.S. Navy patrol aircraft that flew through the Taiwan Strait. They are aggressively setting the stage for an invasion of Taiwan before Joe Biden is removed from office in 2024. If they invade, WW3 will be unofficially underway and de-escalation will become an extremely difficult task. All hell may break loose! By the time Joe Biden’s reign is over, it may go down as the most destructive/damaging 4-year period in modern history. (Video shows recent China military drills near Taiwan)

Matt Wallace

15,616,251 次观看 • 2 年前

Ron Paul’s wisdom from the floor of the House in 2009 becomes even more relevant and obvious as time continues to pass. Ron Paul: “What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests? What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous? What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel? What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us? What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced? What if we finally decided that torture—even if called “enhanced interrogation techniques”—is self-destructive and produces no useful information, and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil? What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy? What if all the wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing? What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty? What if conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government? What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world? What if the American people woke up and understood the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests? What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations? What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq? What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed? What if the American people learned the truth that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, and it never changes from one administration to the next? What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests? What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan — and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together? What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression? What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America? What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.”

Ron Paul’s wisdom from the floor of the House in 2009 becomes even more relevant and obvious as time continues to pass. Ron Paul: “What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests? What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous? What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel? What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us? What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced? What if we finally decided that torture—even if called “enhanced interrogation techniques”—is self-destructive and produces no useful information, and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil? What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy? What if all the wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing? What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty? What if conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government? What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world? What if the American people woke up and understood the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests? What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations? What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq? What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed? What if the American people learned the truth that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, and it never changes from one administration to the next? What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests? What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan — and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together? What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression? What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America? What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.”

Murray 🇺🇸

47,748 次观看 • 6 个月前

🔴NewsHawks managing editor Dumisani Muleya has been on the Bellarmine Chatunga Mugabe and Tobias Matonhodze case since the beginning - February 19 - close to action through geographical and network or social circle proximity. The case showed that no matter one's family status, social position and financial wherewithal the rule of law or long arm of the law - justice - can still reach you. One can run, but can't hide. South Africa is not a Gangster's Paradise as often widely wrongly thought, particularly in the middle of the Madlanga Commission. Yet the influence of money came into play and was felt in this case. But then again the two convicts got a rather merciful ruling as the magistrate said: Chatunga was fined R600 000 and deported. He literally got away with it. With a slap on the wrist. The only real punishment was the 70-day detention. Hopefully it will help him reform and abandon his self-destructive champagne lifestyle, debauchery and impunity. Tobias got three years in jail. It is not a joke. Yet still lenient. The question is: did he actually shoot the victim or he took the fall? If so, for how much? The victim of their shooting, a gardener Sipho Mahlangu, got R400 000, peanuts really in view of the attempted murder charge - with a potential 15-year jail term - for which Tobias was convicted through a plea bargain deal. It was a good deal for both. Their money helped, but still it became very clear that financial settlement alone was not enough. In the end, there were lessons to be learnt for both, other would-be offenders and all of us in general. Meanwhile, the gun mystery remains unresolved. That's a big setback for the train of justice. The gun was going to be the smoking gun, and may have opened a Pandora’s Box, especially when so many underworld and dodgy characters were hanging around with Chatunga. Chatunga might have been jailed if that gun was found. It was whisked away to Zimbabwe. There was no transparency on the matter; just too many grey areas remain. Some things may never be known. Too many known unknowns in the case, and unknown unknowns.

🔴NewsHawks managing editor Dumisani Muleya has been on the Bellarmine Chatunga Mugabe and Tobias Matonhodze case since the beginning - February 19 - close to action through geographical and network or social circle proximity. The case showed that no matter one's family status, social position and financial wherewithal the rule of law or long arm of the law - justice - can still reach you. One can run, but can't hide. South Africa is not a Gangster's Paradise as often widely wrongly thought, particularly in the middle of the Madlanga Commission. Yet the influence of money came into play and was felt in this case. But then again the two convicts got a rather merciful ruling as the magistrate said: Chatunga was fined R600 000 and deported. He literally got away with it. With a slap on the wrist. The only real punishment was the 70-day detention. Hopefully it will help him reform and abandon his self-destructive champagne lifestyle, debauchery and impunity. Tobias got three years in jail. It is not a joke. Yet still lenient. The question is: did he actually shoot the victim or he took the fall? If so, for how much? The victim of their shooting, a gardener Sipho Mahlangu, got R400 000, peanuts really in view of the attempted murder charge - with a potential 15-year jail term - for which Tobias was convicted through a plea bargain deal. It was a good deal for both. Their money helped, but still it became very clear that financial settlement alone was not enough. In the end, there were lessons to be learnt for both, other would-be offenders and all of us in general. Meanwhile, the gun mystery remains unresolved. That's a big setback for the train of justice. The gun was going to be the smoking gun, and may have opened a Pandora’s Box, especially when so many underworld and dodgy characters were hanging around with Chatunga. Chatunga might have been jailed if that gun was found. It was whisked away to Zimbabwe. There was no transparency on the matter; just too many grey areas remain. Some things may never be known. Too many known unknowns in the case, and unknown unknowns.

TheNewsHawks

12,495 次观看 • 4 个月前

And there it is. After the media spent most of yesterday and today suggesting Trump was going to nuke or otherwise genocide Iran, CNN is already suggesting Trump will "chicken out" and drops the "TACO" line: WOLF BLITZER: The president is sticking to his very, very tough language right now. Is he painting himself though into a corner? If the Iranians don't accept the concessions that he wants? KIMBERLY DOZIER: This could be a high stakes negotiating tactic to try to get them to blink, but so far they haven't. They've proved consistently that they can take more pain, and they see themselves as gaining in political stature every time they force Trump to bypass one of his deadlines, which we might see tonight. The TACO, Trump always chickens out syndrome. Or we could see as a gulf official I just spoke to was worried about a massive strike against many targets in Iran that then causes Iran to retaliate against the gulf. So far, they've been doing destructive attacks, but they haven't unleashed the full scope of what gulf officials think they could do. PAMELA BROWN: And, Peter, we've seen empty threats before from the president. This seems different, though. And if he doesn't follow through and or doesn't get anything tangible in the negotiations, I mean, what kind of a position would that put the U.S. in this war? PETER BERGEN: Well, actually, I'm reminded in his first term he said he could he could end the Afghan war in a week, but it would kill 10 million people. So, he's made these kind of very grandiose kind of threats before. I mean, in this case, obviously, this, you know, who knows what's going to happen at 8 p.m. tonight? The only person who knows is the commander-in-chief. Um, I presume to if he wants to kind of retain some form of credibility, he's going to have to do something because he's threats have been so over the top. But you know, they could be limited and they could be dressed up as well. The negotiations continue. So the limited strikes and continued negotiations, I mean that wouldn't be surprising. BROWN: Yeah.

And there it is. After the media spent most of yesterday and today suggesting Trump was going to nuke or otherwise genocide Iran, CNN is already suggesting Trump will "chicken out" and drops the "TACO" line: WOLF BLITZER: The president is sticking to his very, very tough language right now. Is he painting himself though into a corner? If the Iranians don't accept the concessions that he wants? KIMBERLY DOZIER: This could be a high stakes negotiating tactic to try to get them to blink, but so far they haven't. They've proved consistently that they can take more pain, and they see themselves as gaining in political stature every time they force Trump to bypass one of his deadlines, which we might see tonight. The TACO, Trump always chickens out syndrome. Or we could see as a gulf official I just spoke to was worried about a massive strike against many targets in Iran that then causes Iran to retaliate against the gulf. So far, they've been doing destructive attacks, but they haven't unleashed the full scope of what gulf officials think they could do. PAMELA BROWN: And, Peter, we've seen empty threats before from the president. This seems different, though. And if he doesn't follow through and or doesn't get anything tangible in the negotiations, I mean, what kind of a position would that put the U.S. in this war? PETER BERGEN: Well, actually, I'm reminded in his first term he said he could he could end the Afghan war in a week, but it would kill 10 million people. So, he's made these kind of very grandiose kind of threats before. I mean, in this case, obviously, this, you know, who knows what's going to happen at 8 p.m. tonight? The only person who knows is the commander-in-chief. Um, I presume to if he wants to kind of retain some form of credibility, he's going to have to do something because he's threats have been so over the top. But you know, they could be limited and they could be dressed up as well. The negotiations continue. So the limited strikes and continued negotiations, I mean that wouldn't be surprising. BROWN: Yeah.

Nicholas Fondacaro

84,666 次观看 • 4 个月前

⭕️ PIJ leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah: “We emerged with our weapons in our hands.” Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah said Gaza had “emerged from a historic battle, unparalleled in its nature,” declaring that the resistance ended the war “with our weapons in our hands, our fighters in the field, and our people with their heads held high.” Speaking before the Arab National Conference, Nakhalah described two years of relentless war as a test of endurance against “the most formidable force on earth”—an American-led coalition backing Israel’s campaign. “They desired surrender for our people,” he said, “while we desired steadfastness and the thwarting of the aggression’s objectives.” He credited Gaza’s survival to the unity forged between resistance groups, citing coordination between the Al-Quds Brigades and Al-Qassam Brigades as proof that the battlefield had become “one voice and one position.” Without that unity, he said, “we would not have endured even a single day.” The moment, he added, now demands protection of that cohesion as the struggle shifts from military defense to political confrontation. Nakhalah urged Arab movements to help “unify the Palestinian ranks” and warned that the coming phase would test every faction’s ability to act together—especially as the West Bank faces a campaign aimed at erasing Palestinian presence there. He said the U.S. call for a ceasefire came only after Washington realized that Israel was trapped “in a significant field predicament and severe international isolation,” and that continuing the war had begun to damage America’s own prestige and influence. The Trump-brokered plan to halt the fighting, he argued, was less about peace than about rescuing Israel “from a state of self-destructive madness.” He acknowledged that the ceasefire left “many obstacles and conditions that are not feasible,” revealing deep differences between the resistance and the occupation that remain unresolved. Israel, he said, accepted the deal to escape battlefield losses and internal pressure while clinging to slogans of “eliminating the resistance” and “disarming Gaza”—objectives it failed to achieve through war. Nakhalah closed by praising supporters in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, and mediators Egypt and Qatar, emphasizing that “nothing protects us except striving and resistance, not surrender.” The Palestinian people, he said, stand “honored and respected,” having proven that steadfastness—not submission—preserves their dignity and their cause.

⭕️ PIJ leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah: “We emerged with our weapons in our hands.” Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah said Gaza had “emerged from a historic battle, unparalleled in its nature,” declaring that the resistance ended the war “with our weapons in our hands, our fighters in the field, and our people with their heads held high.” Speaking before the Arab National Conference, Nakhalah described two years of relentless war as a test of endurance against “the most formidable force on earth”—an American-led coalition backing Israel’s campaign. “They desired surrender for our people,” he said, “while we desired steadfastness and the thwarting of the aggression’s objectives.” He credited Gaza’s survival to the unity forged between resistance groups, citing coordination between the Al-Quds Brigades and Al-Qassam Brigades as proof that the battlefield had become “one voice and one position.” Without that unity, he said, “we would not have endured even a single day.” The moment, he added, now demands protection of that cohesion as the struggle shifts from military defense to political confrontation. Nakhalah urged Arab movements to help “unify the Palestinian ranks” and warned that the coming phase would test every faction’s ability to act together—especially as the West Bank faces a campaign aimed at erasing Palestinian presence there. He said the U.S. call for a ceasefire came only after Washington realized that Israel was trapped “in a significant field predicament and severe international isolation,” and that continuing the war had begun to damage America’s own prestige and influence. The Trump-brokered plan to halt the fighting, he argued, was less about peace than about rescuing Israel “from a state of self-destructive madness.” He acknowledged that the ceasefire left “many obstacles and conditions that are not feasible,” revealing deep differences between the resistance and the occupation that remain unresolved. Israel, he said, accepted the deal to escape battlefield losses and internal pressure while clinging to slogans of “eliminating the resistance” and “disarming Gaza”—objectives it failed to achieve through war. Nakhalah closed by praising supporters in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, and mediators Egypt and Qatar, emphasizing that “nothing protects us except striving and resistance, not surrender.” The Palestinian people, he said, stand “honored and respected,” having proven that steadfastness—not submission—preserves their dignity and their cause.

Drop Site

26,204 次观看 • 9 个月前

Eric Li (a famous Chinese VC and the founder of Guancha) and Márton Ugrósdy, (Hungary's Deputy State Secretary) are absolutely correct: "In [today's geopolitical] environment countries that can maintain their neutrality will benefit the most. Countries that are being forced to take sides will lose... Neutrality will be a prized asset but it takes finesse, political will and sovereignty to do that [and achieve] strategic autonomy, political autonomy, cultural autonomy." Márton Ugrósdy adds that if "you end up in a position where you have to make 'either-or' choices between great powers then you messed up something years ago". This is the main tragedy of the EU over the past 20 years. An accumulation of bad choices over years means that it has no strategic autonomy, no sovereignty and is constantly forced to make either-or choices that work out against its interests. All with the result that it is so far THE big loser of today's geopolitical environment. We constantly talk about "freedom" and the importance of it but we somehow only ever look at individual freedom, never our collective ability as nations (or supranational entities like the EU) to be masters of our own destiny. When you think about it that's arguably even more important than individual freedom because you can individually be free all you want - be able to post whatever you want on Twitter and whatnot - but that counts little if in the grander scheme of things you're a citizen of a country that isn't free to choose its own destiny and is constantly forced to make choice that impoverish you or make you less secure... What kind of "freedom" is that? This is at heart why I have such an issue with people who put individual freedom at the pinnacle of what we ought to aim for as a society. It's akin to you being on the Titanic and saying that the most important thing to you is how comfy your cabin is... Or, more to the point, it's saying that it's ok if countries have their ships steered by outside powers - what matter most is that their passengers can tweet about it. It's downright myopic and practically destructive, ending up destroying collective AND individual freedom. This question also reveals something fascinating about the difference in vision for the world order between China and the U.S. China, throughout its history and all the more since the founding of the PRC, has always argued in favor of non-interference in other states' internal affairs, meaning in favor of not impeding on their sovereignty (and of course, in favor of no-one impeding on China's sovereignty). In that sense, Eric Li reflects China's official position here. It means that China is agnostic on individual freedom (it's your own choice internally) but takes an active stance in favor of sovereignty, i.e. collective freedom. The U.S. is almost the polar opposite: they take a very strong stance on individual freedom but make a mockery of collective freedom, as they violate countries' sovereignty as a matter of routine. Heck, they have entire agencies (like the National Endowment for Democracy) whose entire purpose is to violate countries' sovereignty. And in fact, often, they use individual freedom as an excuse to do so. Going back to my Titanic ideology, this means that China's vision is to ensure the ships remain under their captains' control, while the US focuses on the accommodations for individual passengers - even if that means drilling holes in other ships' hulls. It's almost a philosophical debate. How meaningful is individual freedom without the ability of a community to chart its own course? Europe needs to learn real fast that in today's world the answer is that if you can't steer your ship freely the whole thing will sink.

Eric Li (a famous Chinese VC and the founder of Guancha) and Márton Ugrósdy, (Hungary's Deputy State Secretary) are absolutely correct: "In [today's geopolitical] environment countries that can maintain their neutrality will benefit the most. Countries that are being forced to take sides will lose... Neutrality will be a prized asset but it takes finesse, political will and sovereignty to do that [and achieve] strategic autonomy, political autonomy, cultural autonomy." Márton Ugrósdy adds that if "you end up in a position where you have to make 'either-or' choices between great powers then you messed up something years ago". This is the main tragedy of the EU over the past 20 years. An accumulation of bad choices over years means that it has no strategic autonomy, no sovereignty and is constantly forced to make either-or choices that work out against its interests. All with the result that it is so far THE big loser of today's geopolitical environment. We constantly talk about "freedom" and the importance of it but we somehow only ever look at individual freedom, never our collective ability as nations (or supranational entities like the EU) to be masters of our own destiny. When you think about it that's arguably even more important than individual freedom because you can individually be free all you want - be able to post whatever you want on Twitter and whatnot - but that counts little if in the grander scheme of things you're a citizen of a country that isn't free to choose its own destiny and is constantly forced to make choice that impoverish you or make you less secure... What kind of "freedom" is that? This is at heart why I have such an issue with people who put individual freedom at the pinnacle of what we ought to aim for as a society. It's akin to you being on the Titanic and saying that the most important thing to you is how comfy your cabin is... Or, more to the point, it's saying that it's ok if countries have their ships steered by outside powers - what matter most is that their passengers can tweet about it. It's downright myopic and practically destructive, ending up destroying collective AND individual freedom. This question also reveals something fascinating about the difference in vision for the world order between China and the U.S. China, throughout its history and all the more since the founding of the PRC, has always argued in favor of non-interference in other states' internal affairs, meaning in favor of not impeding on their sovereignty (and of course, in favor of no-one impeding on China's sovereignty). In that sense, Eric Li reflects China's official position here. It means that China is agnostic on individual freedom (it's your own choice internally) but takes an active stance in favor of sovereignty, i.e. collective freedom. The U.S. is almost the polar opposite: they take a very strong stance on individual freedom but make a mockery of collective freedom, as they violate countries' sovereignty as a matter of routine. Heck, they have entire agencies (like the National Endowment for Democracy) whose entire purpose is to violate countries' sovereignty. And in fact, often, they use individual freedom as an excuse to do so. Going back to my Titanic ideology, this means that China's vision is to ensure the ships remain under their captains' control, while the US focuses on the accommodations for individual passengers - even if that means drilling holes in other ships' hulls. It's almost a philosophical debate. How meaningful is individual freedom without the ability of a community to chart its own course? Europe needs to learn real fast that in today's world the answer is that if you can't steer your ship freely the whole thing will sink.

Arnaud Bertrand

99,717 次观看 • 1 年前

Over the last few years, the American people have come to believe that our establishment institutions are at least partly responsible for a series of self-inflicted wounds. Our health and medical establishment either failed to address or enabled declining life expectancy, a mental health crisis including an addiction epidemic, and a botched response to Covid. Our military and foreign policy establishment unnecessarily started and prolonged war and conflict in the Middle East and violated civil liberties at home in the name of fighting terrorism. And liberalized migration laws have depressed working-class wages, swamped the ability of cities to absorb the new migrants, and created a humanitarian disaster on the border. Given all of that, the President-elect Donald Trump’s nominations make sense. As Border Czar, Thomas Homan will take strong action to close the southern border and deport criminals. National Director of Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard will bring greater skepticism to foreign military entanglements and calls to restrict civil liberties for national security. And Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will stand up to the corporations that most everyone agrees have put self-interest before the public’s interest on everything from drug safety to food quality. We shouldn’t be surprised that some of them hold views that many of us disagree with. The main criticism of Trump’s nominees is that they have dangerous and fringe views. Homan said he would deport whole families. Gabbard said the Russian-backed Syrian dictator was not America’s enemy. And Kennedy espouses marginal and unsubstantiated views on everything from nuclear power to 5Gs. But Homan has made clear his focus will be on deporting criminals, not families, whatever one thinks of Gabbard’s position on the Syrian conflict, it’s obvious from the context that she made her remarks in service of her loyalty to the US, not Russia, and Kennedy has said, repeatedly, that he won’t ban vaccines. And throughout history, most real reformers and innovators have held fringe views and have had aspects of their personalities that are problematic. In most cases, those flaws or idiosyncrasies proved to be a small price to pay for their willingness to overcome the many obstacles required to achieve serious reforms of deeply entrenched institutions. This is true not just of Homan, Gabbard, and Kennedy, but also of Defense Secretary and Attorney General nominees, Pete Hegseth and Matt Gaetz, respectively. The accusations the media has made against the two men are so far unsubstantiated by the available evidence. And none of the allegedly wrong views or bad deeds of Trump’s nominees outweigh the potential of the nominees to reform the institutions that are directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, prolonged occupation of Afghanistan, entanglement in foreign conflicts, corporate capture of the FDA, the weaponization of government, Covid school closures, authoritarian and gratuitous Covid vaccine mandates, unhealthy diets, the addiction crisis that kills 100,000 Americans per year, the humanitarian disaster along the border, and the mistreatment of children with pseudoscientific transgender medicine. Strong leaders committed to reforming America’s military and foreign policy establishment, its public health, food, and medical establishments, and its immigration and border security establishment are precisely what the American people wanted when they voted for Trump. If those nominees pursue destructive agendas in lieu of doing their jobs, we will be the first to call them out for it. But the establishment has no ground on which to stand... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Over the last few years, the American people have come to believe that our establishment institutions are at least partly responsible for a series of self-inflicted wounds. Our health and medical establishment either failed to address or enabled declining life expectancy, a mental health crisis including an addiction epidemic, and a botched response to Covid. Our military and foreign policy establishment unnecessarily started and prolonged war and conflict in the Middle East and violated civil liberties at home in the name of fighting terrorism. And liberalized migration laws have depressed working-class wages, swamped the ability of cities to absorb the new migrants, and created a humanitarian disaster on the border. Given all of that, the President-elect Donald Trump’s nominations make sense. As Border Czar, Thomas Homan will take strong action to close the southern border and deport criminals. National Director of Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard will bring greater skepticism to foreign military entanglements and calls to restrict civil liberties for national security. And Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will stand up to the corporations that most everyone agrees have put self-interest before the public’s interest on everything from drug safety to food quality. We shouldn’t be surprised that some of them hold views that many of us disagree with. The main criticism of Trump’s nominees is that they have dangerous and fringe views. Homan said he would deport whole families. Gabbard said the Russian-backed Syrian dictator was not America’s enemy. And Kennedy espouses marginal and unsubstantiated views on everything from nuclear power to 5Gs. But Homan has made clear his focus will be on deporting criminals, not families, whatever one thinks of Gabbard’s position on the Syrian conflict, it’s obvious from the context that she made her remarks in service of her loyalty to the US, not Russia, and Kennedy has said, repeatedly, that he won’t ban vaccines. And throughout history, most real reformers and innovators have held fringe views and have had aspects of their personalities that are problematic. In most cases, those flaws or idiosyncrasies proved to be a small price to pay for their willingness to overcome the many obstacles required to achieve serious reforms of deeply entrenched institutions. This is true not just of Homan, Gabbard, and Kennedy, but also of Defense Secretary and Attorney General nominees, Pete Hegseth and Matt Gaetz, respectively. The accusations the media has made against the two men are so far unsubstantiated by the available evidence. And none of the allegedly wrong views or bad deeds of Trump’s nominees outweigh the potential of the nominees to reform the institutions that are directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, prolonged occupation of Afghanistan, entanglement in foreign conflicts, corporate capture of the FDA, the weaponization of government, Covid school closures, authoritarian and gratuitous Covid vaccine mandates, unhealthy diets, the addiction crisis that kills 100,000 Americans per year, the humanitarian disaster along the border, and the mistreatment of children with pseudoscientific transgender medicine. Strong leaders committed to reforming America’s military and foreign policy establishment, its public health, food, and medical establishments, and its immigration and border security establishment are precisely what the American people wanted when they voted for Trump. If those nominees pursue destructive agendas in lieu of doing their jobs, we will be the first to call them out for it. But the establishment has no ground on which to stand... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

35,021 次观看 • 1 年前