Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🔥 MAHUA MOITRA'S EXPLOSIVE "𝐁𝐉𝐏 𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐘 𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐌𝐘 𝐓𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐇... 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐊𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐄 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐈'𝐋𝐋 𝐒𝐄𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐁𝐉𝐏 𝐁𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐈 𝐃𝐈𝐄!" Even with internal fractures (orchestrated by BJP money & muscle), she made it clear: TMC under #MamataDidi remains the strongest weapon against their Majoritarianism and... show more

তন্ময় l T͞anmoy l

33,238 subscribers

19,634 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

Michael Shellenberger

2,055,076 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: The New TPUSA Is Everything Charlie Kirk Fought AGAINST— Full Video Of The STANDOFF At TPUSA HQ That No One Was Supposed To See🤯 Many of you have asked for it, so here it is. Here is the FULL video from Zee Cohen-Sanchez where she and her Unfuck America Tour took the fight straight to the front doors of the Turning Point USA National Headquarters in Phoenix to find out why they are trying to silence free speech on the Arizona State campus—the very thing Charlie Kirk fought for. What started as a standoff with security turned into an explosive, unscripted confrontation with the "Inner Circle" itself. Blake Neff, Jack Posobiec, and Andrew Kolvet actually came out to the sidewalk to face them. 🧊 THE HIGHLIGHTS THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE: The "Appointment" Wall: Security tried to tell them that even if they showed up with $5,000 cash to donate, they wouldn’t be allowed in to ask where the money goes without an "online appointment." The headquarters has become a fortress. The ASU Mystery: They pressed Blake Neff on why they their event at ASU was mysteriously canceled. He claimed Erika Kirk "has no idea" why it happened, despite her publicly attacking their organization just days prior. The Double Standard: When the topic shifted to debating liberal streamer Destiny (Destiny | Steven Bonnell II), the TPUSA team tried to pivot, claiming they couldn't engage with someone who "justifies violence." They fired back immediately, correcting the record that Destiny never condoned violence—and then they dropped the hammer: How can TPUSA unconditionally support Donald Trump while he’s out attacking Gold Star families and celebrating the death of Robert Mueller, yet claim there’s "no room" for civil discourse with them? The hypocrisy was deafening. The Hostile Takeover: Zee and her crew looked them in the eye and told them—this isn't the TPUSA Charlie built. It’s been hijacked by a leadership that is more interested in protecting their image than protecting the First Amendment. 🧩 THE "WE ARE CHARLIE KIRK" REVELATION In a moment of pure sacrilege to them, Zee's crew revealed their branded shirts and lighter: "WE ARE CHARLIE KIRK." Jack Posobiec called it "sacrilege," but they made it clear—they are the ones carrying the flame of actual civil discourse. They weren't there to be "polite" to a machine that silences free speech and does everything they can to shut down counter-protest. TPUSA does not represent America First anymore. They represent the War Machine. They claim to honor Charlie's legacy of open discourse, but the absolute second someone challenges them, they try to use their connections to get their event cancelled. FOLLOW: Zee Cohen-Sanchez and the Unfuck America Tour for updates as they are planning a massive lawsuit against ASU and potentially TPUSA if they find proof they were involved. Watch the full video. Decide for yourself. Who is actually standing up for Charlie’s legacy, and who is just protecting the payroll? 👇

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: The New TPUSA Is Everything Charlie Kirk Fought AGAINST— Full Video Of The STANDOFF At TPUSA HQ That No One Was Supposed To See🤯 Many of you have asked for it, so here it is. Here is the FULL video from Zee Cohen-Sanchez where she and her Unfuck America Tour took the fight straight to the front doors of the Turning Point USA National Headquarters in Phoenix to find out why they are trying to silence free speech on the Arizona State campus—the very thing Charlie Kirk fought for. What started as a standoff with security turned into an explosive, unscripted confrontation with the "Inner Circle" itself. Blake Neff, Jack Posobiec, and Andrew Kolvet actually came out to the sidewalk to face them. 🧊 THE HIGHLIGHTS THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE: The "Appointment" Wall: Security tried to tell them that even if they showed up with $5,000 cash to donate, they wouldn’t be allowed in to ask where the money goes without an "online appointment." The headquarters has become a fortress. The ASU Mystery: They pressed Blake Neff on why they their event at ASU was mysteriously canceled. He claimed Erika Kirk "has no idea" why it happened, despite her publicly attacking their organization just days prior. The Double Standard: When the topic shifted to debating liberal streamer Destiny (Destiny | Steven Bonnell II), the TPUSA team tried to pivot, claiming they couldn't engage with someone who "justifies violence." They fired back immediately, correcting the record that Destiny never condoned violence—and then they dropped the hammer: How can TPUSA unconditionally support Donald Trump while he’s out attacking Gold Star families and celebrating the death of Robert Mueller, yet claim there’s "no room" for civil discourse with them? The hypocrisy was deafening. The Hostile Takeover: Zee and her crew looked them in the eye and told them—this isn't the TPUSA Charlie built. It’s been hijacked by a leadership that is more interested in protecting their image than protecting the First Amendment. 🧩 THE "WE ARE CHARLIE KIRK" REVELATION In a moment of pure sacrilege to them, Zee's crew revealed their branded shirts and lighter: "WE ARE CHARLIE KIRK." Jack Posobiec called it "sacrilege," but they made it clear—they are the ones carrying the flame of actual civil discourse. They weren't there to be "polite" to a machine that silences free speech and does everything they can to shut down counter-protest. TPUSA does not represent America First anymore. They represent the War Machine. They claim to honor Charlie's legacy of open discourse, but the absolute second someone challenges them, they try to use their connections to get their event cancelled. FOLLOW: Zee Cohen-Sanchez and the Unfuck America Tour for updates as they are planning a massive lawsuit against ASU and potentially TPUSA if they find proof they were involved. Watch the full video. Decide for yourself. Who is actually standing up for Charlie’s legacy, and who is just protecting the payroll? 👇

Project Constitution

93,832 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

🚨The Bondi Takedown: A Deep-State Operation to Isolate Trump and Protect the Epstein Cover-Up🚨 Part 1 of 2 (Part 2-Why not explain Qatar and Hamas further?) The Coordinated Attack on AG Pam Bondi: Undermining Trump’s Inner Circle The deep state, controlled opposition, and social media influencers know they cannot survive attacking President Trump directly, so they go after his inner circle instead. We've seen this playbook used before against General Michael Flynn, and now the target is Attorney General Pam Bondi. There is a critical difference between legitimate scrutiny of public officials and a strategic, limited-information campaign designed to force resignations. The current X social media operation is not about real transparency, it is a psychological manipulation campaign meant to weaken Trump’s closest allies before midterms and as the information battle intensifies. Why Bondi? What’s the Real Threat? Pam Bondi’s role goes far beyond politics, she just made a significant move not only for Kash Patel and President Trump but for the entire truth seeking movement. Her actions just validated years of suppressed investigations that many dismissed as conspiracy theories, proving that: -The FBI & SDNY actively concealed evidence in the Epstein case, what other cases? -The Anthony Weiner laptop cover-up is real, a device containing explosive files, including a folder titled “Life Insurance” will not be discovered by Kash when he does this internal investigation. -Police officers who reportedly viewed the contents of Weiner’s laptop mysteriously committed “suicide.” -Huma Abedin’s connection to Weiner ties straight to Hillary Clinton and the most disturbing topic of all- FRAZZLEDRIP. Epstein gives us Bill Clinton and Weiner will give us Hillary and more. Bondi just publicly named those responsible for concealing this information and, more importantly, gave Kash Patel the TOPCOVER he needs to make unprecedented moves that could expose the deepest, darkest crimes of the elite. Why the Deep State Needs Bondi Removed-Now Bondi’s actions didn’t just expose a cover-up, they threatened the power structure protecting it. -The Epstein blackmail network leads straight to Israeli intelligence operations targeting U.S. elites. -If Bondi stays in position, Patel can move forward with legal actions that could unravel decades of government corruption. -Removing Bondi weakens Patel and if they take Patel down next, Trump loses his strongest legal warrior. The FARA Smokescreen: Weaponized Perception Control Yes, Bondi was registered under FARA for Qatar, and Qatar has funded Hamas, but why does the narrative stop there? Because this isn’t about full transparency-it’s about steering cognitive bias toward a pre-determined conclusion: Bondi is compromised. This is a classic deep-state play: 1. Release partial truths - enough to appear credible. 2. Frame the story to push emotional reactions. 3. Suppress broader context that dismantles the narrative. If this was really about transparency, these influencers would have been consistent-but where were they when: -Trump announced J.D. Vance as VP? -Real concerns about Vance’s technocrat ties were first raised? Peter Thiel? Palantir? -These same people waited until truth-seekers surfaced the issue first, then briefly mentioned weeks and months later? The Bondi attack follows the same pattern-selective outrage, perfectly timed. The Real Goal: Isolate Trump, One Ally at a Time This isn’t just about Bondi, this is a staged takedown of Trump’s most critical allies: 1. Force Bondi to resign, cutting off Kash Patel’s support system. 2. Turn the focus to Patel, destabilizing Trump’s legal war chest. 3. Weaken Trump before 2024, removing his strongest warriors before the real fight begins. Final Thought: Watch, Don’t React Emotionally Should we question Bondi and others? Absolutely. But calling for resignations based on limited, manipulated narratives is reckless. Instead, we watch, we analyze, and we observe her next moves-especially against the FBI and SDNY. X is flooded with controlled assets. Be mindful of who has your ear. There may be a time when calling for Bondi's resignation is warranted, now is not that time. Watch “Just Alpha” Monday night 9:30PM EST for a deep dive into how this operation is unfolding in real time. Part 2 is next. The reason Qatar and Hamas was mentioned with limited and controlled information.

🚨The Bondi Takedown: A Deep-State Operation to Isolate Trump and Protect the Epstein Cover-Up🚨 Part 1 of 2 (Part 2-Why not explain Qatar and Hamas further?) The Coordinated Attack on AG Pam Bondi: Undermining Trump’s Inner Circle The deep state, controlled opposition, and social media influencers know they cannot survive attacking President Trump directly, so they go after his inner circle instead. We've seen this playbook used before against General Michael Flynn, and now the target is Attorney General Pam Bondi. There is a critical difference between legitimate scrutiny of public officials and a strategic, limited-information campaign designed to force resignations. The current X social media operation is not about real transparency, it is a psychological manipulation campaign meant to weaken Trump’s closest allies before midterms and as the information battle intensifies. Why Bondi? What’s the Real Threat? Pam Bondi’s role goes far beyond politics, she just made a significant move not only for Kash Patel and President Trump but for the entire truth seeking movement. Her actions just validated years of suppressed investigations that many dismissed as conspiracy theories, proving that: -The FBI & SDNY actively concealed evidence in the Epstein case, what other cases? -The Anthony Weiner laptop cover-up is real, a device containing explosive files, including a folder titled “Life Insurance” will not be discovered by Kash when he does this internal investigation. -Police officers who reportedly viewed the contents of Weiner’s laptop mysteriously committed “suicide.” -Huma Abedin’s connection to Weiner ties straight to Hillary Clinton and the most disturbing topic of all- FRAZZLEDRIP. Epstein gives us Bill Clinton and Weiner will give us Hillary and more. Bondi just publicly named those responsible for concealing this information and, more importantly, gave Kash Patel the TOPCOVER he needs to make unprecedented moves that could expose the deepest, darkest crimes of the elite. Why the Deep State Needs Bondi Removed-Now Bondi’s actions didn’t just expose a cover-up, they threatened the power structure protecting it. -The Epstein blackmail network leads straight to Israeli intelligence operations targeting U.S. elites. -If Bondi stays in position, Patel can move forward with legal actions that could unravel decades of government corruption. -Removing Bondi weakens Patel and if they take Patel down next, Trump loses his strongest legal warrior. The FARA Smokescreen: Weaponized Perception Control Yes, Bondi was registered under FARA for Qatar, and Qatar has funded Hamas, but why does the narrative stop there? Because this isn’t about full transparency-it’s about steering cognitive bias toward a pre-determined conclusion: Bondi is compromised. This is a classic deep-state play: 1. Release partial truths - enough to appear credible. 2. Frame the story to push emotional reactions. 3. Suppress broader context that dismantles the narrative. If this was really about transparency, these influencers would have been consistent-but where were they when: -Trump announced J.D. Vance as VP? -Real concerns about Vance’s technocrat ties were first raised? Peter Thiel? Palantir? -These same people waited until truth-seekers surfaced the issue first, then briefly mentioned weeks and months later? The Bondi attack follows the same pattern-selective outrage, perfectly timed. The Real Goal: Isolate Trump, One Ally at a Time This isn’t just about Bondi, this is a staged takedown of Trump’s most critical allies: 1. Force Bondi to resign, cutting off Kash Patel’s support system. 2. Turn the focus to Patel, destabilizing Trump’s legal war chest. 3. Weaken Trump before 2024, removing his strongest warriors before the real fight begins. Final Thought: Watch, Don’t React Emotionally Should we question Bondi and others? Absolutely. But calling for resignations based on limited, manipulated narratives is reckless. Instead, we watch, we analyze, and we observe her next moves-especially against the FBI and SDNY. X is flooded with controlled assets. Be mindful of who has your ear. There may be a time when calling for Bondi's resignation is warranted, now is not that time. Watch “Just Alpha” Monday night 9:30PM EST for a deep dive into how this operation is unfolding in real time. Part 2 is next. The reason Qatar and Hamas was mentioned with limited and controlled information.

ALPHAWARRIOR

119,414 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

John Durham laid out Operation Crossfire hurricane: The FBI's secret war to frame Donald Trump while protecting Hillary Clinton's russian assets. Durham's investigation revealed evidence exposing how the highest levels of the FBI deliberately manipulated and corrupted their own investigation to target President Trump's campaign while simultaneously burying evidence that would have exposed their Treasonous dark agenda. The scandal centers around the infamous Crossfire Hurricane investigation, where FBI leadership didn't just bend the rules, they shattered them to advance a political vendetta to take down Donald Trump. At the heart of this conspiracy lies an explosive chain of Treasonous events that make Watergate look like a parking ticket. FBI agents literally committed felonies by fabricating evidence to obtain FISA warrants for surveillance on American citizens. Even more shocking, they [KNOWINGLY] used a fake dossier funded by the Clinton campaign, a document whose primary source, Igor Danchenko, was himself a suspected Russian agent under FBI investigation. The magnitude of this deception cannot be overstated. The FBI was using a potential Russian spy's information to investigate alleged Russian collusion, while hiding this crucial detail from the courts. The FBI received DIRECT intelligence that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia information so significant it was briefed to the President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Attorney General, and FBI Director. Yet FBI leadership, led by James Comey, deliberately concealed this bombshell from their own investigating agents. When one supervisory agent finally learned of this suppressed intelligence, he was so disturbed he had to leave the room. The cover-up extended to Charles Dolan, a Clinton ally and key source for the infamous dossier, who mysteriously remained un-interviewed despite his deep connections to both the Clinton campaign and Russian interests. When an FBI analyst pushed to investigate Dolan, she was swiftly reassigned but not before documenting the suppression for future investigators, knowing that someday the truth would need to come out. This isn't just about political bias, it's about the systematic corruption of America's premier intelligence-law enforcement agency to serve as a political weapon against Donald Trump. The revelation that FBI leadership deliberately buried evidence, fabricated documents, and removed investigators who got too close to the truth exposes a level of institutional corruption that threatens the very foundation of our democratic system. They weren't just breaking the law, they were breaking the entire concept of equal justice under the law. This is not about protecting one man or one party. This is about whether we still live under a Constitutional Republic where the law applies equally, or whether we accept a two-tiered system that hunts its political enemies with the full force of federal power. We need consequences severe enough to deter the next group of elites who believe they stand above the Republic they're supposed to be serving. Our civil liberties were tested in 2016 and found fragile. The same machinery still exists. Hold every elected official’s feet to the fire until the Department of Justice and FBI remember they serve the Constitution, not campaigns, not cabals, not personal vendettas. This is a declaration of war on the erosion of justice. We do not forgive. We do not forget. And we will not rest until the scales are balance.The rule of law is not optional. It is the spine of this nation. We either restore it, or we watch it snap. Treason Doesn't Pay Well In The End.

John Durham laid out Operation Crossfire hurricane: The FBI's secret war to frame Donald Trump while protecting Hillary Clinton's russian assets. Durham's investigation revealed evidence exposing how the highest levels of the FBI deliberately manipulated and corrupted their own investigation to target President Trump's campaign while simultaneously burying evidence that would have exposed their Treasonous dark agenda. The scandal centers around the infamous Crossfire Hurricane investigation, where FBI leadership didn't just bend the rules, they shattered them to advance a political vendetta to take down Donald Trump. At the heart of this conspiracy lies an explosive chain of Treasonous events that make Watergate look like a parking ticket. FBI agents literally committed felonies by fabricating evidence to obtain FISA warrants for surveillance on American citizens. Even more shocking, they [KNOWINGLY] used a fake dossier funded by the Clinton campaign, a document whose primary source, Igor Danchenko, was himself a suspected Russian agent under FBI investigation. The magnitude of this deception cannot be overstated. The FBI was using a potential Russian spy's information to investigate alleged Russian collusion, while hiding this crucial detail from the courts. The FBI received DIRECT intelligence that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia information so significant it was briefed to the President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Attorney General, and FBI Director. Yet FBI leadership, led by James Comey, deliberately concealed this bombshell from their own investigating agents. When one supervisory agent finally learned of this suppressed intelligence, he was so disturbed he had to leave the room. The cover-up extended to Charles Dolan, a Clinton ally and key source for the infamous dossier, who mysteriously remained un-interviewed despite his deep connections to both the Clinton campaign and Russian interests. When an FBI analyst pushed to investigate Dolan, she was swiftly reassigned but not before documenting the suppression for future investigators, knowing that someday the truth would need to come out. This isn't just about political bias, it's about the systematic corruption of America's premier intelligence-law enforcement agency to serve as a political weapon against Donald Trump. The revelation that FBI leadership deliberately buried evidence, fabricated documents, and removed investigators who got too close to the truth exposes a level of institutional corruption that threatens the very foundation of our democratic system. They weren't just breaking the law, they were breaking the entire concept of equal justice under the law. This is not about protecting one man or one party. This is about whether we still live under a Constitutional Republic where the law applies equally, or whether we accept a two-tiered system that hunts its political enemies with the full force of federal power. We need consequences severe enough to deter the next group of elites who believe they stand above the Republic they're supposed to be serving. Our civil liberties were tested in 2016 and found fragile. The same machinery still exists. Hold every elected official’s feet to the fire until the Department of Justice and FBI remember they serve the Constitution, not campaigns, not cabals, not personal vendettas. This is a declaration of war on the erosion of justice. We do not forgive. We do not forget. And we will not rest until the scales are balance.The rule of law is not optional. It is the spine of this nation. We either restore it, or we watch it snap. Treason Doesn't Pay Well In The End.

Bridgett Fertig

33,240 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

While we are busy focused on the 2030 presidential term extension theatrics, the presidential race to take over from President Emmerson Mnangagwa is already in full swing inside ZANUPF. It is an open secret that Mnangagwa’s preferred successor is businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei, and the dark horse is General Valerio Sibanda, who retired from the army in an announcement made yesterday by the presidency. Tagwirei is already on a campaign trail which some have not observed, and all the issues he is raising are carefully crafted to resonate with ordinary citizens, shifting from liberation struggle slogans like Pasi neMhandu to Pasi neNhamo and Mari Muhomwe. He is deliberately rebranding himself as a champion of economic grievances, positioning his message to speak directly to poverty, hardship, and the cost of living, rather than the old liberation rhetoric. This is not accidental, his nemesis is a soldier and military general whose track record is rooted in Zimbabwe's excesses. What Tagwirei is doing is planting in his rallies a political seed that he hopes will germinate between now and 2027, when the ZANUPF Congress is expected to elect a new leader, or even earlier if an extraordinary congress is convened as some in the ruling party suspect might happen. That seed is intended to carry him into 2028, when the general election is due, if he succeeds in taking over should his principal, President Mnangagwa, not change his mind or Chiwenga stages a dramatic miracle coup. He is laying the groundwork early, shaping public perception, opinion and positioning himself as the natural successor by tapping into economic frustrations that ordinary citizens understand and feel every day. The elites see things differently, but it is the poor in townships and rural Zimbabwe who are being targeted with this messaging. When I look at the political landscape in Zimbabwe today, I see nobody else, either in the opposition or in ZANUPF, offering a clear and solid message that speaks to the people’s real needs. What we consider logical in elite circles does not sell to the poor, their needs are immediate. They want solutions for today, regardless of who created the problems that require solutions. While the educated elites talk about root-cause analysis and solutions for a distant future in their scenarios, the ordinary citizens want Sapatina, a euphemism for something that comes today, coined by a man who was perfectly happy eating chicken and chips/fries at State House. Our struggles are different. Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga, who thought he was a shoo in to become the next president after leading a coup against Robert Mugabe and making way for Mnangagwa, is now talking about corruption, something we have discussed for years to appeal to the masses. But Tagwirei is positioning himself differently. He is in full campaign mode, planting messages aimed at securing his place in the succession race, messages of economic prosperity. He is speaking to the daily needs of ZANUPF supporters and Zimbabweans in general. He is placing himself before the electorate, travelling, being visible, leveraging state linked platforms, and promising youths economic empowerment. Meanwhile, the general is speaking in closed boardrooms, and nobody has heard him speak directly to his presidential ambitions outside his own circle. Tagwirei is out in the open shaping a constituency, while Chiwenga remains confined to private spaces that do not build political momentum. That does not look regular to me unless he has an ace up his sleeves, a coup, because a coup does not require much talking. But as Mnangagwa shuts all the options once available to him by creating a state security sector in his own image, the prospects of a coup become slimmer with each move made by Mnangagwa. In closing those doors and pathways, Mnangagwa has effectively weakened Chiwenga’s leverage and narrowed the space in which he could plausibly attempt anything outside the formal succession path using ZANUPF internal processes. Tagwirei’s "meet the people" type of rallies with music stars in tow point to a group of people focused on winning hearts and minds both inside and outside ZANUPF. They have money. The other side has passion and entitlement, but without money there is very little political traction in Zimbabwe’s political theatre, where loyalties change based on what is on the table. Politics the world over is about money, that is why Elon Musk claimed that he won the election for Donald Trump, and that is why Trump said you need US$5 billion to become a president in America, it is about money. When you strip away the slogans and the drama, the real engine of political power is financial muscle, whether in Zimbabwe, America, or anywhere else. Tagwirei’s Godfather Mnangagwa understands that politics in Zimbabwe is transactional, and he is investing heavily in shaping perceptions, building networks, and buying influence long before the succession battle formally begins. Those opposed to Mnangagwa and his faction must not wake up tomorrow pretending they did not see this coming. It is obvious that Tagwirei is positioning himself as the most visible, accessible and well financed candidate within ZANUPF. It is also obvious that there is no opposition in Zimbabwe and that Chiwenga’s grip has been terribly loosened in unthinkable ways. Anyone paying attention can see the succession terrain shifting, and those who fail to read these signals will only have themselves to blame when the outcome unfolds. The question for the remnants of the main opposition is simple. What are you doing about 2028? Because while everyone is distracted by the talk of 2030, that talk may turn out to be a political ruse, a deliberate decoy to make us ignore what is unfolding on the ground. 2030 could be the bait that sends General Chiwenga chasing shadows while his real competitor campaigns at grassroots level, spends money, and entrenches himself as a household name. Mnangagwa is a political strategist who has won politically through hook or crook, so it would be a fatal mistake to assume that he has only one plan. A second option is to push for 2030, not with the intention of serving until then, but to block General Chiwenga at a congress and secure enough time to hand over to a successor of his choice after defeating Chiwenga. That is on condition that Chiwenga even has the guts to challenge him for the party leadership, which at the moment looks increasingly doubtful. If General Chiwenga puts his faith in the ZANUPF electoral processes through Congress or an Extraordinary Congress which elects a leader, then he is finished. He will be beaten on the floor even by Kuda Tagwirei, not because of anything else, but because Tagwirei and the Mnangagwa team have the resources that the general might not want to spend, even though he is a wealthy man, or might not actually have available as disposable funds for an internal election campaign he is likely to lose. Mnangagwa also has the power of incumbency, something that has been stripped away from Chiwenga as his lieutenants were retired or died one by one. That erosion of his inner circle has left him exposed, weakened, and without the institutional backing he once relied on. Mnangagwa, meanwhile, has consolidated the state, the party, and the security apparatus in his favour, widening the gulf between the two men. What we are seeing now is the opening of the presidential race, with Mnangagwa’s side fully satisfied that they have degraded Chiwenga’s powers to a point where they can now campaign openly. Where is the general? The consolidation of power in the army through the appointment of General Walter Tapfumaneyi, who worked closely with Tagwirei during the 2023 elections, is a clear signal of the new power architecture. More military purges are coming, including the removal of Chiwenga’s wife from military intelligence, and each one further isolates Chiwenga while tightening Mnangagwa’s control over the security establishment. This systematic dismantling of his support base makes it clear that the succession battle has already begun, and that Chiwenga is being pushed further away from the centres of real power with every move. The Chinese general Sun Tzu teaches that “all warfare is based on deception”, and Mnangagwa has perfected this by using 2030 as a decoy while quietly weakening Chiwenga and allowing Tagwirei to advance. He has also mastered the art of appearing weak when he is strong, and appearing strong when he is weak, creating confusion while he restructures the state and securing loyalty across the security ranks. Those in the media and diplomatic circles know that Mnangagwa deliberately appeared weak on many occasions, and his emissaries would tell diplomats and journalists that he had no power to act on many serious issues because Chiwenga was supposedly too powerful. It was an illusion they deliberately created. They created a fictitious image of an all-powerful General Chiwenga, a narrative that fits perfectly into Sun Tzu’s teaching about appearing weak when you are strong and appearing strong when you are weak. There were also moments when Mnangagwa appeared very strong, such as in 2019 when Chiwenga's side thought of carrying out a coup. Mnangagwa projected firmness, yet behind the scenes he was weak, hesitant, and deeply indecisive in dealing with the unfolding crisis. If you remember the period when the internet was shut down, that moment exposed just how fragile the inner workings of power were, despite the public portrayal of a decisive leader. Mnangagwa’s team, led by Tagwirei, now embodies the wisdom that “victorious warriors win first and then go to war”, planting narratives, building visibility, and mobilising resources long before the battle officially begins. In this environment, the utter disarray in the opposition makes it effortless for ZANUPF to open war fronts within itself, because when the enemy outside has collapsed, the real contest becomes the fight to inherit the throne.

While we are busy focused on the 2030 presidential term extension theatrics, the presidential race to take over from President Emmerson Mnangagwa is already in full swing inside ZANUPF. It is an open secret that Mnangagwa’s preferred successor is businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei, and the dark horse is General Valerio Sibanda, who retired from the army in an announcement made yesterday by the presidency. Tagwirei is already on a campaign trail which some have not observed, and all the issues he is raising are carefully crafted to resonate with ordinary citizens, shifting from liberation struggle slogans like Pasi neMhandu to Pasi neNhamo and Mari Muhomwe. He is deliberately rebranding himself as a champion of economic grievances, positioning his message to speak directly to poverty, hardship, and the cost of living, rather than the old liberation rhetoric. This is not accidental, his nemesis is a soldier and military general whose track record is rooted in Zimbabwe's excesses. What Tagwirei is doing is planting in his rallies a political seed that he hopes will germinate between now and 2027, when the ZANUPF Congress is expected to elect a new leader, or even earlier if an extraordinary congress is convened as some in the ruling party suspect might happen. That seed is intended to carry him into 2028, when the general election is due, if he succeeds in taking over should his principal, President Mnangagwa, not change his mind or Chiwenga stages a dramatic miracle coup. He is laying the groundwork early, shaping public perception, opinion and positioning himself as the natural successor by tapping into economic frustrations that ordinary citizens understand and feel every day. The elites see things differently, but it is the poor in townships and rural Zimbabwe who are being targeted with this messaging. When I look at the political landscape in Zimbabwe today, I see nobody else, either in the opposition or in ZANUPF, offering a clear and solid message that speaks to the people’s real needs. What we consider logical in elite circles does not sell to the poor, their needs are immediate. They want solutions for today, regardless of who created the problems that require solutions. While the educated elites talk about root-cause analysis and solutions for a distant future in their scenarios, the ordinary citizens want Sapatina, a euphemism for something that comes today, coined by a man who was perfectly happy eating chicken and chips/fries at State House. Our struggles are different. Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga, who thought he was a shoo in to become the next president after leading a coup against Robert Mugabe and making way for Mnangagwa, is now talking about corruption, something we have discussed for years to appeal to the masses. But Tagwirei is positioning himself differently. He is in full campaign mode, planting messages aimed at securing his place in the succession race, messages of economic prosperity. He is speaking to the daily needs of ZANUPF supporters and Zimbabweans in general. He is placing himself before the electorate, travelling, being visible, leveraging state linked platforms, and promising youths economic empowerment. Meanwhile, the general is speaking in closed boardrooms, and nobody has heard him speak directly to his presidential ambitions outside his own circle. Tagwirei is out in the open shaping a constituency, while Chiwenga remains confined to private spaces that do not build political momentum. That does not look regular to me unless he has an ace up his sleeves, a coup, because a coup does not require much talking. But as Mnangagwa shuts all the options once available to him by creating a state security sector in his own image, the prospects of a coup become slimmer with each move made by Mnangagwa. In closing those doors and pathways, Mnangagwa has effectively weakened Chiwenga’s leverage and narrowed the space in which he could plausibly attempt anything outside the formal succession path using ZANUPF internal processes. Tagwirei’s "meet the people" type of rallies with music stars in tow point to a group of people focused on winning hearts and minds both inside and outside ZANUPF. They have money. The other side has passion and entitlement, but without money there is very little political traction in Zimbabwe’s political theatre, where loyalties change based on what is on the table. Politics the world over is about money, that is why Elon Musk claimed that he won the election for Donald Trump, and that is why Trump said you need US$5 billion to become a president in America, it is about money. When you strip away the slogans and the drama, the real engine of political power is financial muscle, whether in Zimbabwe, America, or anywhere else. Tagwirei’s Godfather Mnangagwa understands that politics in Zimbabwe is transactional, and he is investing heavily in shaping perceptions, building networks, and buying influence long before the succession battle formally begins. Those opposed to Mnangagwa and his faction must not wake up tomorrow pretending they did not see this coming. It is obvious that Tagwirei is positioning himself as the most visible, accessible and well financed candidate within ZANUPF. It is also obvious that there is no opposition in Zimbabwe and that Chiwenga’s grip has been terribly loosened in unthinkable ways. Anyone paying attention can see the succession terrain shifting, and those who fail to read these signals will only have themselves to blame when the outcome unfolds. The question for the remnants of the main opposition is simple. What are you doing about 2028? Because while everyone is distracted by the talk of 2030, that talk may turn out to be a political ruse, a deliberate decoy to make us ignore what is unfolding on the ground. 2030 could be the bait that sends General Chiwenga chasing shadows while his real competitor campaigns at grassroots level, spends money, and entrenches himself as a household name. Mnangagwa is a political strategist who has won politically through hook or crook, so it would be a fatal mistake to assume that he has only one plan. A second option is to push for 2030, not with the intention of serving until then, but to block General Chiwenga at a congress and secure enough time to hand over to a successor of his choice after defeating Chiwenga. That is on condition that Chiwenga even has the guts to challenge him for the party leadership, which at the moment looks increasingly doubtful. If General Chiwenga puts his faith in the ZANUPF electoral processes through Congress or an Extraordinary Congress which elects a leader, then he is finished. He will be beaten on the floor even by Kuda Tagwirei, not because of anything else, but because Tagwirei and the Mnangagwa team have the resources that the general might not want to spend, even though he is a wealthy man, or might not actually have available as disposable funds for an internal election campaign he is likely to lose. Mnangagwa also has the power of incumbency, something that has been stripped away from Chiwenga as his lieutenants were retired or died one by one. That erosion of his inner circle has left him exposed, weakened, and without the institutional backing he once relied on. Mnangagwa, meanwhile, has consolidated the state, the party, and the security apparatus in his favour, widening the gulf between the two men. What we are seeing now is the opening of the presidential race, with Mnangagwa’s side fully satisfied that they have degraded Chiwenga’s powers to a point where they can now campaign openly. Where is the general? The consolidation of power in the army through the appointment of General Walter Tapfumaneyi, who worked closely with Tagwirei during the 2023 elections, is a clear signal of the new power architecture. More military purges are coming, including the removal of Chiwenga’s wife from military intelligence, and each one further isolates Chiwenga while tightening Mnangagwa’s control over the security establishment. This systematic dismantling of his support base makes it clear that the succession battle has already begun, and that Chiwenga is being pushed further away from the centres of real power with every move. The Chinese general Sun Tzu teaches that “all warfare is based on deception”, and Mnangagwa has perfected this by using 2030 as a decoy while quietly weakening Chiwenga and allowing Tagwirei to advance. He has also mastered the art of appearing weak when he is strong, and appearing strong when he is weak, creating confusion while he restructures the state and securing loyalty across the security ranks. Those in the media and diplomatic circles know that Mnangagwa deliberately appeared weak on many occasions, and his emissaries would tell diplomats and journalists that he had no power to act on many serious issues because Chiwenga was supposedly too powerful. It was an illusion they deliberately created. They created a fictitious image of an all-powerful General Chiwenga, a narrative that fits perfectly into Sun Tzu’s teaching about appearing weak when you are strong and appearing strong when you are weak. There were also moments when Mnangagwa appeared very strong, such as in 2019 when Chiwenga's side thought of carrying out a coup. Mnangagwa projected firmness, yet behind the scenes he was weak, hesitant, and deeply indecisive in dealing with the unfolding crisis. If you remember the period when the internet was shut down, that moment exposed just how fragile the inner workings of power were, despite the public portrayal of a decisive leader. Mnangagwa’s team, led by Tagwirei, now embodies the wisdom that “victorious warriors win first and then go to war”, planting narratives, building visibility, and mobilising resources long before the battle officially begins. In this environment, the utter disarray in the opposition makes it effortless for ZANUPF to open war fronts within itself, because when the enemy outside has collapsed, the real contest becomes the fight to inherit the throne.

Hopewell Chin’ono

58,058 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Operation Odyssey Dawn: The End of Libya and the Destruction of Europe /📄 On February 15th, during the Obama presidency, the US launched a war on Libya through covert means. Using the Soros network and the city of Benghazi, a bridgehead for the destruction of the entire country, the US ran the most intense propaganda and psychological campaign in history. I must mention that this PSYOP was so intense that yours truly initially fell for it, something I will likely not forgive myself for. I honestly thought Ghaddafi had suddenly went insane, mainly because I had a low opinion of his past antics and I thought the fall of the Mubarak regime was favourable to the world. The right wing supported this war, as they wanted to see more Arab nations destroyed in favour of Israel. The left wing? They were the most disgraceful. All of them sold Libya down the rive and aligned with the "rebels". As John McCain would later reveal, they were just a cutout used for US special forces. Many of the people that now fashion themselves as being against Israel were instrumental in the murder of Libya as a nation. They just never talk about it anymore, but I hope the guilt destroys them one day. The propaganda followed a typical Soros formula. It began with "peaceful protestors", then "Ghaddafi is killing his own people", then "rebels and transitional governments" and finally "air support/no fly zone required". It happened so quickly that it was bewildering for a nation that had remained stable for decades and was the richest in the world in terms of being debt free. Libya had the brightest future of all the countries in Africa and in many senses in the entire world including Asia and Europe. It's perhaps for that reason that Libya was betrayed by almost everyone. The Arab League was the first and the most unprecedented in its dastardly action. There was never a unanimous against Libya, Syria and Algeria had vetoed action against Libya. This was a rule in that body of 22 nations, but it was forced through anyway. This became UNSC resolution 1973. Neither Russia nor China vetoed this bill. France under the covertly Jewish president Sarkozy (who had once claimed that all of Europe must become a mixed race, publicly), led the charge, bombing Libya before an agreed upon ceasefire deadline. Even Palestine* voted against Libya. It seemed the entire world was in agreement about Libya over a complete lie created by the United States and Israel. The world thought Ghaddafi was unpopular but nothing could be further from the proof. It was the most bastardly thing the world would do, and in a sense, for what was done to Libya the entire world deserves to be destroyed. China had to move 75 companies out of Libya, and 36,000 Chinese workers, losing North Africa in one single month. The Chinese chickened out and didn't protect Libya, and this eventually led to the downfall of the Hu Jintao technocratic regime. The reports of 10s of thousands dying in Libya were lies, amplified by videos uploaded on YouTube and Twitter. It was a full production of lies where rabid Arab youths would destroy their own nation for some pocket money from Soros. Browns would repeat these lies and cash in on them, pretending to be oppressed while being the oppressors of their own people. In a sense calling it oppression is a moral failing -- it was a murder, of an entire nation. You see, the bombing campaign was not merely counter-force. NATO (which had quickly run out of ammunition days into the war) and the US aimed to kill the nation itself with counter-value attacks. Power stations were destroyed. The worst crime was Libya's water: Ghaddafi's Great Man-Made River, a 2800km artificial river project, was bombed until it was damaged. Then the factories that were repairing it throughout the war were destroyed. NATO still denies this crime but anyone can confirm it. Tripoli was taken before the war was over, but Ghaddafi's forces never stopped fighting. The operation launched on Tripoli was called Mermaid Dawn, or Operation Sirens (according to Pepe Escobar). The reason for the naming will be made clear soon, for now let's continue with the chronology of the war and the crimes to follow. Ghaddafi's hometown of Sirte wasn't merely bombed to dust, it was literally salted with the water of the Mediterranean sea. The reason why Sirte was flooded with salt water and destroyed was because NATO couldn't take it using ground forces. Ghaddafi's sons and their special forces were putting up a perfect defence in this city with its underground facilities filled with enough weapons to fight for an entire decade. But Ghaddafi failed to account for the possibility that he would lose the air and sea, and didn't create a run off system that would allow water to leave the bunkers. Losing in Sirte, Ghaddafi was ready to surrender, but NATO wanted him dead. They wanted even the possibility of Libya rising again to be removed from any person's mind. So they murdered him in the most brutal and disgusting manner. He died a martyr for his nation, yet the brown filth who murdered him didn't deserve a martyr, they deserved annihilation. No crime that could be done, other than the use of nuclear weapons, was done to Libya. If you understood what kind of country was destroyed (watch the attached video it will break your heart) you will see what a crime this was, for a world filled with the filthiest nations and their filthiest people (almost everywhere) to come together to destroy the one country with a chance at a debt free existence... how should the world pay for this crime? As it were, the punishment and the crime came together as a single package within the war. In any case in 2011, it was claimed the war was over, but the war continues today as the nation is split into three. In the remains of the outskirts of Sirte, the "rebels" and "peaceful protestors" would use chemical weapons to kill other tribes. They then transported these weapons to Syria where they were used in a false flag to implicate the Syrian Arab Army and Assad. As the dust settled around Libya, Europe would quickly be haunted by one of Ghaddafi's last warnings: If he falls Europe will become Black. Name of Operations Reveal Intent With Libya destroyed, the remains of the country would quickly become a rampart for economic "refugees" -- African browns, blacks and other unwanted people flooding into Europe to r*pe, pillage and steal its wealth. You would think that this was an unintended consequence of the war, but ... the names of the operation reveal the exact intent of those who planned it, namely Obama and Sarkozy: the target was Europe itself. For this plan to work, there could be no country where Libya was, it had to be destroyed so that no one could control the Mediterranean sea. Libya, and later Syria, were the modern day Troys. Troy protected the Mediterranean civilizations from Asia. It's fall happened almost simultaneously with the rise of the sea peoples. Homer's Odyssey speaks of the ruin the Mycenaeans and other factions of proto-Greek states after their war on Troy. It was a pyrrhic victory and all that remained of rich civilizations destroyed by the sea peoples. Is it any wonder that that the Pentagon chose to call it Operation Odyssey Dawn? They claim it's completely random -- which by the way is a lie -- but then, in the later chapters of Odyssey, sirens aka mermaids would appear. How can they also accidentally call the sacking of Tripoli Operation Mermaid Dawn/Operation Sirens? The intent was clear and the results also. Due to the fall of Libya and now the similarly catastrophic destruction of Syria, more than 5 million Asians and Africans have been flowing into Europe illegally. I would say even more "legally" using this inflow as a disguise. Europe is being destroyed using the most potent chain reaction known to mankind: foreigners multiplying in your own country and eating away at its boundaries and interiors. Today all right wing parties allow uncontrolled mass migration through "legal" means. All left wing parties, in addition to this "legal" migration also disguise their action as charitable through the flow of illegal migration. People all over Europe complain and hate the flow of migrants. I do too -- but let's be honest about something. These inflows wouldn't have been possible with the "original sin" of destroying Libya. Nothing has been done to make amends and atone for what was done to Libya. If anything Libya is being destroyed more and more every day and the fire is spreading. Sudan voted against Ghaddafi. Today the UAE flows masses of weapons from Libya into Chad to be used to destroy Sudan. Hamas lied about Ghaddafi. Now its leadership has been wiped out and Gaza is rubble. China abandoned Ghaddafi. Now its economy is held under a double sided siege with the US (and Israel which it still supports). Russia abandoned Ghaddafi at the drop of the hat. Now Russia's infrastructure is facing countervalue attacks and its military has been facing ruthless counterforce attacks from NATO. The Arabs which conspired against Libya are all going to be destroyed soon as all waterways into their countries are closed by Iran. Iran itself, which lied about Ghaddafi (over his own "original sin" -- the murder and disappearance of Musa Sadr), is hanging on by a thread and is being betrayed by those on its interior. But what will happen next to the US and Europe for what they've done to Libya? It doesn't take a genius to guess, and only the nations that refused to participate are ironically doing fine. Poland, on April 2011, refused to join the coalition against Libya. Today, that nation is the greatest success in Europe and has the lowest problem with unwanted invasive species (migrants). Germany pretended to be against the war as well, but was the main source of weapons and ammunition against Libya. As we face the abyss of societal collapse, it's important to remember our own crimes against peace which destroyed a peaceful and successful nation. The very least we can all do is spread the word, not only about the crime itself, but the victim. The beautiful country, Libya, that was completely destroyed by our participation in a PSYOP and inaction against the criminals who run our nations. On my part, after witnessing how quickly the mass formation psychosis, which I unfortunately participated in at least in words written on BBSes of the old internet, my own choice of atonement was ensuring this kind of war never happens to another country again. It is for that reason I had turned my attention to Syria back in 2011. What will you do? /End [* As an aside, it wasn't just the PLO. Hamas would then condemn Ghaddafi and the Palestinian supporters would join its chorus. Later, seeing the "success" in Libya, Hamas decided to join the war against Syria and didn't just provide words but material and ideological support against the country. I commented at the time (2012) that we will soon see Gaza reduced to rubble as a result of this immoral act.]

Operation Odyssey Dawn: The End of Libya and the Destruction of Europe /📄 On February 15th, during the Obama presidency, the US launched a war on Libya through covert means. Using the Soros network and the city of Benghazi, a bridgehead for the destruction of the entire country, the US ran the most intense propaganda and psychological campaign in history. I must mention that this PSYOP was so intense that yours truly initially fell for it, something I will likely not forgive myself for. I honestly thought Ghaddafi had suddenly went insane, mainly because I had a low opinion of his past antics and I thought the fall of the Mubarak regime was favourable to the world. The right wing supported this war, as they wanted to see more Arab nations destroyed in favour of Israel. The left wing? They were the most disgraceful. All of them sold Libya down the rive and aligned with the "rebels". As John McCain would later reveal, they were just a cutout used for US special forces. Many of the people that now fashion themselves as being against Israel were instrumental in the murder of Libya as a nation. They just never talk about it anymore, but I hope the guilt destroys them one day. The propaganda followed a typical Soros formula. It began with "peaceful protestors", then "Ghaddafi is killing his own people", then "rebels and transitional governments" and finally "air support/no fly zone required". It happened so quickly that it was bewildering for a nation that had remained stable for decades and was the richest in the world in terms of being debt free. Libya had the brightest future of all the countries in Africa and in many senses in the entire world including Asia and Europe. It's perhaps for that reason that Libya was betrayed by almost everyone. The Arab League was the first and the most unprecedented in its dastardly action. There was never a unanimous against Libya, Syria and Algeria had vetoed action against Libya. This was a rule in that body of 22 nations, but it was forced through anyway. This became UNSC resolution 1973. Neither Russia nor China vetoed this bill. France under the covertly Jewish president Sarkozy (who had once claimed that all of Europe must become a mixed race, publicly), led the charge, bombing Libya before an agreed upon ceasefire deadline. Even Palestine* voted against Libya. It seemed the entire world was in agreement about Libya over a complete lie created by the United States and Israel. The world thought Ghaddafi was unpopular but nothing could be further from the proof. It was the most bastardly thing the world would do, and in a sense, for what was done to Libya the entire world deserves to be destroyed. China had to move 75 companies out of Libya, and 36,000 Chinese workers, losing North Africa in one single month. The Chinese chickened out and didn't protect Libya, and this eventually led to the downfall of the Hu Jintao technocratic regime. The reports of 10s of thousands dying in Libya were lies, amplified by videos uploaded on YouTube and Twitter. It was a full production of lies where rabid Arab youths would destroy their own nation for some pocket money from Soros. Browns would repeat these lies and cash in on them, pretending to be oppressed while being the oppressors of their own people. In a sense calling it oppression is a moral failing -- it was a murder, of an entire nation. You see, the bombing campaign was not merely counter-force. NATO (which had quickly run out of ammunition days into the war) and the US aimed to kill the nation itself with counter-value attacks. Power stations were destroyed. The worst crime was Libya's water: Ghaddafi's Great Man-Made River, a 2800km artificial river project, was bombed until it was damaged. Then the factories that were repairing it throughout the war were destroyed. NATO still denies this crime but anyone can confirm it. Tripoli was taken before the war was over, but Ghaddafi's forces never stopped fighting. The operation launched on Tripoli was called Mermaid Dawn, or Operation Sirens (according to Pepe Escobar). The reason for the naming will be made clear soon, for now let's continue with the chronology of the war and the crimes to follow. Ghaddafi's hometown of Sirte wasn't merely bombed to dust, it was literally salted with the water of the Mediterranean sea. The reason why Sirte was flooded with salt water and destroyed was because NATO couldn't take it using ground forces. Ghaddafi's sons and their special forces were putting up a perfect defence in this city with its underground facilities filled with enough weapons to fight for an entire decade. But Ghaddafi failed to account for the possibility that he would lose the air and sea, and didn't create a run off system that would allow water to leave the bunkers. Losing in Sirte, Ghaddafi was ready to surrender, but NATO wanted him dead. They wanted even the possibility of Libya rising again to be removed from any person's mind. So they murdered him in the most brutal and disgusting manner. He died a martyr for his nation, yet the brown filth who murdered him didn't deserve a martyr, they deserved annihilation. No crime that could be done, other than the use of nuclear weapons, was done to Libya. If you understood what kind of country was destroyed (watch the attached video it will break your heart) you will see what a crime this was, for a world filled with the filthiest nations and their filthiest people (almost everywhere) to come together to destroy the one country with a chance at a debt free existence... how should the world pay for this crime? As it were, the punishment and the crime came together as a single package within the war. In any case in 2011, it was claimed the war was over, but the war continues today as the nation is split into three. In the remains of the outskirts of Sirte, the "rebels" and "peaceful protestors" would use chemical weapons to kill other tribes. They then transported these weapons to Syria where they were used in a false flag to implicate the Syrian Arab Army and Assad. As the dust settled around Libya, Europe would quickly be haunted by one of Ghaddafi's last warnings: If he falls Europe will become Black. Name of Operations Reveal Intent With Libya destroyed, the remains of the country would quickly become a rampart for economic "refugees" -- African browns, blacks and other unwanted people flooding into Europe to rpe, pillage and steal its wealth. You would think that this was an unintended consequence of the war, but ... the names of the operation reveal the exact intent of those who planned it, namely Obama and Sarkozy: the target was Europe itself. For this plan to work, there could be no country where Libya was, it had to be destroyed so that no one could control the Mediterranean sea. Libya, and later Syria, were the modern day Troys. Troy protected the Mediterranean civilizations from Asia. It's fall happened almost simultaneously with the rise of the sea peoples. Homer's Odyssey speaks of the ruin the Mycenaeans and other factions of proto-Greek states after their war on Troy. It was a pyrrhic victory and all that remained of rich civilizations destroyed by the sea peoples. Is it any wonder that that the Pentagon chose to call it Operation Odyssey Dawn? They claim it's completely random -- which by the way is a lie -- but then, in the later chapters of Odyssey, sirens aka mermaids would appear. How can they also accidentally call the sacking of Tripoli Operation Mermaid Dawn/Operation Sirens? The intent was clear and the results also. Due to the fall of Libya and now the similarly catastrophic destruction of Syria, more than 5 million Asians and Africans have been flowing into Europe illegally. I would say even more "legally" using this inflow as a disguise. Europe is being destroyed using the most potent chain reaction known to mankind: foreigners multiplying in your own country and eating away at its boundaries and interiors. Today all right wing parties allow uncontrolled mass migration through "legal" means. All left wing parties, in addition to this "legal" migration also disguise their action as charitable through the flow of illegal migration. People all over Europe complain and hate the flow of migrants. I do too -- but let's be honest about something. These inflows wouldn't have been possible with the "original sin" of destroying Libya. Nothing has been done to make amends and atone for what was done to Libya. If anything Libya is being destroyed more and more every day and the fire is spreading. Sudan voted against Ghaddafi. Today the UAE flows masses of weapons from Libya into Chad to be used to destroy Sudan. Hamas lied about Ghaddafi. Now its leadership has been wiped out and Gaza is rubble. China abandoned Ghaddafi. Now its economy is held under a double sided siege with the US (and Israel which it still supports). Russia abandoned Ghaddafi at the drop of the hat. Now Russia's infrastructure is facing countervalue attacks and its military has been facing ruthless counterforce attacks from NATO. The Arabs which conspired against Libya are all going to be destroyed soon as all waterways into their countries are closed by Iran. Iran itself, which lied about Ghaddafi (over his own "original sin" -- the murder and disappearance of Musa Sadr), is hanging on by a thread and is being betrayed by those on its interior. But what will happen next to the US and Europe for what they've done to Libya? It doesn't take a genius to guess, and only the nations that refused to participate are ironically doing fine. Poland, on April 2011, refused to join the coalition against Libya. Today, that nation is the greatest success in Europe and has the lowest problem with unwanted invasive species (migrants). Germany pretended to be against the war as well, but was the main source of weapons and ammunition against Libya. As we face the abyss of societal collapse, it's important to remember our own crimes against peace which destroyed a peaceful and successful nation. The very least we can all do is spread the word, not only about the crime itself, but the victim. The beautiful country, Libya, that was completely destroyed by our participation in a PSYOP and inaction against the criminals who run our nations. On my part, after witnessing how quickly the mass formation psychosis, which I unfortunately participated in at least in words written on BBSes of the old internet, my own choice of atonement was ensuring this kind of war never happens to another country again. It is for that reason I had turned my attention to Syria back in 2011. What will you do? /End [ As an aside, it wasn't just the PLO. Hamas would then condemn Ghaddafi and the Palestinian supporters would join its chorus. Later, seeing the "success" in Libya, Hamas decided to join the war against Syria and didn't just provide words but material and ideological support against the country. I commented at the time (2012) that we will soon see Gaza reduced to rubble as a result of this immoral act.]

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️🇷🇺

146,815 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.

Andrew Caravello, DO

11,406 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The Daily Mail’s Royal Vendetta: A Month of Smears on William and Catherine, Followed by Crocodile Tears In the sweltering heat of August and September 2025, the Daily Mail unleashed a torrent of vitriol against Prince William, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, and even King Charles III. What began as whispers about a family home move quickly snowballed into a full-scale assault: accusations of “control freak” tendencies, “underwhelming” duties, a “dark past” tied to slavery, and hints of irreparable rifts. Collages of headlines tell the story — dozens of pieces from the Mail’s royal “hit squad,” peddling speculation as fact, while royal watchers cried “propaganda!” after every drop. This wasn’t journalism. It was SEO warfare dressed up as reporting, cynically timed to ride search trends like “William lazy,” “Kate health,” and “Charles succession,” while dangling glowing comparisons to bait Sussex fans. The Mail’s royal desk has turned itself into a digital sweatshop where outrage is the currency. Every article is deliberately contradictory — William is “too private” one day, “too performative” the next; Catherine is “influential but holding him back”; Charles is “weak but meddling.” Why? Because conflict sells. Rage-clicks fill MailOnline’s coffers. It’s the business model of chaos — and chaos is the coin of their grubby little realm. Now, in a twist worthy of their own soap-opera scripts, two of the Mail’s most prolific royal scribblers— Rebecca English and Richard Eden —have pivoted to pearl-clutching exposés about a “sinister plot” and “calculated wedge” undermining William and Catherine. It’s laughable. These aren’t brave whistleblowers; they’re architects of the very narrative they’re now decrying. The Daily Mail didn’t just report the hate—they manufactured it, weaponised it, monetised it, and now want to wash their hands as if they were bystanders. It’s the Fleet Street equivalent of throwing petrol on a bonfire, then sobbing that one’s eyebrows got singed. The Mail’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. For weeks, they ran columns dripping with Sussex apologia — Griffiths acting as Harry’s stenographer and Platell recycling Meghan’s grievances as “concerns,” and A.N. Wilson psychoanalysing William from his study like some amateur Freud-for-hire. All this while YouTube commenters and even their own readers blasted their Royals channel as “toxic propaganda.” But rather than adjust course, they doubled down — until subscribers fled and advertisers grew squeamish. Only then did the pivot to victimhood begin. One could almost hear the gnashing of teeth in Kensington High Street. Let’s expose the rot at the heart of this tabloid machine — how they orchestrated the smears, gamed the algorithms, amplified Sussex narratives, twisted facts into weapons, and how their financial decline drives the cruelty. The curtain must be pulled back, and the stagehands caught red-handed, script in one hand, calculator in the other. The Hit Parade: A Catalogue of Calculated Cruelty From 1 August to 27 September 2025, the Daily Mail’s royal desk became a factory for anti-Wales ammunition, deploying a multi-pronged strategy: recycle old grudges into fresh headlines, cherry-pick data to misrepresent workloads, sensationalise historical trivia, and frame every decision as evidence of impending royal collapse. The trigger? William and Catherine’s pragmatic decision to relocate from Adelaide Cottage to Forest Lodge on the Sandringham estate — a “forever home” for family stability amid Catherine’s cancer recovery and global threats. What should have been a non-story morphed into “proof” of William’s fatal flaws: too private, too lazy, too “woke,” too everything. In short, too damned convenient for the Mail’s search engine tinkering. This was not random. The Mail runs on click-chains: one “exclusive” generates spinoffs, which are then linked in sidebars, ensuring readers never escape the outrage cycle. Eviction headlines lead into slavery history “revelations,” which link to workload hit pieces, which in turn promote YouTube debate clips. It is algorithmic entrapment sold as news — a kind of journalistic mousetrap baited with bile. Here’s the rogue’s gallery of the worst offenders, their pieces dripping with pro-Sussex favoritism and wild conjecture, broken down by tactic: • Amanda Platell (Columnist): On 20 August, Platell sneered at William’s “puny” 71 engagements, cherry-picking incomplete 2024 figures and ignoring health crises in the family. She compared him unfavourably to Princess Anne and accused him of making the Firm “pure vanilla.” Platell’s column was SEO-stuffed with phrases like “workshy heir” and “royal crisis” — all designed to trend on Google and bait shares. Her follow-ups even recycled Meghan’s old “baby brain” anecdote as if it were fresh ammunition. This isn’t journalism; it’s content farming — and farming in barren soil at that. • Christopher Wilson (Historian/Columnist): On 23 August, Wilson exhumed Forest Lodge’s “dark past,” weaponising obscure history to frame William and Catherine as morally negligent. The piece was algorithmically tied to MailOnline’s “slavery legacy” tag — the same tag used to cover Netflix’s colonial dramas. It wasn’t about informing readers; it was about capturing traffic off unrelated cultural debates. Like a ghoul rifling through parish records for sport. • A.N. Wilson (Royal Author): On 19 September, he declared William “angry and unhappy,” citing outdated stats and palace whispers. But more insidious was the Mail’s packaging: push alerts framed it as a “shock diagnosis,” with sidebars linking to Sussex puff pieces. William’s Earthshot success was buried, Harry’s “fun scamp” antics headlined. Manipulation by design, as brazen as a conjurer’s sleight of hand. • Charlotte Griffiths (Royal Correspondent): On 13 September, Griffiths painted William as the villain blocking Harry’s reconciliation. Her reliance on “anonymous sources” was classic Mail — unverifiable quotes crafted to fuel fan wars online. Each story was cross-promoted under MailOnline’s “Sussex comeback” hub, ensuring clicks from both sides of the aisle. Division is profitable, and she is its clerk of works. • Liz Jones (Columnist): On 5 September, Jones targeted Kate’s “bronde” hair during a visit to the Natural History Museum gardens, mixing sharp critique with grudging praise. Trolls called the lighter shade “washed out” or a “wig,” but Jones framed it as smart and empowering, signalling Kate’s post-cancer confidence. Her long history of nitpicking Kate’s hair — from 2012 bangs to post-2024 hospital styles — fits the pattern: personal opinion masquerading as insight, always driving clicks. She also recently editorialised against William as a future king, questioning his temperament and charisma, further stoking debate and subtly undermining the heir apparent. • Tina Brown (via Mail amplification): Brown’s Vanity Fair critiques were sliced into fragments and drip-fed as “Mail exclusives.” This is another trick: repackaging syndicated content as fresh scoops, maximising monetisation while disguising the recycling. In Fleet Street terms, it’s reheated cabbage passed off as coq au vin. • Rebecca English & Richard Eden: Even before their pivot, both poured fuel on the fire. English questioned the Forest Lodge move as a “taxpayer gamble” (24 September). Eden mocked it as indecisiveness (18 September). Both columns carried DailyMailPlus paywall teasers, designed to convert outrage into subscriptions. This wasn’t reporting. It was a coordinated content strategy: anonymous sourcing (cheap and unverifiable), data manipulation (engagement cherry-picking), and emotional framing (slavery, evictions, family rifts) — all calculated to maximise page dwell-time and comments. It’s the cynical mechanics of Fleet Street turned up to eleven, all brass band and no tune. The Asinine Pivot: From Smear-Mongers to Victimhood By late September, the Mail faced a problem: the narrative it had stoked was now boomeranging. Readers began calling out bias, subscribers fled, and Palace Confidential was haemorrhaging viewers. Cue the pivot. • On 25 September, Eden wailed about a “sinister plot.” • On 26 September, English warned of a “wedge between Charles and William.” Both pieces were smoke and mirrors. They rehashed earlier reporting — their own reporting — while pretending to be alarmed that anti-Wales narratives were spreading. Classic Mail: start the fire, then play the firefighter. They build the echo chamber, harvest the clicks, and when the backlash hits, shrug and blame “external forces.” It is not just hypocrisy — it is fraud. Fraud against readers, against journalism, against public trust. A betrayal wrapped in bunting. YouTube Implosion: Palace Confidential’s Monarchy Meltdown The nadir came mid-September when the Mail’s Palace Confidential channel speculated if William’s reign would “end the monarchy.” The video was a montage of the very print smears their own desk had churned out — workload cherry-picking, rift whispers, Forest Lodge doom-mongering. Within days, subscribers plummeted by the thousands. Comment sections filled with accusations of “hateful propaganda.” Forensic look at the analytics shows watch-time collapsing, click-through rates nosediving. Why? Because even Mail loyalists saw through the con. They were watching for the same reheated slop, dressed up as “exclusive debate.” According to VidIQ data, the Daily Mail Royals YouTube channel currently shows around 482,000 subscribers and has amassed over 313 million total video views. While those are nontrivial numbers, the channel’s estimated monthly earnings do not vindicate the hours of content churn — often in the modest range of £14,580–44,550 depending on viewership and ad engagement. In other words, the editorial excess is not being rewarded by proportionate audience loyalty or monetisation growth — the metrics are flat or weakening under scrutiny. Tubics data earlier in 2025 had placed the Daily Mail Royals subscriber count at ~464,000 with a view count ~292 million, indicating very slow growth — a channel in stagnation rather than ascendancy. This wasn’t content collapse; it was audience striking back. The vox populi spoke — and it said, enough. Follow the Money: The Mail’s Financial Desperation To understand why the Daily Mail behaves this way, you must follow the money. The pathology of smear campaigns is fed by urgent financial pressure. • Print decline: As of June 2025, the Daily Mail’s audited daily circulation stood at ~631,191 copies. That figure reflects a dramatic shrinkage over years — the paper, once selling well into multiple hundreds of thousands more, is now hollowed out. • Yearly comparisons: In 2024, ABC audit figures showed the Daily Mail had a daily circulation of 706,839 — meaning circulation has dropped by over 10% in roughly a year. • Advertiser exodus: In January 2025, the Mail announced it would merge its print and online teams and initiate cost-cutting, as major advertisers increasingly balk at brand adjacency with toxic, polarising content. The memo revealed that Mail+ (the paywall arm) had achieved 100,000 paying subscribers since its launch — a modest number given the scale of MailOnline’s reach. • Staff cuts as symptom: This internal restructuring is not optional — it is a forced retreat. Under the integration plan, job losses are anticipated. • Parent group pressure: DMG Media, the Mail’s owner, has made it clear that the print-online integration is about survival in a hostile advertising environment and declining print returns. In short, the Mail is bleeding. These royal smear campaigns aren’t just editorial cynicism — they’re a press outlet in full panic, scrabbling for clicks, subscriptions, and relevance by flogging scandal, outrage, and division. It’s the frantic thrashing of a swimmer who knows the tide has turned against them. Dirty Hands, No Excuses: Time to Hold the Mail Accountable The Daily Mail’s hands aren’t just dirty — they’re smeared, ink-stained with the fingerprints of manipulation. This wasn’t an accident, not a slip of the editorial pen. It was deliberate. They gamed algorithms like card sharks stacking a deck, pitted fandoms against one another like gladiators in the Coliseum, and weaponised history, health, and grief as if they were trinkets to be traded for clicks. CharlotteGriffiths , Amanda Platell, A.N. Wilson, Tina Brown, Liz Jones Goddess and the rest dutifully acted as stenographers for Sussex spin; Rebecca English and Richard Eden cried about “plots” they themselves had stoked; and editors signed off on every exaggeration, knowing that rage pays the bills. And now, when the wind shifts, they dare pivot to victimhood — as if they were the collateral and not the culprits. It’s theatre. Bad theatre. And the damage? It’s carved into public trust like graffiti on a listed building. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. William and Catherine ride out the storm with quiet resilience, their 74% approval proving that duty and dignity still matter. The monarchy carries on; the Mail only carries on as long as division sells. Readers aren’t fooled. Legacy media is collapsing under the weight of its own duplicity. Advertisers abandoned The Sun after Hillsborough. News of the World collapsed after phone hacking. And the Daily Mail — drunk on its own poison — is staggering toward the same graveyard. This was never “just gossip.” It was calculated sabotage dressed up in broadsheet clothing, a smear campaign masquerading as reportage, a racket that hollowed out the very idea of journalism. They didn’t just observe events; they made them happen. They didn’t reflect public opinion; they twisted it. They didn’t hold power to account; they abused it. The case is closed. The Waleses endure — proof that quiet service and real substance always outlast scandal. The Mail’s hit squad, by contrast, are done. History won’t remember them as kingmakers, only as mercenaries who confused clickbait for craft and outrage for insight, and in the process wrote their own obituaries. They won’t go down as journalists; they’ll go down as clickbait casualties — yesterday’s men and women, swept away by the very tide they tried to ride. #BoycottDailyMail #WeAreTheMediaNow #RoyalSmearCampaign #ExposeTheMail #MediaManipulation #StopTheSpin #TabloidTyranny #FakeNewsFactory #MonarchyVsMedia #FleetStreetFraud #TruthOverClickbait #InkStainedLies

༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑

30,249 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🎥 #Trumps_Art_of_the_Deal: #Swallowing_Venezuela, #Greenland and #Iran by #America; #Swallowing_the_Middle_East by #Israel👇👇 👈 #Akbar_Ganji, 22 September 2026 ✅ Iranians should keep a very close eye on Trump—the oil thief and land thief—so that he does not, with the bribe of power and wealth, buy the sellouts who are Iranian in name only and take Iran’s oil, or part of Iran’s territory (as with Venezuela and Greenland), for himself. ✅ He gave an $800,000 house to the husband of Greenland’s foreign minister and seized the place. ✅ Trump has said, again and again and in so many words, that he has taken Venezuela’s oil for America and that he wants to do the same to Iran. On 16 December 2025 he wrote on Truth Social that the pressure would continue “Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.” On 17 December 2025 he told reporters they had taken America’s energy rights and oil “not so long ago,” that Washington wanted it back, and that it had been taken illegally. On 3 January 2026, after the military operation and the arrest of Maduro, he said the United States would “run” Venezuela and “we’re going to be taking out a lot of wealth out of the ground.” On 24 January 2026 he told the New York Post: “Let me put it this way, they don’t have any oil. We’re taking the oil.” The oil was being sent to Houston refineries. In June 2026 he wrote on Truth Social that he would soon take Kharg Island and other Iranian oil sites and take complete control of their oil and gas market “just like Venezuela.” On 13 September 2026 in Ireland he said America would eventually get out of Iran, “unless we decide to stay and keep the oil, like Venezuela.” On 9 January 2026, on Greenland, he said: “I’m going to do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not… I’d like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.” ✅ In Iran, Trump is after a repeat of the Iraq and Venezuela model: control of foreign-exchange revenues and a client state. He has said repeatedly that he wants to apply the Venezuela model to Iran. Since 2003, Iraq’s oil revenues have sat in an account of the Central Bank of Iraq at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and every U.S. president has renewed Executive Order 13303; Trump renewed it on 4 May 2026. Reuters reported on 23 January 2026 that Washington threatened even to target Iraq’s oil income if forces close to Iran entered the new government. The New York Times wrote that the Trump administration temporarily blocked the transfer of Iraq’s own dollars from U.S. banks to Baghdad. After Iraq’s November 2025 election, the Shiite majority nominated Nouri al-Maliki for prime minister. On 27 January 2026 Trump wrote on Truth Social that if Maliki were chosen, “the United States of America will no longer help Iraq,” and that without U.S. help Iraq would have “ZERO chance.” Maliki rejected the interference, but his candidacy was withdrawn and, under Washington’s pressure, Ali al-Zaidi became prime minister. In May 2026 Trump said “we support [him] very strongly” and received him at the White House in July. In Venezuela, oil income is likewise under American arrangements. On 18 September 2026 Reuters and the Financial Times reported that the interim government and a faction of the opposition were close to moving some 31 tons of Venezuelan gold—nearly $4 billion—from the Bank of England to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with the United States controlling access. The twin earthquakes of 24 June 2026 left more than 1,700 officially dead; some reports put the toll higher. They want the gold released in the name of post-earthquake reconstruction, but spending it is subject to U.S. oversight and a Treasury account. Without Washington’s permission—and in practice without Marco Rubio—Caracas cannot touch its own reserves. ✅ Many Republican leaders have repeated Trump’s words on Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran almost verbatim. ✅ Most recently, Carla Sands, former U.S. ambassador to Denmark, told Fox News: “We have Venezuela, we’ll have Iran, and now if we have Greenland, we can supply the world with energy for hundreds of years to come—and I mean hundreds of years—with the energy that’s been discovered.” ✅ Watch Rachel Maddow’s (Rachel Maddow) five-minute exposé. She is a leading American liberal political analyst. It calls to mind the worst age of colonialism and imperialism—with this difference: this naked imperialism can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory.” Many American politicians have said the same, among them Michael McFaul (Michael McFaul), U.S. ambassador to Russia under Obama. On 29 August 2026 he wrote that Trump had taken America back to the nineteenth century and was behaving like a typical imperial empire of that century, and that the Venezuela oil deal was naked imperialism: taking another country’s assets in the south by military force. On 3 September 2026, answering the White House, he wrote: “That’s called imperialism. We are profiting from the use of force in another country.” (McFaul has also written, of the same policy: “Straight up colonialism. We invaded not to restore democracy, but to take their oil.” And: “That this outrageous statement celebrating imperialism was not page one news today underscores how numb we have become to Trump.”) ✅ Most important is Bill Kristol’s (Bill Kristol) conversation three days ago with Robert Kagan. Kagan is a leading neoconservative theorist of the Middle East wars, a co-author of the Project for the New American Century statements, and an advocate of military intervention after the Cold War. His wife, Victoria Jane Nuland, is among the “Israel-first” Zionists and is fiercely hawkish. The four-person debate of 20 May 2026 (30 Ordibehesht 1405) at Meridian Hall in Toronto—John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt versus Victoria Jane Nuland and Mike Pompeo, the Munk Debate titled “Be it resolved, don’t go hunting monsters”—is historic and unforgettable: In his interview with Bill Kristol, Kagan treats the Trump administration as predatory and imperialist, having taken Venezuela’s oil and Greenland for America by open, naked force. He says this colonial appetite is insatiable: whatever it takes, it is never full, and it has an extraordinary hunger for other people’s property. (I have posted the Kagan–Kristol interview separately.) Kristol himself is a neoconservative and a serious opponent of Trump. He has not become an anti-interventionist, but he treats Trump’s intervention as the seizure of oil and land, not as leadership of a world order, and he calls the Greenland threat and the Venezuela oil deal imperial bullying. ✅ I could go on, with film, tweets, and debates, to show that what has happened—and is happening—to Iran follows the same imperial program. 🔺 Mike Pompeo (Mike Pompeo), an “Israel-first” neocon, wrote on X on 2 January 2026: “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.” The Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel carried it the same day. A few days earlier, a Persian-language channel attributed to Mossad had written: “Let us go out into the streets together… not only from afar; we are with you in the field as well.” 🔺 John Bolton and Mike Pence have held the same line. All three have sat with the Mujahedin-e Khalq. In July 2018, at an MEK rally in Paris, Bolton said they would celebrate in Tehran before 2019. 🔺 Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have said repeatedly that without regime change in Iran their work is incomplete. In Israeli elections there is no real contest among rivals over “regime change in Iran.” Israel has also had a close relationship with the MEK, but publicly it defends Reza Pahlavi and the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. Shahriar Ahy—then Reza Pahlavi’s most serious adviser—said in New York in 2006 that Israel first offered the leak of Iran’s secret nuclear documents to them; when they refused, Israel gave the documents to the MEK to publish. 🔺 On 5 April 2026 Trump told Fox News that America had sent “guns, a lot of guns” for Iranian protesters, through the Kurds, and that he thought the Kurds had kept the weapons. On 4 March the New York Times wrote that the CIA had given light arms to Iranian Kurdish forces before the war. Iranian Kurdish parties denied receiving the weapons. 🔺 On 12 February 2026 the Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. officials, wrote that after the January crackdown the Trump administration had smuggled some 6,000 Starlink terminals into Iran; the State Department had bought nearly 7,000, and Trump knew of the deliveries. 🔺 On 24–25 February 2026 the CIA posted in Persian on X, Instagram, and YouTube: “The Central Intelligence Agency hears you and wants to help,” and gave instructions for a secure call by informants. AP and Reuters reported it the same day. Yasmine, Noor, and Iman Pahlavi—according to their Instagram records—storyed the CIA notice at the same time. ✅ The defining fact of this moment is that the governments of the United States and Israel no longer hide their aims; they state them in public every day, so that no one can be silenced with the label “conspiracy theory.” The imperial neoliberal government of Trump and Netanyahu has forced even leading neoconservative theorists to distance themselves. Democratic leaders—Obama, Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Biden’s secretary of state, the national-security advisers of Obama and Biden, and Democratic candidates in the 3 November midterms—mainly say the JCPOA worked and that under it Iran would never have obtained a nuclear weapon (and on that claim they are entirely right), and that the causeless, illegal, economically costly, and failed military attack on Iran at Netanyahu’s request was unnecessary. But if Trump also swallows Iran as he has Venezuela and Greenland, and if the next president is a Democrat, they will welcome it—just as the Obama and Biden administrations never restored Iraq’s economic independence. The executive order keeping Iraq’s oil account at the New York Fed was renewed under both. ✅ In Part I of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx offered a brilliant, deep analysis of modernity’s victories in the modern age. But Marx saw that age as the age of revolution against capitalism and of human emancipation, to which both the inner contradictions of capitalism would lead of necessity and which the working class would will into being. That did not happen. Even serious defenders of liberal democracy—including John Rawls, the most important political philosopher of the theory of justice, and Paul Starr in Freedom’s Power: The True Force of Liberalism—were compelled to criticize, in earnest, the coups and foreign aggressions of “liberal imperialism.” Rawls, who in The Law of Peoples was a theorist of humanitarian intervention and just war, criticized and rejected CIA coups in other countries in that same book, including the CIA coup against Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. In §5.4 Rawls wrote that the United States overthrew the democracies of Allende in Chile, Árbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, and, on some accounts, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Whatever the merits of those regimes, the covert operations against them were carried out by a government motivated by monopolistic and oligarchic interests without the knowledge or criticism of the public. This was made easier by a skillful appeal to national security in the context of superpower rivalry, which allowed such weak democracies to be seen, however implausibly, as a threat. Although democratic peoples are not expansionist, they do defend their security interest, and a democratic government can easily appeal to that interest to support covert interventions even when the actual motive is hidden economic interests. Rawls also wrote, in §14.1, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aimed primarily at civilian populations, were very great wrongs. He went on (§4.4 and the footnotes to that section) to say that Japan was already close to surrender and that there was no need for the atomic bombings. But Truman was a racist and called the Japanese savages and barbarians and said they should be treated as such; yet how foolish it now seems to regard the Germans and the Japanese as wholly barbarian and savage. Look at the names Donald Trump has given Iranians in his second term. On 1 April 2026, in a televised address, he said: “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.” That same night: “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding.” In early April: “No bridges, no power plants… Stone Ages.” April reports of Trump on Iranians: “animals,” and once “horrible genes, not like our own.” In July 2026 he called Iran’s leaders “scum” and “sick people.” In September 2026 he told Axios: “Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? It’s a big decision.” In another interview he set out the options as obliterating Iran, letting it rot economically, or making a deal. You see exactly the racist gaze that Edward Said mapped so well in Orientalism. (One of the charges Republicans leveled at Barack Obama was that he had met Edward Said.) That racist attitude cannot and must not be ignored in the bombing of Iran’s infrastructure—including the 28 February 2026 attack on Shajarah Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, which the UN fact-finding mission on 17 September 2026 found, on “reasonable grounds,” to have been the work of the United States and a war crime: about 157 dead, including more than 120 children. Major American media carried the same report. Trump said it was a wartime mistake. The military attack on Iran had, and has, nothing to do with freedom, human rights, or democracy (whenever Trump feels Iran’s leaders are coming around to him, he lavishes astonishing praise on them). This attack is for oil, domination, colonialism, imperialism, racism, and the interests of Israel, and nothing else. Only that.

🎥 #Trumps_Art_of_the_Deal: #Swallowing_Venezuela, #Greenland and #Iran by #America; #Swallowing_the_Middle_East by #Israel👇👇 👈 #Akbar_Ganji, 22 September 2026 ✅ Iranians should keep a very close eye on Trump—the oil thief and land thief—so that he does not, with the bribe of power and wealth, buy the sellouts who are Iranian in name only and take Iran’s oil, or part of Iran’s territory (as with Venezuela and Greenland), for himself. ✅ He gave an $800,000 house to the husband of Greenland’s foreign minister and seized the place. ✅ Trump has said, again and again and in so many words, that he has taken Venezuela’s oil for America and that he wants to do the same to Iran. On 16 December 2025 he wrote on Truth Social that the pressure would continue “Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.” On 17 December 2025 he told reporters they had taken America’s energy rights and oil “not so long ago,” that Washington wanted it back, and that it had been taken illegally. On 3 January 2026, after the military operation and the arrest of Maduro, he said the United States would “run” Venezuela and “we’re going to be taking out a lot of wealth out of the ground.” On 24 January 2026 he told the New York Post: “Let me put it this way, they don’t have any oil. We’re taking the oil.” The oil was being sent to Houston refineries. In June 2026 he wrote on Truth Social that he would soon take Kharg Island and other Iranian oil sites and take complete control of their oil and gas market “just like Venezuela.” On 13 September 2026 in Ireland he said America would eventually get out of Iran, “unless we decide to stay and keep the oil, like Venezuela.” On 9 January 2026, on Greenland, he said: “I’m going to do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not… I’d like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.” ✅ In Iran, Trump is after a repeat of the Iraq and Venezuela model: control of foreign-exchange revenues and a client state. He has said repeatedly that he wants to apply the Venezuela model to Iran. Since 2003, Iraq’s oil revenues have sat in an account of the Central Bank of Iraq at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and every U.S. president has renewed Executive Order 13303; Trump renewed it on 4 May 2026. Reuters reported on 23 January 2026 that Washington threatened even to target Iraq’s oil income if forces close to Iran entered the new government. The New York Times wrote that the Trump administration temporarily blocked the transfer of Iraq’s own dollars from U.S. banks to Baghdad. After Iraq’s November 2025 election, the Shiite majority nominated Nouri al-Maliki for prime minister. On 27 January 2026 Trump wrote on Truth Social that if Maliki were chosen, “the United States of America will no longer help Iraq,” and that without U.S. help Iraq would have “ZERO chance.” Maliki rejected the interference, but his candidacy was withdrawn and, under Washington’s pressure, Ali al-Zaidi became prime minister. In May 2026 Trump said “we support [him] very strongly” and received him at the White House in July. In Venezuela, oil income is likewise under American arrangements. On 18 September 2026 Reuters and the Financial Times reported that the interim government and a faction of the opposition were close to moving some 31 tons of Venezuelan gold—nearly $4 billion—from the Bank of England to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with the United States controlling access. The twin earthquakes of 24 June 2026 left more than 1,700 officially dead; some reports put the toll higher. They want the gold released in the name of post-earthquake reconstruction, but spending it is subject to U.S. oversight and a Treasury account. Without Washington’s permission—and in practice without Marco Rubio—Caracas cannot touch its own reserves. ✅ Many Republican leaders have repeated Trump’s words on Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran almost verbatim. ✅ Most recently, Carla Sands, former U.S. ambassador to Denmark, told Fox News: “We have Venezuela, we’ll have Iran, and now if we have Greenland, we can supply the world with energy for hundreds of years to come—and I mean hundreds of years—with the energy that’s been discovered.” ✅ Watch Rachel Maddow’s (Rachel Maddow) five-minute exposé. She is a leading American liberal political analyst. It calls to mind the worst age of colonialism and imperialism—with this difference: this naked imperialism can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory.” Many American politicians have said the same, among them Michael McFaul (Michael McFaul), U.S. ambassador to Russia under Obama. On 29 August 2026 he wrote that Trump had taken America back to the nineteenth century and was behaving like a typical imperial empire of that century, and that the Venezuela oil deal was naked imperialism: taking another country’s assets in the south by military force. On 3 September 2026, answering the White House, he wrote: “That’s called imperialism. We are profiting from the use of force in another country.” (McFaul has also written, of the same policy: “Straight up colonialism. We invaded not to restore democracy, but to take their oil.” And: “That this outrageous statement celebrating imperialism was not page one news today underscores how numb we have become to Trump.”) ✅ Most important is Bill Kristol’s (Bill Kristol) conversation three days ago with Robert Kagan. Kagan is a leading neoconservative theorist of the Middle East wars, a co-author of the Project for the New American Century statements, and an advocate of military intervention after the Cold War. His wife, Victoria Jane Nuland, is among the “Israel-first” Zionists and is fiercely hawkish. The four-person debate of 20 May 2026 (30 Ordibehesht 1405) at Meridian Hall in Toronto—John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt versus Victoria Jane Nuland and Mike Pompeo, the Munk Debate titled “Be it resolved, don’t go hunting monsters”—is historic and unforgettable: In his interview with Bill Kristol, Kagan treats the Trump administration as predatory and imperialist, having taken Venezuela’s oil and Greenland for America by open, naked force. He says this colonial appetite is insatiable: whatever it takes, it is never full, and it has an extraordinary hunger for other people’s property. (I have posted the Kagan–Kristol interview separately.) Kristol himself is a neoconservative and a serious opponent of Trump. He has not become an anti-interventionist, but he treats Trump’s intervention as the seizure of oil and land, not as leadership of a world order, and he calls the Greenland threat and the Venezuela oil deal imperial bullying. ✅ I could go on, with film, tweets, and debates, to show that what has happened—and is happening—to Iran follows the same imperial program. 🔺 Mike Pompeo (Mike Pompeo), an “Israel-first” neocon, wrote on X on 2 January 2026: “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.” The Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel carried it the same day. A few days earlier, a Persian-language channel attributed to Mossad had written: “Let us go out into the streets together… not only from afar; we are with you in the field as well.” 🔺 John Bolton and Mike Pence have held the same line. All three have sat with the Mujahedin-e Khalq. In July 2018, at an MEK rally in Paris, Bolton said they would celebrate in Tehran before 2019. 🔺 Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have said repeatedly that without regime change in Iran their work is incomplete. In Israeli elections there is no real contest among rivals over “regime change in Iran.” Israel has also had a close relationship with the MEK, but publicly it defends Reza Pahlavi and the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. Shahriar Ahy—then Reza Pahlavi’s most serious adviser—said in New York in 2006 that Israel first offered the leak of Iran’s secret nuclear documents to them; when they refused, Israel gave the documents to the MEK to publish. 🔺 On 5 April 2026 Trump told Fox News that America had sent “guns, a lot of guns” for Iranian protesters, through the Kurds, and that he thought the Kurds had kept the weapons. On 4 March the New York Times wrote that the CIA had given light arms to Iranian Kurdish forces before the war. Iranian Kurdish parties denied receiving the weapons. 🔺 On 12 February 2026 the Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. officials, wrote that after the January crackdown the Trump administration had smuggled some 6,000 Starlink terminals into Iran; the State Department had bought nearly 7,000, and Trump knew of the deliveries. 🔺 On 24–25 February 2026 the CIA posted in Persian on X, Instagram, and YouTube: “The Central Intelligence Agency hears you and wants to help,” and gave instructions for a secure call by informants. AP and Reuters reported it the same day. Yasmine, Noor, and Iman Pahlavi—according to their Instagram records—storyed the CIA notice at the same time. ✅ The defining fact of this moment is that the governments of the United States and Israel no longer hide their aims; they state them in public every day, so that no one can be silenced with the label “conspiracy theory.” The imperial neoliberal government of Trump and Netanyahu has forced even leading neoconservative theorists to distance themselves. Democratic leaders—Obama, Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Biden’s secretary of state, the national-security advisers of Obama and Biden, and Democratic candidates in the 3 November midterms—mainly say the JCPOA worked and that under it Iran would never have obtained a nuclear weapon (and on that claim they are entirely right), and that the causeless, illegal, economically costly, and failed military attack on Iran at Netanyahu’s request was unnecessary. But if Trump also swallows Iran as he has Venezuela and Greenland, and if the next president is a Democrat, they will welcome it—just as the Obama and Biden administrations never restored Iraq’s economic independence. The executive order keeping Iraq’s oil account at the New York Fed was renewed under both. ✅ In Part I of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx offered a brilliant, deep analysis of modernity’s victories in the modern age. But Marx saw that age as the age of revolution against capitalism and of human emancipation, to which both the inner contradictions of capitalism would lead of necessity and which the working class would will into being. That did not happen. Even serious defenders of liberal democracy—including John Rawls, the most important political philosopher of the theory of justice, and Paul Starr in Freedom’s Power: The True Force of Liberalism—were compelled to criticize, in earnest, the coups and foreign aggressions of “liberal imperialism.” Rawls, who in The Law of Peoples was a theorist of humanitarian intervention and just war, criticized and rejected CIA coups in other countries in that same book, including the CIA coup against Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. In §5.4 Rawls wrote that the United States overthrew the democracies of Allende in Chile, Árbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, and, on some accounts, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Whatever the merits of those regimes, the covert operations against them were carried out by a government motivated by monopolistic and oligarchic interests without the knowledge or criticism of the public. This was made easier by a skillful appeal to national security in the context of superpower rivalry, which allowed such weak democracies to be seen, however implausibly, as a threat. Although democratic peoples are not expansionist, they do defend their security interest, and a democratic government can easily appeal to that interest to support covert interventions even when the actual motive is hidden economic interests. Rawls also wrote, in §14.1, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aimed primarily at civilian populations, were very great wrongs. He went on (§4.4 and the footnotes to that section) to say that Japan was already close to surrender and that there was no need for the atomic bombings. But Truman was a racist and called the Japanese savages and barbarians and said they should be treated as such; yet how foolish it now seems to regard the Germans and the Japanese as wholly barbarian and savage. Look at the names Donald Trump has given Iranians in his second term. On 1 April 2026, in a televised address, he said: “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.” That same night: “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding.” In early April: “No bridges, no power plants… Stone Ages.” April reports of Trump on Iranians: “animals,” and once “horrible genes, not like our own.” In July 2026 he called Iran’s leaders “scum” and “sick people.” In September 2026 he told Axios: “Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? It’s a big decision.” In another interview he set out the options as obliterating Iran, letting it rot economically, or making a deal. You see exactly the racist gaze that Edward Said mapped so well in Orientalism. (One of the charges Republicans leveled at Barack Obama was that he had met Edward Said.) That racist attitude cannot and must not be ignored in the bombing of Iran’s infrastructure—including the 28 February 2026 attack on Shajarah Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, which the UN fact-finding mission on 17 September 2026 found, on “reasonable grounds,” to have been the work of the United States and a war crime: about 157 dead, including more than 120 children. Major American media carried the same report. Trump said it was a wartime mistake. The military attack on Iran had, and has, nothing to do with freedom, human rights, or democracy (whenever Trump feels Iran’s leaders are coming around to him, he lavishes astonishing praise on them). This attack is for oil, domination, colonialism, imperialism, racism, and the interests of Israel, and nothing else. Only that.

Akbar Ganji

43,788 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

There Is No Antisemitism Crisis In Australia. It’s A Carefully Constructed Lie. The Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph has been caught trying to orchestrate what can only be described as a mass media psyop to inflame public hysteria about antisemitism in Australia. In a project internally titled “UNDERCOVERJEW” supposedly designed to show “what it’s like being Jewish in Sydney”, a man wearing a Star of David hat and video glasses went around targeting Muslim and Arab businesses trying to instigate hostility from staff members trailed by a video producer and a Telegraph reporter. The man, who is reportedly associated with the Australian Jewish Association, entered an Egyptian cafe called Cairo Takeaway and postured with his Star of David hat without getting any reaction from anyone. He then started making comments to cafe staff, who caught on to what he was doing and started recording him. Police were then called and it caused a big scandal. It’s obvious that the intention here was to instigate something that could be framed as an “antisemitic incident” and provoke a national outcry and draw all the usual fiery denunciations from Australian officials, followed by arguments citing the incident as evidence that Australia needs even more aggressive speech laws to stomp out all criticism of the genocidal apartheid state of Israel. And it should here be noted that The Daily Telegraph is owned by News Corp, the Murdoch media conglomerate which dominates the Australian press. Rupert Murdoch became the media giant he is with the help of his ties with the Ronald Reagan administration and US government agencies. Also noteworthy is that Murdoch is a board member and significant shareholder of Genie Energy, which holds a contract to drill for oil and gas in the Golan Heights — territory illegally occupied by Israel. This is just the latest in a spate of incidents in which a narrative about an urgent epidemic of antisemitism in Australia is being marketed to the public based on false information. Just today we learned from The Sydney Morning Herald that the Dural caravan laden with explosive materials we were told a couple of weeks ago was intended for use in a “mass casualty event” targeting Jewish sites was not only full of unusable 40 year-old explosives with no detonator, but was involved in a scheme by underworld crime gangs to help negotiate reduced sentences with law enforcement. The entire Australian political-media class lost their minds about this story when it first came out. The words “antisemitic” and “antisemitism” were rife throughout the Australian press. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that “There’s zero tolerance in Australia for hatred and for antisemitism, and I want any perpetrators to be hunted down and locked up.” The federal government’s special envoy on antisemitism, Jillian Segal, called the incident a “chilling reminder that the same hatred that led to the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust still exists today”. And it had nothing to do with antisemitism. At all. We saw a similar incident earlier this month when headlines blared about an “antisemitic attack” at Bondi Beach involving eggs being thrown at a group of young women. A couple of days later it came out that the egging was perpetrated by two teenagers getting up to teenage mischief and had nothing to do with anyone hating Jews. Right now we’re seeing an uproar over two Arab Australian nurses who were baited by an Israeli influencer into saying on the website Chatruletka that they would kill Israelis if they came into their hospital. The comments by the nurses were obviously extremely ill-advised and unethical, but a police investigation has so far found that they’ve never harmed anybody, and if you watch the extended footage of the exchange it’s clear the influencer went out of his way to inform them that he served in the Israeli military and killed Palestinians. One of the nurses has reportedly lost 70 family members to Israeli atrocities in Palestine. Without defending the irresponsible comments of the nurses, I don’t think anyone would expect a Jewish person who came in contact with a Nazi soldier in the 1940s to maintain their cool and avoid violent speech, much less so if that person had lost family members in the Holocaust, and even less if they believed they were having a conversation in private. These chat roulette sites are not intended as mass public broadcast forums; people participating in them tend to interact on the assumption that they are having a private conversation, so the exchange should be viewed as angry words being hurled at a perceived abuser, not as a public declaration of intent to harm others. I don’t condone a healthcare provider saying she’d kill Israeli nationals in her hospital, even if she has lost scores of family members in the Gaza holocaust. But I also wouldn’t confuse what I was seeing with evidence of an antisemitism crisis in Australia. There is a concerted effort to manufacture the illusion of an antisemitism crisis in Australia in order to protect Israeli information interests — and the call isn’t coming entirely from inside the house. Albanese has acknowledged that the perpetrators of a spate of allegedly antisemitic attacks in this country may have been paid actors working for foreign operatives. The prime minister refused to speculate as to which country might be sponsoring these incidents which just so happen to greatly benefit the interests of Israel, but you don’t exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to narrow it down. And some of these so-called “antisemitic” incidents are so obviously staged it hurts. When you see graffiti on a synagogue with “Free Palestine” written next to swastikas, it calls to mind the Mississippi man who notoriously claimed in 2015 that his driveway had been vandalized by black activists with graffiti that said “BLACKS RULE”. Apparently we’re all supposed to take very seriously the idea that either (A) Nazis are spray painting the words “Free Palestine” next to their swastikas, or (B) that supporters of Palestinian rights are spray painting Nazi symbols next to their pro-Palestinian slogans. And we are never meant to consider the possibility that this incident was staged by Israel’s supporters or by paid actors working for foreign Zionists. It is always okay to express skepticism about dubious incidents of “antisemitism” in today’s political environment. Israel’s supporters are shitty, evil people who support genocide, and faking antisemitic incidents is a standard hasbara tactic with a well-documented history. There is no antisemitism crisis in Australia. There is an anti-Palestinian crisis in Australia. An anti-Arab crisis in Australia. A pro-genocide crisis in Australia. The fact that our politicians and media have been shrieking their lungs out 24/7/365 about a made-up epidemic of abuse against Jews while standing with Israel and its American sponsors as they demolish Gaza and prepare to ethnically cleanse a Palestinian territory shows that there is indeed something deeply and profoundly sick about our society — but that sickness has nothing to do with antisemitism. There are of course people with hateful attitudes and superstitions toward Jews to be found in any country, but they are a small fringe group whose beliefs have far less meaningful impact on people’s lives than prejudices against Palestinians, immigrants, or Indigenous Australians. The average Australian spends very little time thinking about Jews and Jewishness one way or the other, and we’d spend far less if we weren’t constantly being bombarded with false messaging about how our country is full of dangerous Jew haters. Antisemitism exists in the same way discrimination against divorced mothers exists; it used to be a major issue that did great harm, but in terms of how much it actually affects people’s lives in modern secular times it’s mostly just an obsolete relic of the past. As a divorced mother I might run into the occasional weirdo on the internet calling me a harlot if I mention my personal history, but life is infinitely easier for people like me than it was a century ago. Antisemitism is the same. Generally when you hear people talking about incidents of antisemitism it falls into three separate categories which are too often conflated: 1. People conflating support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. This is the most common category by an extremely massive margin. 2. People conflating October 7 with a Holocaust-like event in which Jews were murdered simply for being Jewish. In reality October 7 was an act of desperation by the oppressed inhabitants of a giant concentration camp, and they would have killed their oppressors regardless of their religion. 3. Real hatred of Jewish people and real attacks on Jews because they are Jewish. This, while relatively uncommon, is being made more common by Israel’s practice of committing genocide under a Star of David flag while claiming to represent all Jews. Israel apologists always go out of their way to conflate these three categories. The Anti-Defamation League officially made this conflation a standard practice in 2023 by categorizing incidents of pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic incidents. The Anti-Defamation League recently drew controversy by saying that Elon Musk’s infamous Nazi salute was not antisemitic, while we’re on the subject. There is no antisemitism crisis in Australia. As The Daily Telegraph and their agent provocateur found out, antisemitism is one crisis we don’t have. They tried to provoke an antisemitic reaction, and they failed. No one cared. The real crisis in Australia is that we are the kind of country that would sit and watch a live-streamed genocide without moving heaven and earth to stop it. We have a morality crisis. An apathy crisis. A crisis of our hearts, minds and souls. But what we do not have in this country, in any meaningful way, is an antisemitism crisis. Reading by Caitlin Johnstone.

There Is No Antisemitism Crisis In Australia. It’s A Carefully Constructed Lie. The Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph has been caught trying to orchestrate what can only be described as a mass media psyop to inflame public hysteria about antisemitism in Australia. In a project internally titled “UNDERCOVERJEW” supposedly designed to show “what it’s like being Jewish in Sydney”, a man wearing a Star of David hat and video glasses went around targeting Muslim and Arab businesses trying to instigate hostility from staff members trailed by a video producer and a Telegraph reporter. The man, who is reportedly associated with the Australian Jewish Association, entered an Egyptian cafe called Cairo Takeaway and postured with his Star of David hat without getting any reaction from anyone. He then started making comments to cafe staff, who caught on to what he was doing and started recording him. Police were then called and it caused a big scandal. It’s obvious that the intention here was to instigate something that could be framed as an “antisemitic incident” and provoke a national outcry and draw all the usual fiery denunciations from Australian officials, followed by arguments citing the incident as evidence that Australia needs even more aggressive speech laws to stomp out all criticism of the genocidal apartheid state of Israel. And it should here be noted that The Daily Telegraph is owned by News Corp, the Murdoch media conglomerate which dominates the Australian press. Rupert Murdoch became the media giant he is with the help of his ties with the Ronald Reagan administration and US government agencies. Also noteworthy is that Murdoch is a board member and significant shareholder of Genie Energy, which holds a contract to drill for oil and gas in the Golan Heights — territory illegally occupied by Israel. This is just the latest in a spate of incidents in which a narrative about an urgent epidemic of antisemitism in Australia is being marketed to the public based on false information. Just today we learned from The Sydney Morning Herald that the Dural caravan laden with explosive materials we were told a couple of weeks ago was intended for use in a “mass casualty event” targeting Jewish sites was not only full of unusable 40 year-old explosives with no detonator, but was involved in a scheme by underworld crime gangs to help negotiate reduced sentences with law enforcement. The entire Australian political-media class lost their minds about this story when it first came out. The words “antisemitic” and “antisemitism” were rife throughout the Australian press. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that “There’s zero tolerance in Australia for hatred and for antisemitism, and I want any perpetrators to be hunted down and locked up.” The federal government’s special envoy on antisemitism, Jillian Segal, called the incident a “chilling reminder that the same hatred that led to the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust still exists today”. And it had nothing to do with antisemitism. At all. We saw a similar incident earlier this month when headlines blared about an “antisemitic attack” at Bondi Beach involving eggs being thrown at a group of young women. A couple of days later it came out that the egging was perpetrated by two teenagers getting up to teenage mischief and had nothing to do with anyone hating Jews. Right now we’re seeing an uproar over two Arab Australian nurses who were baited by an Israeli influencer into saying on the website Chatruletka that they would kill Israelis if they came into their hospital. The comments by the nurses were obviously extremely ill-advised and unethical, but a police investigation has so far found that they’ve never harmed anybody, and if you watch the extended footage of the exchange it’s clear the influencer went out of his way to inform them that he served in the Israeli military and killed Palestinians. One of the nurses has reportedly lost 70 family members to Israeli atrocities in Palestine. Without defending the irresponsible comments of the nurses, I don’t think anyone would expect a Jewish person who came in contact with a Nazi soldier in the 1940s to maintain their cool and avoid violent speech, much less so if that person had lost family members in the Holocaust, and even less if they believed they were having a conversation in private. These chat roulette sites are not intended as mass public broadcast forums; people participating in them tend to interact on the assumption that they are having a private conversation, so the exchange should be viewed as angry words being hurled at a perceived abuser, not as a public declaration of intent to harm others. I don’t condone a healthcare provider saying she’d kill Israeli nationals in her hospital, even if she has lost scores of family members in the Gaza holocaust. But I also wouldn’t confuse what I was seeing with evidence of an antisemitism crisis in Australia. There is a concerted effort to manufacture the illusion of an antisemitism crisis in Australia in order to protect Israeli information interests — and the call isn’t coming entirely from inside the house. Albanese has acknowledged that the perpetrators of a spate of allegedly antisemitic attacks in this country may have been paid actors working for foreign operatives. The prime minister refused to speculate as to which country might be sponsoring these incidents which just so happen to greatly benefit the interests of Israel, but you don’t exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to narrow it down. And some of these so-called “antisemitic” incidents are so obviously staged it hurts. When you see graffiti on a synagogue with “Free Palestine” written next to swastikas, it calls to mind the Mississippi man who notoriously claimed in 2015 that his driveway had been vandalized by black activists with graffiti that said “BLACKS RULE”. Apparently we’re all supposed to take very seriously the idea that either (A) Nazis are spray painting the words “Free Palestine” next to their swastikas, or (B) that supporters of Palestinian rights are spray painting Nazi symbols next to their pro-Palestinian slogans. And we are never meant to consider the possibility that this incident was staged by Israel’s supporters or by paid actors working for foreign Zionists. It is always okay to express skepticism about dubious incidents of “antisemitism” in today’s political environment. Israel’s supporters are shitty, evil people who support genocide, and faking antisemitic incidents is a standard hasbara tactic with a well-documented history. There is no antisemitism crisis in Australia. There is an anti-Palestinian crisis in Australia. An anti-Arab crisis in Australia. A pro-genocide crisis in Australia. The fact that our politicians and media have been shrieking their lungs out 24/7/365 about a made-up epidemic of abuse against Jews while standing with Israel and its American sponsors as they demolish Gaza and prepare to ethnically cleanse a Palestinian territory shows that there is indeed something deeply and profoundly sick about our society — but that sickness has nothing to do with antisemitism. There are of course people with hateful attitudes and superstitions toward Jews to be found in any country, but they are a small fringe group whose beliefs have far less meaningful impact on people’s lives than prejudices against Palestinians, immigrants, or Indigenous Australians. The average Australian spends very little time thinking about Jews and Jewishness one way or the other, and we’d spend far less if we weren’t constantly being bombarded with false messaging about how our country is full of dangerous Jew haters. Antisemitism exists in the same way discrimination against divorced mothers exists; it used to be a major issue that did great harm, but in terms of how much it actually affects people’s lives in modern secular times it’s mostly just an obsolete relic of the past. As a divorced mother I might run into the occasional weirdo on the internet calling me a harlot if I mention my personal history, but life is infinitely easier for people like me than it was a century ago. Antisemitism is the same. Generally when you hear people talking about incidents of antisemitism it falls into three separate categories which are too often conflated: 1. People conflating support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. This is the most common category by an extremely massive margin. 2. People conflating October 7 with a Holocaust-like event in which Jews were murdered simply for being Jewish. In reality October 7 was an act of desperation by the oppressed inhabitants of a giant concentration camp, and they would have killed their oppressors regardless of their religion. 3. Real hatred of Jewish people and real attacks on Jews because they are Jewish. This, while relatively uncommon, is being made more common by Israel’s practice of committing genocide under a Star of David flag while claiming to represent all Jews. Israel apologists always go out of their way to conflate these three categories. The Anti-Defamation League officially made this conflation a standard practice in 2023 by categorizing incidents of pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic incidents. The Anti-Defamation League recently drew controversy by saying that Elon Musk’s infamous Nazi salute was not antisemitic, while we’re on the subject. There is no antisemitism crisis in Australia. As The Daily Telegraph and their agent provocateur found out, antisemitism is one crisis we don’t have. They tried to provoke an antisemitic reaction, and they failed. No one cared. The real crisis in Australia is that we are the kind of country that would sit and watch a live-streamed genocide without moving heaven and earth to stop it. We have a morality crisis. An apathy crisis. A crisis of our hearts, minds and souls. But what we do not have in this country, in any meaningful way, is an antisemitism crisis. Reading by Caitlin Johnstone.

Caitlin Johnstone

255,767 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Over the last decade, a consensus has grown on the Left and Right that the US needs to be more self-sufficient when it comes to manufacturing. During Covid, we discovered we didn’t make much of the equipment we needed to deal with a pandemic and were thus dependent on other nations, and so Congress passed and Trump signed the CARES Act in part to spend money to support domestic manufacturing of medical supplies. In 2022, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the CHIPS Act to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. out of the recognition that we had become dangerously dependent on foreign nations for microchips, which have become general-purpose technologies, necessary for national security, and upon which the AI revolution will be built. Where America had a $38 billion trade surplus in 1991 on advanced technology manufacturing, today it has a $299 billion deficit. Liberals and conservatives, Leftists and Rightists, have long shared a broad agreement that manufacturing and its knock-on industries are an essential source of employment for non-college-educated working-class people, and that the loss of manufacturing contributed to social fragmentation, family breakdown, and the drug addiction and death crisis. In a 2024 survey, Americans agreed ten to one that “we need a stronger manufacturing sector; 47% said America suffered from globalization, while 33% said it benefited. It is partly for that reason that Joe Biden, in perhaps the most bipartisan and non-ideological decision of his presidency, kept in place the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his first term as president. And yet both liberals and many conservatives are reacting with outrage as President Donald Trump puts in place precisely the trade tariffs needed to reduce our dangerous dependency on other nations and increase our manufacturing of the goods we need for national security, economic security, and societal wellbeing. The China tariffs, the CARES Act, and the CHIPS Act did not result in the return of much manufacturing, much less the rebalancing of trade. Total manufacturing jobsare 12.8 million in December 2019 and are 12.8 million today. The US still depends on China and other nations for active pharmaceutical ingredients, personal protective equipment, microchips, and critical minerals. Suffice to say, we are a very long way from a manufacturing renaissance sufficiently robust to revitalize the communities that have lost good, high-wage jobs to China and other competitors and even rivals internationally. The reason is clear. The average tariff level globally is 6.7% compared to America’s 2.7%. And simply subsidizing industries may not be enough for two major semiconductor manufacturers, Intel and TSMC, to produce domestically without tariffs. US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025. Trump geared up to unveil sweeping new "Liberation Day" tariffs in a move that threatens to ignite a devastating global trade war. Key US trading partners including the European Union and Britain said they were preparing their responses to Trump's escalation, as nervous markets fell in Europe and America. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)📷 Anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say Trump’s actions will destroy people’s retirement savings by crashing the stock market, and will undermine the comparative advantage of other nations producing products we shouldn’t. And, they say, our goal should not be to return manufacturing to the United States, except for a few exceptions, which Congress has already made. For centuries, economists have argued that some nations, such as poorer ones, are more suited to produce many products than richer ones. Americans making t-shirts at $20 per hour are less efficient than the Vietnamese making them for $3 per hour. And the US should not be trying to replace perfectly reasonable products to import, like aluminum from Canada, which we have no reason to ever go to war with, and which has access to cheap hydroelectricity to make it. Over half of American families have money in the stock market, and they will all suffer, anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say. The economic system we have had since World War II has worked to maximize win-win relationships that result in poorer nations climbing the development ladder with manufacturing and wealthier nations like the US focused on services. But it’s unwise to evaluate policies based on the short-term impact of the stock market. Anti-tariff voices grossly overstate the comparative advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and the postwar system, economically and militarily, is no longer in the interests of non-college-educated Americans, who are both more vulnerable and more numerous than the college-educated elite. There is no need to bring back a significant amount of low-skill and nonstrategic manufacturing like T-shirts, and Trump has not advocated that. America may need to bring back some low-skill jobs, such as manufacturing protective gear. But our priority should rightly be high-skill manufacturing, and CARES, CHIPS, and the Trump-Biden China were, obviously, not enough. It may be fine to rely on Canada for aluminum. But the tariffs against it and Mexico, as well as Trump’s stated desire to make it the 51st state, should be viewed as the president negotiating in preparation for upcoming trade talks between the three countries. While offshoring manufacturing policies benefited multinational corporations, bankers, and consumers, they often devastated communities built on manufacturing, mining, and manual labor. US companies moved production to countries with lower labor costs, fewer regulations, and subsidized exports. Economists calculate that just the so-called “China Shock,” that country’s entry into the World Trade Organization, alone cost the U.S. 2.4 million jobs and had ripple effects across entire communities. The average manufacturing wage is $103,000 per year compared to $37,000 per year for the average service sector wage. And where a service sector job supports 2 to 3 jobs, a manufacturing job supports nine jobs. Continuing with a system that is fundamentally advantageous to a minority of the country and disadvantageous to a majority is not sustainable and unwise to prop up. Trump’s trade actions are part of a broader return to nationalism underway globally, and they can’t be understood on economic grounds alone. Regarding priorities, we should put the two-thirds of the country that is non-college educated working-class ahead of the 50% of the country who own stocks, for moral and democratic reasons. America is deeply divided. While there are many proximate reasons for this, including geographic sorting, cable TV, and social media, the underlying reasons are economic. The gulf between the educated elites and the non-educated working class has grown dangerously large. Many critics of the tariffs are well-intentioned. They are right to worry that they could come with significant economic costs and disruption. The concern of many of them is genuinely for the working class and poor, who higher prices for imported goods would most harm. However, many American elites today identify more with their global counterparts than their fellow Americans. And that’s a huge problem. In his study of 21 civilizations, British historian Arnold J. Toynbee found that civilizations collapse not simply from external invasion but from internal decay, precisely when their elites stop identifying with the people. “Civilizations die from suicide,” he famously wrote, “not murder.” Civilizations all depend on their elites, Toynbee noted, or the people he called the “creative minority.” But rising success creates decadence, complacency, and eventually contempt toward their people, and they start to identify with elites in other nations. This is all a natural outgrowth of trade, cosmopolitanism, and snobbery. It starts to view the ordinary people as “deplorables.” At this point, the elite lose their creativity and become simply the “dominant minority,” one that rules no longer by example but rather by manipulation or force. Toynbee could be describing America in the 21st Century. College-educated elites look down on the American working class and identify with other professional and managerial elites in Europe and other nations. They sympathize less with the low-skilled American citizen born here and more with the low-skilled foreign migrant here illegally. Such elites are more concerned with tariffs' impact on their stock portfolio and the cost of their gadgets than they are with the downward pressure illegal migrants put on wages or with how nations manipulate their currency to retain manufacturing. Toynbee said that, at this stage of development, a nation’s elites become “parasites or renegades,” alienated and contemptuous toward the culture that produced them. Civilizations at this late stage are morally hollow and thus fragile and prone to abuses of power, like censorship, lawfare, and the weaponization of government agencies. And these civilizations disparage their traditions in ways that the American elites have disparaged America’s founding and its history as essentially evil, due to the unavoidable tragedy of indigenous genocide and slavery, even though a civil war that killed over 600,000 people was fought to end it. But Toynbee didn’t believe that civilizational collapse was inevitable; some societies can snap back.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Over the last decade, a consensus has grown on the Left and Right that the US needs to be more self-sufficient when it comes to manufacturing. During Covid, we discovered we didn’t make much of the equipment we needed to deal with a pandemic and were thus dependent on other nations, and so Congress passed and Trump signed the CARES Act in part to spend money to support domestic manufacturing of medical supplies. In 2022, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the CHIPS Act to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. out of the recognition that we had become dangerously dependent on foreign nations for microchips, which have become general-purpose technologies, necessary for national security, and upon which the AI revolution will be built. Where America had a $38 billion trade surplus in 1991 on advanced technology manufacturing, today it has a $299 billion deficit. Liberals and conservatives, Leftists and Rightists, have long shared a broad agreement that manufacturing and its knock-on industries are an essential source of employment for non-college-educated working-class people, and that the loss of manufacturing contributed to social fragmentation, family breakdown, and the drug addiction and death crisis. In a 2024 survey, Americans agreed ten to one that “we need a stronger manufacturing sector; 47% said America suffered from globalization, while 33% said it benefited. It is partly for that reason that Joe Biden, in perhaps the most bipartisan and non-ideological decision of his presidency, kept in place the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his first term as president. And yet both liberals and many conservatives are reacting with outrage as President Donald Trump puts in place precisely the trade tariffs needed to reduce our dangerous dependency on other nations and increase our manufacturing of the goods we need for national security, economic security, and societal wellbeing. The China tariffs, the CARES Act, and the CHIPS Act did not result in the return of much manufacturing, much less the rebalancing of trade. Total manufacturing jobsare 12.8 million in December 2019 and are 12.8 million today. The US still depends on China and other nations for active pharmaceutical ingredients, personal protective equipment, microchips, and critical minerals. Suffice to say, we are a very long way from a manufacturing renaissance sufficiently robust to revitalize the communities that have lost good, high-wage jobs to China and other competitors and even rivals internationally. The reason is clear. The average tariff level globally is 6.7% compared to America’s 2.7%. And simply subsidizing industries may not be enough for two major semiconductor manufacturers, Intel and TSMC, to produce domestically without tariffs. US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025. Trump geared up to unveil sweeping new "Liberation Day" tariffs in a move that threatens to ignite a devastating global trade war. Key US trading partners including the European Union and Britain said they were preparing their responses to Trump's escalation, as nervous markets fell in Europe and America. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)📷 Anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say Trump’s actions will destroy people’s retirement savings by crashing the stock market, and will undermine the comparative advantage of other nations producing products we shouldn’t. And, they say, our goal should not be to return manufacturing to the United States, except for a few exceptions, which Congress has already made. For centuries, economists have argued that some nations, such as poorer ones, are more suited to produce many products than richer ones. Americans making t-shirts at $20 per hour are less efficient than the Vietnamese making them for $3 per hour. And the US should not be trying to replace perfectly reasonable products to import, like aluminum from Canada, which we have no reason to ever go to war with, and which has access to cheap hydroelectricity to make it. Over half of American families have money in the stock market, and they will all suffer, anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say. The economic system we have had since World War II has worked to maximize win-win relationships that result in poorer nations climbing the development ladder with manufacturing and wealthier nations like the US focused on services. But it’s unwise to evaluate policies based on the short-term impact of the stock market. Anti-tariff voices grossly overstate the comparative advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and the postwar system, economically and militarily, is no longer in the interests of non-college-educated Americans, who are both more vulnerable and more numerous than the college-educated elite. There is no need to bring back a significant amount of low-skill and nonstrategic manufacturing like T-shirts, and Trump has not advocated that. America may need to bring back some low-skill jobs, such as manufacturing protective gear. But our priority should rightly be high-skill manufacturing, and CARES, CHIPS, and the Trump-Biden China were, obviously, not enough. It may be fine to rely on Canada for aluminum. But the tariffs against it and Mexico, as well as Trump’s stated desire to make it the 51st state, should be viewed as the president negotiating in preparation for upcoming trade talks between the three countries. While offshoring manufacturing policies benefited multinational corporations, bankers, and consumers, they often devastated communities built on manufacturing, mining, and manual labor. US companies moved production to countries with lower labor costs, fewer regulations, and subsidized exports. Economists calculate that just the so-called “China Shock,” that country’s entry into the World Trade Organization, alone cost the U.S. 2.4 million jobs and had ripple effects across entire communities. The average manufacturing wage is $103,000 per year compared to $37,000 per year for the average service sector wage. And where a service sector job supports 2 to 3 jobs, a manufacturing job supports nine jobs. Continuing with a system that is fundamentally advantageous to a minority of the country and disadvantageous to a majority is not sustainable and unwise to prop up. Trump’s trade actions are part of a broader return to nationalism underway globally, and they can’t be understood on economic grounds alone. Regarding priorities, we should put the two-thirds of the country that is non-college educated working-class ahead of the 50% of the country who own stocks, for moral and democratic reasons. America is deeply divided. While there are many proximate reasons for this, including geographic sorting, cable TV, and social media, the underlying reasons are economic. The gulf between the educated elites and the non-educated working class has grown dangerously large. Many critics of the tariffs are well-intentioned. They are right to worry that they could come with significant economic costs and disruption. The concern of many of them is genuinely for the working class and poor, who higher prices for imported goods would most harm. However, many American elites today identify more with their global counterparts than their fellow Americans. And that’s a huge problem. In his study of 21 civilizations, British historian Arnold J. Toynbee found that civilizations collapse not simply from external invasion but from internal decay, precisely when their elites stop identifying with the people. “Civilizations die from suicide,” he famously wrote, “not murder.” Civilizations all depend on their elites, Toynbee noted, or the people he called the “creative minority.” But rising success creates decadence, complacency, and eventually contempt toward their people, and they start to identify with elites in other nations. This is all a natural outgrowth of trade, cosmopolitanism, and snobbery. It starts to view the ordinary people as “deplorables.” At this point, the elite lose their creativity and become simply the “dominant minority,” one that rules no longer by example but rather by manipulation or force. Toynbee could be describing America in the 21st Century. College-educated elites look down on the American working class and identify with other professional and managerial elites in Europe and other nations. They sympathize less with the low-skilled American citizen born here and more with the low-skilled foreign migrant here illegally. Such elites are more concerned with tariffs' impact on their stock portfolio and the cost of their gadgets than they are with the downward pressure illegal migrants put on wages or with how nations manipulate their currency to retain manufacturing. Toynbee said that, at this stage of development, a nation’s elites become “parasites or renegades,” alienated and contemptuous toward the culture that produced them. Civilizations at this late stage are morally hollow and thus fragile and prone to abuses of power, like censorship, lawfare, and the weaponization of government agencies. And these civilizations disparage their traditions in ways that the American elites have disparaged America’s founding and its history as essentially evil, due to the unavoidable tragedy of indigenous genocide and slavery, even though a civil war that killed over 600,000 people was fought to end it. But Toynbee didn’t believe that civilizational collapse was inevitable; some societies can snap back.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

57,018 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:

1tokki

104,638 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United States—his birthplace and country of citizenship—as an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islam’s victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stone’s throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"—a clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allah’s laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and Israel—Islam’s primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sister’s home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibril’s worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihad’s practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from within—part of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammad’s sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. America’s internal security faces a severe threat—not immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuries—a strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” As stated in Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allah’s commands from the Quran and Muhammad. *According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "…The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle…" * According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "…So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: “Islam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected…" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fear” that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History

The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United States—his birthplace and country of citizenship—as an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islam’s victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stone’s throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"—a clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allah’s laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and Israel—Islam’s primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sister’s home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibril’s worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihad’s practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from within—part of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammad’s sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. America’s internal security faces a severe threat—not immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuries—a strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” As stated in Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allah’s commands from the Quran and Muhammad. According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "…The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle…" According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "…So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: “Islam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected…" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fear” that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

122,846 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Churches, protests, and bribes: Hichilema’s triple power play to secure Edgar Lungu’s body By Sishuwa Sishuwa So committed to telling lies is President Hakainde Hichilema that he seemingly either cannot help himself or experiences a “high” when deceiving others. I know that politicians are generally perceived to be liars, but such is Hichilema’s uncontrollable urge to lie, often compulsively and without any apparent reason or benefit, that one can be forgiven for thinking that delivering lies was one of his major campaign promises in the last general election. In countries with robust oversight institutions, the President would have already been subjected to a thorough evaluation by professional experts to determine if he has pseudologia fantastica, also known as mythomania – a condition in which individuals frequently tell lies, often for no clear reason. The latest in the long running series of the President’s constant deviation from the truth occurred on 17 July 2025 when he told journalists that his administration is “quietly” holding negotiations with the family of late former president Edgar Lungu aimed at resolving the impasse between the two parties regarding Lungu’s burial. This is the second time in the preceding two weeks alone that Hichilema has made this claim. The first was on 9 July when he met US Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales at State House. On both occasions, the President has been untruthful. I have spoken with the Lungu family, and they have confirmed that there have been no discussions whatsoever between the two parties since Hichilema's administration initiated the court case that stopped Lungu's burial nearly a month ago, on 24 June 2025. Why then does the President keep telling lies on this matter? What prevents him from telling the truth even on straightforward issues where his lies can more easily be uncovered? In search of answers, I reached out to different sources in government and at State House for insights. The sources, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity and provided irrefutable evidence in support of their insights, revealed that the President, fearful that the Pretoria High Court might rule against the Zambian government because the South African law is on the side of a deceased’s family, has devised a strategy consisting of three elements aimed at preventing this outcome and securing the elusive access to his predecessor’s body. The first element of this plan is to persuade the influential Catholic Church to release a statement urging the Lungu family to agree to a mediated settlement that would allow the former president to be buried in Zambia. While some religious and civic groups have already been pressured to make similar appeals, the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) has not yet done so. Hichilema believes that a statement from the ZCCB would carry more weight. To achieve this goal, the President sent a four-member, high-ranking government delegation to meet with the ZCCB in Lusaka on 18 July 2025. The presidential delegation, consisting of Minister of Defence Ambrose Lufuma, Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security Jack Mwiimbu, Minister of Community Development and Social Services Doreen Mwamba, and Special Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs Christopher Mundia – all practising Catholics – met with three representatives of the ZCCB, namely Ignatius Chama (Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Kasama and President of ZCCB), George Lungu (Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Chipata), and Valentine Kalumba (Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Livingstone). During the meeting, Hichilema's representatives expressed concern that the Catholic Church had not issued a statement on the impasse between his administration and the Lungu family. Embracing the pathological lying disposition of their boss, the delegation also mentioned that negotiations between the State and the Lungu family were progressing, and the government hoped the Catholic Church would participate in the discussions. One or two members of Hichilema’s delegation in the meeting reportedly said: “since Archbishop Alick Banda appears to be close to the Lungu family, how can we get him to intervene in this matter and help us?” To be clear, Banda is the Archbishop in charge of Lusaka Archdiocese whom the ruling party has previously called a “thief”, the “Lucifer of Zambia”, and a man with no credibility. In addition, the Catholic Church has itself been the subject of regular attacks and harassment from both State actors and ruling party officials. In response, the Bishops explained that they have stayed away from the matter because they do not have sufficient knowledge of the underlying facts and only comment on issues they fully understand. The Bishops also expressed hope that the issue would be resolved conclusively since it is now before a competent authority – the South African High Court. Given the despicable attacks that Hichilema’s administration has repeatedly unleashed on both Archbishop Banda and the Catholic Church in general, and in the absence of any public apology or atonement for this State harassment, it was unlikely that the Bishops would be deceived. However, one cannot blame Hichilema for trying his luck. The timing of this State-orchestrated meeting with representatives of the ZCCB was not coincidental. For much of this week, the Catholic Bishops have been meeting in Lusaka to, among other things, look at various issues affecting the membership of the church and the nation. Such meetings usually culminate in the release of a pastoral letter that is read out in parishes across the country. The sources disclosed that Hichilema’s fear is that a rebuke from the ZCCB on how his administration has handled Lungu’s funeral would be politically damaging, especially when one considers the other two elements of the strategy that the President has devised to secure access to his predecessor’s body. In dispatching his officials to meet the Catholic Bishops, Hichilema is not only lobbying the influential religious organisation to publicly support his cause based on the false impression that negotiations with the Lungu family have reached an advanced stage; he is also seeking to pre-empt the ZCCB’s possible criticism of his failure to provide leadership on a matter that has seen him use taxpayers’ money to sue a grieving family and halt a funeral that was underway. The second element of Hichilema’s strategy is to carefully orchestrate State-financed public protests in Lusaka, on the Copperbelt, in Eastern Province (Lungu's home area) and in other parts of Zambia to create the false impression of widespread public outrage against the decision by the Lungu family to lay the former president to rest in South Africa. The sources revealed that Hichilema has already set this plan in motion and is closely working with Robert Chabinga, a renegade member of parliament belonging to the main opposition Patriotic Front (PF) party. Chabinga, who is guarded by State police, is the MP that Hichilema’s administration – using the office of the Registrar of Societies which falls under Mwiimbu’s ministry – has installed as the government-recognised leader of the PF in the absence of an election. He has also been installed as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, Hichilema’s former personal lawyer, though he was elected by no one. According to insiders, Hichilema had initially wanted Chabinga to join the court case in South Africa as Leader of the Opposition. After the President received advice against the move, he and his allies then hatched the plan to organise “mass public protests” across the country by placard-carrying ruling party supporters masquerading as PF members and Zambian nationalists demanding the return of Lungu’s remains so that he could be buried at home. The objective of these demonstrations would be to manufacture evidence of popular anger against the Lungu family's position, fabricate visible proof of “public interest” in Lungu’s funeral, and create the pretext that the government hopes it can use to persuade the South African judge to rule in its favour. These acts of “nationalism” would not be as they would seem, however. What would appear to be spontaneous demonstrations of widespread outrage would be carefully orchestrated by Hichilema as part of his power play to wrestle Lungu from exile in death and bolster his beleaguered presidency. For Chabinga, who remains at the helm of Zambia’s main opposition party because of the complicit role of the judiciary, delivering on this presidential aspiration would cement his State-backed illegal leadership of the PF and reduce the political costs that might befall Hichilema in next year’s election should Lungu be buried abroad. The third and final element of Hichilema’s strategy is to attempt to bribe the South African judge who is handling the legal case between the Zambian government and the Lungu family. Hichilema and his allies have resigned themselves to the possibility of losing the case. In private conversations, they admit that the law in South Africa favours the Lungu family and that if the Pretoria Court is allowed to decide the case based on the facts and law, the Zambian government is likely to lose. To avoid this almost certain outcome, Hichilema and his supporters have considered the option of bribing the judge presiding over the case. There is no evidence yet that an approach has been made, but Chabinga, who was recently in South Africa on a State-facilitated trip, has privately expressed confidence that the judge might be amenable to bribery. "The judge needs to eat", Chabinga was heard saying. If the planned mass demonstrations are successful, Hichilema's proxy added, "the judge will make a ruling based on the public outcry in Zambia...to support the Attorney General". The renegade PF MP further conceded that there is "a possibility that the judge can rule in favour of the Lungu family because the laws of South Africa give too much power to a deceased's family than to the government". He however reiterated his belief that if the judge is "pressured", aided with cooked up public protests, and made to "consider the fact that Lungu was a former president", the judicial official can rule in favour of the Zambian government. Chabinga and his backers know that attempting to bribe, in any way, a judge of a foreign country would be a major scandal that could adversely affect diplomatic relations between Zambia and South Africa. However, they seem determined to try their luck at implementing what Chabinga, in private conversations, calls a "special operation". Earlier, Chabinga had complained to his associates that he had been woken up by Hichilema at an ungodly hour to undertake, at short notice, the trip to Johannesburg but felt the need to sacrifice for the man he calls "ba boss". After briefing him about Hichilema's agenda for the "special operation", State actors had originally hoped to book Chabinga a seat on the first flight out of Lusaka, but he ended up traveling on a 10am Airlink flight. This followed a discovery that there were many prominent PF members on the earlier flight also traveling to South Africa. Ironically, even on the 10am flight, Hichilema's representative met several PF prominent figures such as Chanda Katotobwe, Nakiwe Simpungwe, and Christopher Shakafuswa who all greeted him and to whom he lied that he was traveling to Cape Town. It is important to clarify that the confidence of Hichilema's team that the affected judge might be open to bribery does not come from any personal knowledge of the justice handling the legal case. Rather, and as one of the sources stated, it stems from the knowledge that they have done similar things with some Zambian judges, particularly on matters involving the resolution of PF leadership wrangles, and got away with it. In private, Chabinga, for instance, acknowledges that a questionable judgement by the Pretoria High Court in favour of the Zambian government is likely to be reversed on appeal by a superior court. Nevertheless, the President's proxy is optimistic that the Lungu family will become fatigued by the time the verdict is delivered and ultimately consent to the return of the former president's body to Zambia rather than pursuing an appeal in the event of a dubious loss. The unfolding saga surrounding the burial of former president Lungu reveals more than a mere dispute over a final resting place. It exposes the depths to which political ambition can drive deception, manipulation, and ethical compromise. President Hichilema’s persistent falsehoods about negotiations, the planned orchestration of State-sponsored protests, and the alarming prospect of judicial bribery involving a foreign judge paint a troubling picture of governance undermined by desperation and duplicity. This strategy not only disrespects a grieving family but also erodes public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice and truth. What began as a matter of state dignity and national closure has morphed into a volatile mix of political manoeuvring, public mobilisation, and devious ecclesiastical diplomacy. President Hichilema’s reported three-pronged strategy — courting the Catholic Church, rallying public protests, and attempting to sway a foreign court — suggests that the battle over Lungu’s body is about far more than burial rights. It is a symbolic struggle for control over Zambia’s political memory and moral authority. Whether these efforts succeed or backfire, they highlight a deeper crisis: the lingering divisions of Zambia’s political landscape and the extent to which historical rivals still cast long shadows over the present. In life and now in death, Lungu continues to provoke conflict, and President Hichilema appears determined to ensure that even in the afterlife, the final word belongs not to the Lungu family but to Hichilema himself. In a country that is yearning for transparency and integrity, such actions as the ones initiated by Hichilema highlight the urgent need for accountability at the highest levels of leadership. The true cost of this political theatre extends beyond the burial dispute; it threatens the moral fabric of Zambia itself. As citizens, observers, and custodians of democracy, we must demand honesty, respect for due process, and, above all, compassion in honouring – both in life and in death – those who have served the nation. No amount of spin or scheming can bury the truth forever. The nation watches and waits.

Churches, protests, and bribes: Hichilema’s triple power play to secure Edgar Lungu’s body By Sishuwa Sishuwa So committed to telling lies is President Hakainde Hichilema that he seemingly either cannot help himself or experiences a “high” when deceiving others. I know that politicians are generally perceived to be liars, but such is Hichilema’s uncontrollable urge to lie, often compulsively and without any apparent reason or benefit, that one can be forgiven for thinking that delivering lies was one of his major campaign promises in the last general election. In countries with robust oversight institutions, the President would have already been subjected to a thorough evaluation by professional experts to determine if he has pseudologia fantastica, also known as mythomania – a condition in which individuals frequently tell lies, often for no clear reason. The latest in the long running series of the President’s constant deviation from the truth occurred on 17 July 2025 when he told journalists that his administration is “quietly” holding negotiations with the family of late former president Edgar Lungu aimed at resolving the impasse between the two parties regarding Lungu’s burial. This is the second time in the preceding two weeks alone that Hichilema has made this claim. The first was on 9 July when he met US Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales at State House. On both occasions, the President has been untruthful. I have spoken with the Lungu family, and they have confirmed that there have been no discussions whatsoever between the two parties since Hichilema's administration initiated the court case that stopped Lungu's burial nearly a month ago, on 24 June 2025. Why then does the President keep telling lies on this matter? What prevents him from telling the truth even on straightforward issues where his lies can more easily be uncovered? In search of answers, I reached out to different sources in government and at State House for insights. The sources, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity and provided irrefutable evidence in support of their insights, revealed that the President, fearful that the Pretoria High Court might rule against the Zambian government because the South African law is on the side of a deceased’s family, has devised a strategy consisting of three elements aimed at preventing this outcome and securing the elusive access to his predecessor’s body. The first element of this plan is to persuade the influential Catholic Church to release a statement urging the Lungu family to agree to a mediated settlement that would allow the former president to be buried in Zambia. While some religious and civic groups have already been pressured to make similar appeals, the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) has not yet done so. Hichilema believes that a statement from the ZCCB would carry more weight. To achieve this goal, the President sent a four-member, high-ranking government delegation to meet with the ZCCB in Lusaka on 18 July 2025. The presidential delegation, consisting of Minister of Defence Ambrose Lufuma, Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security Jack Mwiimbu, Minister of Community Development and Social Services Doreen Mwamba, and Special Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs Christopher Mundia – all practising Catholics – met with three representatives of the ZCCB, namely Ignatius Chama (Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Kasama and President of ZCCB), George Lungu (Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Chipata), and Valentine Kalumba (Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Livingstone). During the meeting, Hichilema's representatives expressed concern that the Catholic Church had not issued a statement on the impasse between his administration and the Lungu family. Embracing the pathological lying disposition of their boss, the delegation also mentioned that negotiations between the State and the Lungu family were progressing, and the government hoped the Catholic Church would participate in the discussions. One or two members of Hichilema’s delegation in the meeting reportedly said: “since Archbishop Alick Banda appears to be close to the Lungu family, how can we get him to intervene in this matter and help us?” To be clear, Banda is the Archbishop in charge of Lusaka Archdiocese whom the ruling party has previously called a “thief”, the “Lucifer of Zambia”, and a man with no credibility. In addition, the Catholic Church has itself been the subject of regular attacks and harassment from both State actors and ruling party officials. In response, the Bishops explained that they have stayed away from the matter because they do not have sufficient knowledge of the underlying facts and only comment on issues they fully understand. The Bishops also expressed hope that the issue would be resolved conclusively since it is now before a competent authority – the South African High Court. Given the despicable attacks that Hichilema’s administration has repeatedly unleashed on both Archbishop Banda and the Catholic Church in general, and in the absence of any public apology or atonement for this State harassment, it was unlikely that the Bishops would be deceived. However, one cannot blame Hichilema for trying his luck. The timing of this State-orchestrated meeting with representatives of the ZCCB was not coincidental. For much of this week, the Catholic Bishops have been meeting in Lusaka to, among other things, look at various issues affecting the membership of the church and the nation. Such meetings usually culminate in the release of a pastoral letter that is read out in parishes across the country. The sources disclosed that Hichilema’s fear is that a rebuke from the ZCCB on how his administration has handled Lungu’s funeral would be politically damaging, especially when one considers the other two elements of the strategy that the President has devised to secure access to his predecessor’s body. In dispatching his officials to meet the Catholic Bishops, Hichilema is not only lobbying the influential religious organisation to publicly support his cause based on the false impression that negotiations with the Lungu family have reached an advanced stage; he is also seeking to pre-empt the ZCCB’s possible criticism of his failure to provide leadership on a matter that has seen him use taxpayers’ money to sue a grieving family and halt a funeral that was underway. The second element of Hichilema’s strategy is to carefully orchestrate State-financed public protests in Lusaka, on the Copperbelt, in Eastern Province (Lungu's home area) and in other parts of Zambia to create the false impression of widespread public outrage against the decision by the Lungu family to lay the former president to rest in South Africa. The sources revealed that Hichilema has already set this plan in motion and is closely working with Robert Chabinga, a renegade member of parliament belonging to the main opposition Patriotic Front (PF) party. Chabinga, who is guarded by State police, is the MP that Hichilema’s administration – using the office of the Registrar of Societies which falls under Mwiimbu’s ministry – has installed as the government-recognised leader of the PF in the absence of an election. He has also been installed as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, Hichilema’s former personal lawyer, though he was elected by no one. According to insiders, Hichilema had initially wanted Chabinga to join the court case in South Africa as Leader of the Opposition. After the President received advice against the move, he and his allies then hatched the plan to organise “mass public protests” across the country by placard-carrying ruling party supporters masquerading as PF members and Zambian nationalists demanding the return of Lungu’s remains so that he could be buried at home. The objective of these demonstrations would be to manufacture evidence of popular anger against the Lungu family's position, fabricate visible proof of “public interest” in Lungu’s funeral, and create the pretext that the government hopes it can use to persuade the South African judge to rule in its favour. These acts of “nationalism” would not be as they would seem, however. What would appear to be spontaneous demonstrations of widespread outrage would be carefully orchestrated by Hichilema as part of his power play to wrestle Lungu from exile in death and bolster his beleaguered presidency. For Chabinga, who remains at the helm of Zambia’s main opposition party because of the complicit role of the judiciary, delivering on this presidential aspiration would cement his State-backed illegal leadership of the PF and reduce the political costs that might befall Hichilema in next year’s election should Lungu be buried abroad. The third and final element of Hichilema’s strategy is to attempt to bribe the South African judge who is handling the legal case between the Zambian government and the Lungu family. Hichilema and his allies have resigned themselves to the possibility of losing the case. In private conversations, they admit that the law in South Africa favours the Lungu family and that if the Pretoria Court is allowed to decide the case based on the facts and law, the Zambian government is likely to lose. To avoid this almost certain outcome, Hichilema and his supporters have considered the option of bribing the judge presiding over the case. There is no evidence yet that an approach has been made, but Chabinga, who was recently in South Africa on a State-facilitated trip, has privately expressed confidence that the judge might be amenable to bribery. "The judge needs to eat", Chabinga was heard saying. If the planned mass demonstrations are successful, Hichilema's proxy added, "the judge will make a ruling based on the public outcry in Zambia...to support the Attorney General". The renegade PF MP further conceded that there is "a possibility that the judge can rule in favour of the Lungu family because the laws of South Africa give too much power to a deceased's family than to the government". He however reiterated his belief that if the judge is "pressured", aided with cooked up public protests, and made to "consider the fact that Lungu was a former president", the judicial official can rule in favour of the Zambian government. Chabinga and his backers know that attempting to bribe, in any way, a judge of a foreign country would be a major scandal that could adversely affect diplomatic relations between Zambia and South Africa. However, they seem determined to try their luck at implementing what Chabinga, in private conversations, calls a "special operation". Earlier, Chabinga had complained to his associates that he had been woken up by Hichilema at an ungodly hour to undertake, at short notice, the trip to Johannesburg but felt the need to sacrifice for the man he calls "ba boss". After briefing him about Hichilema's agenda for the "special operation", State actors had originally hoped to book Chabinga a seat on the first flight out of Lusaka, but he ended up traveling on a 10am Airlink flight. This followed a discovery that there were many prominent PF members on the earlier flight also traveling to South Africa. Ironically, even on the 10am flight, Hichilema's representative met several PF prominent figures such as Chanda Katotobwe, Nakiwe Simpungwe, and Christopher Shakafuswa who all greeted him and to whom he lied that he was traveling to Cape Town. It is important to clarify that the confidence of Hichilema's team that the affected judge might be open to bribery does not come from any personal knowledge of the justice handling the legal case. Rather, and as one of the sources stated, it stems from the knowledge that they have done similar things with some Zambian judges, particularly on matters involving the resolution of PF leadership wrangles, and got away with it. In private, Chabinga, for instance, acknowledges that a questionable judgement by the Pretoria High Court in favour of the Zambian government is likely to be reversed on appeal by a superior court. Nevertheless, the President's proxy is optimistic that the Lungu family will become fatigued by the time the verdict is delivered and ultimately consent to the return of the former president's body to Zambia rather than pursuing an appeal in the event of a dubious loss. The unfolding saga surrounding the burial of former president Lungu reveals more than a mere dispute over a final resting place. It exposes the depths to which political ambition can drive deception, manipulation, and ethical compromise. President Hichilema’s persistent falsehoods about negotiations, the planned orchestration of State-sponsored protests, and the alarming prospect of judicial bribery involving a foreign judge paint a troubling picture of governance undermined by desperation and duplicity. This strategy not only disrespects a grieving family but also erodes public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice and truth. What began as a matter of state dignity and national closure has morphed into a volatile mix of political manoeuvring, public mobilisation, and devious ecclesiastical diplomacy. President Hichilema’s reported three-pronged strategy — courting the Catholic Church, rallying public protests, and attempting to sway a foreign court — suggests that the battle over Lungu’s body is about far more than burial rights. It is a symbolic struggle for control over Zambia’s political memory and moral authority. Whether these efforts succeed or backfire, they highlight a deeper crisis: the lingering divisions of Zambia’s political landscape and the extent to which historical rivals still cast long shadows over the present. In life and now in death, Lungu continues to provoke conflict, and President Hichilema appears determined to ensure that even in the afterlife, the final word belongs not to the Lungu family but to Hichilema himself. In a country that is yearning for transparency and integrity, such actions as the ones initiated by Hichilema highlight the urgent need for accountability at the highest levels of leadership. The true cost of this political theatre extends beyond the burial dispute; it threatens the moral fabric of Zambia itself. As citizens, observers, and custodians of democracy, we must demand honesty, respect for due process, and, above all, compassion in honouring – both in life and in death – those who have served the nation. No amount of spin or scheming can bury the truth forever. The nation watches and waits.

Sishuwa Sishuwa

69,471 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

When Shabana Mahmood, the Muslim appointed as Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, reads the Quran, which, as she testifies in this video, shapes her worldview and way of life, this is what the Quran commands her to follow and what she is committed to upholding. I’ve prepared a concise booklet’s worth of material for you, so you can understand what lies ahead. If you wish to delve deeper, you have the key points here. (The document contains about 4,000 words) ⬇️ The Prophet said: "The strongest bond to faith is to take the believers (Muslims) as allies and friends for the sake of Allah, to treat unbelievers as enemies for the sake of Allah, to love for the sake of Allah and hate for the sake of Allah, (Allah) be glorified and exalted". (Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sahih. Al-Jami as-Saghir 2539 Sahih) 1. Islamic Art of War By: Ofer Binshtok Islam wages a continuous global war through various methods and with varying intensity against non-Muslims 24/7, as commanded by the Quran and Muhammad, a war that has persisted for approximately 1400 years and will continue indefinitely. In places where non-Muslims grow weary of conflict and seek peace, avoiding confrontation and attempting to appease Islam, believing they have achieved tranquility through signing agreements with Islam and even allowing its migration into their territories, during this time, Islam builds its strength and attacks them when it senses it has the upper hand, from within and from outside, in the most brutal way possible. This war strategy relies on the Islamic Art of War, based on the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. Quran 8:39 - The goal: a world containing only Muslims through war. Quran 98:6 - Demonization of non-Muslims. Quran 3:28 - Deceive non-Muslims. Quran 47:35 - Do not seek peace when you have the upper hand. In other words, attack. Quran 8:60 - During a hudna (ceasefire), Islam prepares for war. Quran 9:123 - Attack nearby non-Muslims. Quran 9:5 - Kill every non-Muslim in the world. In 622 AD, Muhammad migrated from Mecca to the settlement of Medina (Yathrib) in the Arabian Peninsula, where he was received as a refugee by the Jews who had established and controlled the prosperous region, granting him shelter. Within approximately eight years, after building his strength, Muhammad eliminated the presence of Jews and other non-Muslims in the area. In 628 AD, Muhammad signed a ten-year hudna (truce) agreement in Hudaibiya with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, as his forces were weaker than theirs. In 630 AD, when his power was sufficiently strong, he violated the agreement with the Quraysh, attacked Mecca, conquered it with ease, and eradicated all other cultures present there. Muhammad's Sunnah, which is binding in Islam according to Quran 33:21, commands every Muslim to emulate all of Muhammad’s words and deeds, which are considered sacred. "A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah" By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." "Because Muhammad admitted to using terrorism, committing an act of terrorism is considered as a holy deed in Islam." (122) CHAPTER. The statement of the Prophet: I have been made victorious for a distance of one month journey with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy). The Statement of Allah: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve...(V.3:151) Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Hadith 2977 - Narrated AbU Hurairah: Allah's Messenger A said: "....and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)... Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Quran 68.4 And indeed, you are (Muhammad) of a great moral character. Quran 33.21 "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day, and remembers Allâh much." "When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, the Quran creates a lens for him through which he sees and understands the non-Muslim, composed of these three verses (and there are many more):" 8:55, 98:6, and 9:28. Verses 8:55 and 98:6 portray non-Muslims as the worst creatures, even worse than cockroaches, bedbugs, and ticks. Verse 9:28 portrays non-Muslims as physically and spiritually filthy, akin to the filth of excrement. In summary: When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, he sees him through the lens of the Quran as the worst creatures, worse than cockroaches and ticks, and physically and spiritually filthy to the level of excrement. Quran 8.55 “Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.” Quran 98.6: "Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." Quran 9.28: “O you who believe (in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad!) Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). [1] So let them not come near Al-Masjidal-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allâh will enrich you if He wills, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (V.9:28) Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual, because they don’t believe in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Prophet Muhammad; and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and blood). And the word Najas is used only for those persons who have spiritual impurity e.g. Al-Mushrikûn. Quran 9.14 "Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." "The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law." By: Ofer binshtok. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. 2. Loyalty and Disavowal: The Principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' The Islamic principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' (loyalty and disavowal) forms a cornerstone of the declaration of faith, shaping a Muslim’s relationships and actions. Wala' (loyalty) arises from love for Allah, driving believers to cultivate closeness, offer support, and provide protection to those who follow His path. This loyalty manifests in tangible acts, such as defending the faith, aiding fellow Muslims, and honoring their shared commitment to Allah. Conversely, bara' (disavowal) stems from rejection of disbelief, leading to active opposition, distance, and enmity toward those who oppose Allah or His message. These principles are not mere sentiments but demand practical commitment in both speech and deeds, as evidenced by numerous references in the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an provides explicit guidance on maintaining loyalty to believers and dissociation from disbelievers. It warns Muslims against prioritizing alliances with disbelievers over fellow believers, stating that such actions sever one’s connection with Allah unless done cautiously for self-preservation (Qur'an 3:28 - Taqiyya). It emphasizes that true love for Allah is shown by following Muhammad, which earns divine love and forgiveness, while turning away aligns one with those Allah disapproves of (Qur'an 3:31-32). The Qur'an further cautions against befriending those who desire Muslims to abandon their faith, urging believers to avoid such ties unless the disbelievers embrace Allah’s path (Qur'an 4:89). It explicitly advises against taking Jews and Christians as intimate allies, noting that those who do so align themselves with their ranks and stray from divine guidance (Qur'an 5:51). Additionally, it praises those whom Allah loves and who love Him, demonstrating humility toward believers, firmness against disbelievers, and steadfast dedication to striving for Allah’s cause without fear of criticism (Qur'an 5:54). Further reinforcing this principle, the Qur'an instructs believers not to take disbelievers as allies when they oppose Allah and Muhammad, even if they are close relatives, warning that such alliances betray the faith (Qur'an 60:1). It also prohibits taking disbelievers as protectors in preference to believers, stating that those who do so will find no help from Allah (Qur'an 4:144). Moreover, it commands Muslims not to prioritize familial ties with disbelieving parents or siblings over their faith, emphasizing that true believers are those who align solely with Allah, Muhammad, and the faithful (Qur'an 9:23). The Qur'an also describes true believers as those who do not harbor affection for those who oppose Allah and Muhammad, even if they are close kin, as Allah strengthens their hearts with faith and promises them divine reward (Qur'an 58:22). Finally, the example of Prophet Ibrahim is highlighted, who declared to his people, “We disassociate ourselves from you and what you worship besides Allah. Enmity and hatred have arisen between us until you believe in Allah alone” (Qur'an 60:4), illustrating the resolute stance required in disavowing disbelief. The Sunnah further clarifies these teachings. Muhammad instructed a companion to swear an oath to offer sincere guidance to Muslims and refrain from forming close bonds with disbelievers. He reportedly said, “The strongest bond of faith is love for the sake of Allah and enmity for His sake.” Another narration emphasizes that true faith is achieved only through loving and opposing for Allah’s sake, forming alliances with believers and standing against disbelievers. A scholar explained that wala' entails not just affection but active solidarity, including defending Muslims, upholding their honor, and supporting them in times of need, such as during conflicts or hardships. Similarly, bara' requires concrete opposition, such as openly rejecting false ideologies, avoiding cooperation with those who oppose Islam, and, when necessary, confronting them through intellectual or physical struggle, as exemplified by Ibrahim’s rejection of idolatry (Qur'an 60:4). This principle underscores that loyalty to Allah involves loving and aiding His obedient followers, whether through charity, protection, or advocacy, while disavowal requires opposing His enemies with determination, such as by refuting their arguments or resisting their influence. The Qur'an distinguishes between the “party of Allah,” who are guided from darkness to light, and the “party of Satan,” who lead others into darkness (Qur'an 2:257). It describes believers as striving for Allah’s cause, while disbelievers fight for falsehood, urging Muslims to confront the allies of Satan, whose strategies are ultimately weak (Qur'an 4:76). Every prophet faced adversaries, human or jinn, who used deceptive rhetoric to mislead, yet Allah assures victory to His followers in both intellectual debates and physical struggles (Qur'an 6:112, 37:173). The enemies of Islam, whether atheists, secularists, or proponents of ideologies that contradict divine teachings, seek to erode Muslim faith and identity. They may promote deceptive concepts like universal brotherhood or the separation of religion from public life, aiming to weaken the Muslim community’s distinct character. For example, calls for “equality” that ignore religious differences or attempts to dilute Islamic values under the guise of modernity directly challenge Al-Wala' Wal-Bara'. Muslims must equip themselves with deep knowledge of their faith to counter these threats, using the Qur'an and Sunnah as tools to defend their beliefs. The declaration of faith demands unwavering devotion to Allah, loving what He loves, such as justice, piety, and unity among believers, and hating what He hates, such as disbelief, oppression, and hypocrisy. This commitment requires aligning exclusively with Muslims, supporting them in times of need, and opposing disbelievers, even if they are close relatives, as emphasized by scholars like Ibn Taymiyya. By embodying Al-Wala' Wal-Bara', Muslims ensure their actions and relationships reflect their submission to Allah, safeguarding their faith against external challenges. 3. Never, ever try to learn about Islam from Muslims. They will always lie to you, because this is part of their holy war against heresy and disbelievers. Don’t pay attention to a word that comes out of their mouth about Islam. By: Ofer Binshtok Do you really believe that if you ask Muslims whether Islam is a religion of violence, war, and terrorism, they will respond with a resounding "Yes"? Even if it is true? Do you believe they will acknowledge the truth? Does it make sense to ask them such a question? "Critical thinking means being able to make compelling arguments. Arguments consist of claims substantiated by evidence-supported reasons. Argumentation is a social process of two or more people making arguments, responding to one another—not simply restating the same claims and reasons—and modifying or defending their positions accordingly." "Islam's holy culture of lies and deception" "The claim" is that it is forbidden to attempt to learn and understand from Muslims about the eternal war they are ordered to wage against us, the heresy and disbelievers, through terror and various means, as they will always continue to lie to us on this subject. They will always continue to lie to us as a holy command from Allah in the Quran and Muhammad. For them it is a sacred commandment to lie to us as part of the jihad war that Islam is waging against us. “The argument” “Islam is in eternal state of war againt the heresy and the disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected. "In fact, from the verses above, along with many hadiths, it can be understood that believers, as commanded by Allah in the Quran and by Muhammad, are in a perpetual state of war against heresy and disbelievers 24/7/365, for approximately 1,400 years and indefinitely." And then: “It is permissible to lie in a state of war, as a tool of war.” Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." In conclusion: we can learn from this argument that it is incorrect to attempt to learn from Muslims about the eternal war they are ordered to wage against us, the disbelievers, because they are actually commanded to lie to us and deceive us as part of the ongoing war of extermination that they are ordered to wage against us.

When Shabana Mahmood, the Muslim appointed as Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, reads the Quran, which, as she testifies in this video, shapes her worldview and way of life, this is what the Quran commands her to follow and what she is committed to upholding. I’ve prepared a concise booklet’s worth of material for you, so you can understand what lies ahead. If you wish to delve deeper, you have the key points here. (The document contains about 4,000 words) ⬇️ The Prophet said: "The strongest bond to faith is to take the believers (Muslims) as allies and friends for the sake of Allah, to treat unbelievers as enemies for the sake of Allah, to love for the sake of Allah and hate for the sake of Allah, (Allah) be glorified and exalted". (Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sahih. Al-Jami as-Saghir 2539 Sahih) 1. Islamic Art of War By: Ofer Binshtok Islam wages a continuous global war through various methods and with varying intensity against non-Muslims 24/7, as commanded by the Quran and Muhammad, a war that has persisted for approximately 1400 years and will continue indefinitely. In places where non-Muslims grow weary of conflict and seek peace, avoiding confrontation and attempting to appease Islam, believing they have achieved tranquility through signing agreements with Islam and even allowing its migration into their territories, during this time, Islam builds its strength and attacks them when it senses it has the upper hand, from within and from outside, in the most brutal way possible. This war strategy relies on the Islamic Art of War, based on the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. Quran 8:39 - The goal: a world containing only Muslims through war. Quran 98:6 - Demonization of non-Muslims. Quran 3:28 - Deceive non-Muslims. Quran 47:35 - Do not seek peace when you have the upper hand. In other words, attack. Quran 8:60 - During a hudna (ceasefire), Islam prepares for war. Quran 9:123 - Attack nearby non-Muslims. Quran 9:5 - Kill every non-Muslim in the world. In 622 AD, Muhammad migrated from Mecca to the settlement of Medina (Yathrib) in the Arabian Peninsula, where he was received as a refugee by the Jews who had established and controlled the prosperous region, granting him shelter. Within approximately eight years, after building his strength, Muhammad eliminated the presence of Jews and other non-Muslims in the area. In 628 AD, Muhammad signed a ten-year hudna (truce) agreement in Hudaibiya with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, as his forces were weaker than theirs. In 630 AD, when his power was sufficiently strong, he violated the agreement with the Quraysh, attacked Mecca, conquered it with ease, and eradicated all other cultures present there. Muhammad's Sunnah, which is binding in Islam according to Quran 33:21, commands every Muslim to emulate all of Muhammad’s words and deeds, which are considered sacred. "A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah" By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." "Because Muhammad admitted to using terrorism, committing an act of terrorism is considered as a holy deed in Islam." (122) CHAPTER. The statement of the Prophet: I have been made victorious for a distance of one month journey with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy). The Statement of Allah: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve...(V.3:151) Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Hadith 2977 - Narrated AbU Hurairah: Allah's Messenger A said: "....and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)... Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Quran 68.4 And indeed, you are (Muhammad) of a great moral character. Quran 33.21 "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day, and remembers Allâh much." "When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, the Quran creates a lens for him through which he sees and understands the non-Muslim, composed of these three verses (and there are many more):" 8:55, 98:6, and 9:28. Verses 8:55 and 98:6 portray non-Muslims as the worst creatures, even worse than cockroaches, bedbugs, and ticks. Verse 9:28 portrays non-Muslims as physically and spiritually filthy, akin to the filth of excrement. In summary: When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, he sees him through the lens of the Quran as the worst creatures, worse than cockroaches and ticks, and physically and spiritually filthy to the level of excrement. Quran 8.55 “Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.” Quran 98.6: "Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." Quran 9.28: “O you who believe (in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad!) Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). [1] So let them not come near Al-Masjidal-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allâh will enrich you if He wills, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (V.9:28) Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual, because they don’t believe in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Prophet Muhammad; and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and blood). And the word Najas is used only for those persons who have spiritual impurity e.g. Al-Mushrikûn. Quran 9.14 "Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." "The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law." By: Ofer binshtok. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. 2. Loyalty and Disavowal: The Principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' The Islamic principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' (loyalty and disavowal) forms a cornerstone of the declaration of faith, shaping a Muslim’s relationships and actions. Wala' (loyalty) arises from love for Allah, driving believers to cultivate closeness, offer support, and provide protection to those who follow His path. This loyalty manifests in tangible acts, such as defending the faith, aiding fellow Muslims, and honoring their shared commitment to Allah. Conversely, bara' (disavowal) stems from rejection of disbelief, leading to active opposition, distance, and enmity toward those who oppose Allah or His message. These principles are not mere sentiments but demand practical commitment in both speech and deeds, as evidenced by numerous references in the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an provides explicit guidance on maintaining loyalty to believers and dissociation from disbelievers. It warns Muslims against prioritizing alliances with disbelievers over fellow believers, stating that such actions sever one’s connection with Allah unless done cautiously for self-preservation (Qur'an 3:28 - Taqiyya). It emphasizes that true love for Allah is shown by following Muhammad, which earns divine love and forgiveness, while turning away aligns one with those Allah disapproves of (Qur'an 3:31-32). The Qur'an further cautions against befriending those who desire Muslims to abandon their faith, urging believers to avoid such ties unless the disbelievers embrace Allah’s path (Qur'an 4:89). It explicitly advises against taking Jews and Christians as intimate allies, noting that those who do so align themselves with their ranks and stray from divine guidance (Qur'an 5:51). Additionally, it praises those whom Allah loves and who love Him, demonstrating humility toward believers, firmness against disbelievers, and steadfast dedication to striving for Allah’s cause without fear of criticism (Qur'an 5:54). Further reinforcing this principle, the Qur'an instructs believers not to take disbelievers as allies when they oppose Allah and Muhammad, even if they are close relatives, warning that such alliances betray the faith (Qur'an 60:1). It also prohibits taking disbelievers as protectors in preference to believers, stating that those who do so will find no help from Allah (Qur'an 4:144). Moreover, it commands Muslims not to prioritize familial ties with disbelieving parents or siblings over their faith, emphasizing that true believers are those who align solely with Allah, Muhammad, and the faithful (Qur'an 9:23). The Qur'an also describes true believers as those who do not harbor affection for those who oppose Allah and Muhammad, even if they are close kin, as Allah strengthens their hearts with faith and promises them divine reward (Qur'an 58:22). Finally, the example of Prophet Ibrahim is highlighted, who declared to his people, “We disassociate ourselves from you and what you worship besides Allah. Enmity and hatred have arisen between us until you believe in Allah alone” (Qur'an 60:4), illustrating the resolute stance required in disavowing disbelief. The Sunnah further clarifies these teachings. Muhammad instructed a companion to swear an oath to offer sincere guidance to Muslims and refrain from forming close bonds with disbelievers. He reportedly said, “The strongest bond of faith is love for the sake of Allah and enmity for His sake.” Another narration emphasizes that true faith is achieved only through loving and opposing for Allah’s sake, forming alliances with believers and standing against disbelievers. A scholar explained that wala' entails not just affection but active solidarity, including defending Muslims, upholding their honor, and supporting them in times of need, such as during conflicts or hardships. Similarly, bara' requires concrete opposition, such as openly rejecting false ideologies, avoiding cooperation with those who oppose Islam, and, when necessary, confronting them through intellectual or physical struggle, as exemplified by Ibrahim’s rejection of idolatry (Qur'an 60:4). This principle underscores that loyalty to Allah involves loving and aiding His obedient followers, whether through charity, protection, or advocacy, while disavowal requires opposing His enemies with determination, such as by refuting their arguments or resisting their influence. The Qur'an distinguishes between the “party of Allah,” who are guided from darkness to light, and the “party of Satan,” who lead others into darkness (Qur'an 2:257). It describes believers as striving for Allah’s cause, while disbelievers fight for falsehood, urging Muslims to confront the allies of Satan, whose strategies are ultimately weak (Qur'an 4:76). Every prophet faced adversaries, human or jinn, who used deceptive rhetoric to mislead, yet Allah assures victory to His followers in both intellectual debates and physical struggles (Qur'an 6:112, 37:173). The enemies of Islam, whether atheists, secularists, or proponents of ideologies that contradict divine teachings, seek to erode Muslim faith and identity. They may promote deceptive concepts like universal brotherhood or the separation of religion from public life, aiming to weaken the Muslim community’s distinct character. For example, calls for “equality” that ignore religious differences or attempts to dilute Islamic values under the guise of modernity directly challenge Al-Wala' Wal-Bara'. Muslims must equip themselves with deep knowledge of their faith to counter these threats, using the Qur'an and Sunnah as tools to defend their beliefs. The declaration of faith demands unwavering devotion to Allah, loving what He loves, such as justice, piety, and unity among believers, and hating what He hates, such as disbelief, oppression, and hypocrisy. This commitment requires aligning exclusively with Muslims, supporting them in times of need, and opposing disbelievers, even if they are close relatives, as emphasized by scholars like Ibn Taymiyya. By embodying Al-Wala' Wal-Bara', Muslims ensure their actions and relationships reflect their submission to Allah, safeguarding their faith against external challenges. 3. Never, ever try to learn about Islam from Muslims. They will always lie to you, because this is part of their holy war against heresy and disbelievers. Don’t pay attention to a word that comes out of their mouth about Islam. By: Ofer Binshtok Do you really believe that if you ask Muslims whether Islam is a religion of violence, war, and terrorism, they will respond with a resounding "Yes"? Even if it is true? Do you believe they will acknowledge the truth? Does it make sense to ask them such a question? "Critical thinking means being able to make compelling arguments. Arguments consist of claims substantiated by evidence-supported reasons. Argumentation is a social process of two or more people making arguments, responding to one another—not simply restating the same claims and reasons—and modifying or defending their positions accordingly." "Islam's holy culture of lies and deception" "The claim" is that it is forbidden to attempt to learn and understand from Muslims about the eternal war they are ordered to wage against us, the heresy and disbelievers, through terror and various means, as they will always continue to lie to us on this subject. They will always continue to lie to us as a holy command from Allah in the Quran and Muhammad. For them it is a sacred commandment to lie to us as part of the jihad war that Islam is waging against us. “The argument” “Islam is in eternal state of war againt the heresy and the disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected. "In fact, from the verses above, along with many hadiths, it can be understood that believers, as commanded by Allah in the Quran and by Muhammad, are in a perpetual state of war against heresy and disbelievers 24/7/365, for approximately 1,400 years and indefinitely." And then: “It is permissible to lie in a state of war, as a tool of war.” Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." In conclusion: we can learn from this argument that it is incorrect to attempt to learn from Muslims about the eternal war they are ordered to wage against us, the disbelievers, because they are actually commanded to lie to us and deceive us as part of the ongoing war of extermination that they are ordered to wage against us.

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

197,351 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce