Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🎙️Nuno Mendes: Vision - "Messi" Finishing - "Lewandowski" Passing - "DE Bruyne" Speed - " Mbappe" Dribbling - "Mahrez" Heading -" Haaland " Right foot - "Neymar" Left foot - "Nuno Mendes" Tears! Notice how he doesn't even rate a certain someone 😭

Johnny Cortes

7,252 subscribers

280,754 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika Spor

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Yorum

Bills=Ringless profil fotoğrafı

Bills=Ringless1 yıl önce

There was no category for penalty and tap in sadly

johnny cortes profil fotoğrafı

johnny cortes1 yıl önce

😭😭😭😭😭😂😂😂

🇺🇸 J.C 🇦🇷⭐️⭐️⭐️ 🇪🇦 🇨🇺 profil fotoğrafı

🇺🇸 J.C 🇦🇷⭐️⭐️⭐️ 🇪🇦 🇨🇺1 yıl önce

Ironically Messi is all those things, this is what ppl actually don't understand ... Messi own all the metrics in those categories... He's the greatest attacking player of all time

Raan Khormai Kuol profil fotoğrafı

Raan Khormai Kuol1 yıl önce

Ronaldo right now

AQUA Gaming profil fotoğrafı

AQUA Gaming1 yıl önce

Penaldo: Nuno mendes has lost his credibility.

Prestigious profil fotoğrafı

Prestigious1 yıl önce

Be like this guy no wan play for Portugal again What is this disrespect to the greatest player of all time (without World Cup category)

Lucifer profil fotoğrafı

Lucifer1 yıl önce

Dat fraud has nothing tbh

Pep Sj profil fotoğrafı

Pep Sj1 yıl önce

June 9th 2025 has done irreplaceable damage to this Pessidog FC 🤭

Sten🔞🔫 profil fotoğrafı

Sten🔞🔫1 yıl önce

Coook that bum…@Ruf_ayi @Mmonkoaa @Mmaasemy3 @thatEsselguy

Benzer Videolar

Gundogan was told to build his perfect player. Right Foot: Kevin De Bruyne Left Foot: Messi First Touch: Mahrez Passing: Xavi/ Xabi Alonso Dribbling: Messi Shooting: Harry Kane Press Resistance: Iniesta Leadership: Vincent Kompany Vision: Messi Football IQ: Messi/ Pedri Gundogan has lost his credibility, he didn’t mention Ronaldo

Gundogan was told to build his perfect player. Right Foot: Kevin De Bruyne Left Foot: Messi First Touch: Mahrez Passing: Xavi/ Xabi Alonso Dribbling: Messi Shooting: Harry Kane Press Resistance: Iniesta Leadership: Vincent Kompany Vision: Messi Football IQ: Messi/ Pedri Gundogan has lost his credibility, he didn’t mention Ronaldo

ჯא ⚽️

64,724 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

Player Profile: Khanyisa Mayo[27]📝 Position: RW/RF/CF Foot: Left Club: Kaizer Chiefs FC Kaizer Chiefs has made another bold move in adding quality to the teams attack. Khanyisa Mayo provides immediate and long-term attacking solutions for the club on the right. 1. Technical Qualities Mayo is a skillful, left-footed attacker with a profile built for modern, high-intensity attacking football. ■ A very direct winger, always looking to advance play instead of recycling possession. ■ Excellent at carrying the ball through pressure, breaking lines, and forcing defenders into retreat. ■ His dribbling and progressive runs add verticality to the team’s attacking structure. Shooting and Passing: ■ Strong shooting range when cutting inside from the right. He provides that unpredictability to the attack with his quality to strike the ball from range. Consistently attempts to feed the box: goals, assists, and key passes. A finisher and creator between the lines. Positional Versatility: ■ In a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1, his best role is as the right forward or right winger, cutting inside to shoot or combine. He can also be effective stretching play and still carry goal threat and creativity. ■ As a No. 9: While not his best role, he is capable of leading the line. He uses his pace to run in behind. He can compete but lacks the physicality to hold off defenders, though his finishing is good. ■ As a Second Striker[442]: A role that plays better to his strengths than as a 9. He is comfortable operating between the lines, combining with midfielders and a traditional box striker. His mobility, creativity, and shooting ability allow him to function as the link player, collecting the ball, supporting the primary striker, and creating or finishing opportunities. This ability to operate both wide and centrally makes him tactically flexible, giving Chiefs options in various attacking structures. 2. Physical Attributes ■ Pace & Explosiveness: Quick acceleration makes him a constant outlet for balls in behind. ■ Strength & Balance: He is strong enough to hold off fullbacks, sustaining attacking sequences under pressure ■ High Intensity: Matches the tempo of Chiefs’ pressing and counter-pressing game. We do most actions with a lot of intensity, and his explosive nature will be very much welcomed in our attack. 3. Tactical Fit at Chiefs Under Coach Nabi, Chiefs are shaping into a side that plays with directness, intensity, and aggression across all phases of play: ■ Pressing & Counter-Pressing: The team applies immediate pressure after losing the ball. Mayo’s speed, defensive work rate, and forward momentum align seamlessly with this system. ■ High-Tempo Attacking: Chiefs don’t rely on slow possession. Attacks are vertical, sharp, and quick. Mayo’s instinct to drive forward, dribble at defenders, and attack space makes him an ideal fit. ■ Attacking Personality: His ability to provide not just progression but also the final goal, final pass, and decisive action elevates Chiefs’ attacking efficiency. Mayo’s game is inherently aligned with protagonist football: high tempo, forward intent, and productivity. 4. Experiential Value ■ Continental Experience: Spent a season in Algeria with CR Belouizdad, scoring 6 goals from wide positions. Notable not just for the numbers but for adapting to a challenging cultural and tactical environment. ■ Tactical Growth: North African teams are disciplined and organized, with compact defenses and structured pressing. Mayo sharpened his decision-making, spatial awareness, and ability to operate against tight blocks, preparing him for high-level CAF competitions. ■ Mentality: At 27, he blends maturity with hunger. His willingness to take risks reflects confidence and attacking intent. Yet to reach his peak, now is the perfect time to step up, showing the quality glimpsed at Cape Town City. Mayo joins Chiefs as both a system player and a game-changer. A top signing by the Glamour Boys! 📝

El Capitano⚪

87,172 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

$Jordan Peterson says being articulate is the most dangerous thing you can become. Here's how he learned to do it, word by word: 1. Being articulate is the single most powerful way to become dangerous. Peterson means dangerous in the best sense: capable, formidable, someone to be reckoned with. The word itself is the clue. A joint that's articulated can do things because it's differentiated, not one solid vague mass. Someone graceful is articulated. Speech is articulation of the mind, and the person who can do it well is a force. 2. Your real options are stark: competent and dangerous, or vague and useless. Peterson refuses the middle ground. Do you want to be able to think, plan, and compel, or do you want to say "um" and "like" and stumble and be unable to formulate a vision? Choosing inarticulacy is choosing awkwardness over grace, and he calls that beyond foolish. 3. It matters no matter what you do. He uses a plumber as the example, deliberately. An articulate plumber can negotiate with clients, make the case for his employees, advertise his services, introduce his coworkers, and think through his own problems. He's firing on all cylinders. The skill isn't for some narrow class of knowledge workers. It's leverage in any job there is. 4. Even the toughest people credit their words, not their strength. Peterson points to Jocko Willink, a former special operations soldier who is, in his words, about four feet wide and one tough son of a gun. And Jocko will tell you directly that his success as a warrior depended on being articulate. He could listen to his men, explain the situation to his superiors, argue for the right people to be promoted, and plan strategically enough not to lose battles. All of it downstream of communication. 5. The way you become articulate is by paying attention to what you say. That sounds too simple, so he gives an image. Imagine crossing a swamp where a hidden path of stones lies just under the murky water. You feel for the next stone with your foot, find what's solid, step, and repeat. That is exactly what you do with words. You feel your way one word at a time. 6. Test each word by whether it makes you stronger or weaker. As you speak, you can actually feel it: is this word putting me together and making me intact, or is it tearing me apart and making me weak? Peterson says you can learn to sense this. The right word solidifies you. The wrong one leaves a faint trace of shame or vulnerability, and you can learn to notice that signal and correct toward the words that hold. 7. When he started, only about 5% of what he said passed that test. He noticed 40 years ago that much of what he said actually made him feel weak, and he didn't know why. The other 95% was instrumental: language used to win the argument, to appear smart, to get his way. Only a small fraction was him genuinely feeling for the true word. The skill was built by slowly growing that percentage. 8. Cut the fillers and take the time to craft what you say. The concrete practice: stop the humming and hawing, stop leaning on "like" and "you know," and give yourself permission to take the time necessary to choose your words carefully. A pause while you find the right word beats a fast sentence full of filler. Silence isn't the enemy. Vagueness is. 9. Practice saying only what you believe to be true. This is the core discipline. Read great writers, write about the problems that genuinely obsess you, and in conversation, say the things you actually believe rather than the things that are merely useful. Peterson frames becoming articulate as a moral endeavor, because aligning what you say with what's true is what makes a person come across as genuine and trustworthy, and that combination can't easily be faked. 10. Learn the prayerful pause. When someone hands you a question or a hard proposition, don't fire back with what you already "know." Instead ask yourself, genuinely, what do I actually think about that? It has to be a real question, the kind you'd ask a stranger, posed as if you might not already know your own mind. Wait, and the answer will make itself known, because that is how thought actually works. 11. That pause is also what makes you interesting. The moment you stop performing and start genuinely inquiring, you become interesting to the person you're talking to. If they do it back, they become interesting too. Two people doing this have a real conversation, and a real conversation is how both of them grow. It's not a trick for sounding smart. It's the actual pathway to growth. 12. This is why Joe Rogan works, and it's the whole lesson. Peterson's read on Rogan: he's not trying to get anything from his guests, not chasing fame or money, so there's no instrumental use of language in how he talks. He just asks the honest questions he actually has, including the "stupid" ones that turn out to be the questions everyone listening shares. Abandon instrumentality, speak only what you believe true, and Peterson says the path in front of you becomes a golden one.$

Jordan Peterson says being articulate is the most dangerous thing you can become. Here's how he learned to do it, word by word: 1. Being articulate is the single most powerful way to become dangerous. Peterson means dangerous in the best sense: capable, formidable, someone to be reckoned with. The word itself is the clue. A joint that's articulated can do things because it's differentiated, not one solid vague mass. Someone graceful is articulated. Speech is articulation of the mind, and the person who can do it well is a force. 2. Your real options are stark: competent and dangerous, or vague and useless. Peterson refuses the middle ground. Do you want to be able to think, plan, and compel, or do you want to say "um" and "like" and stumble and be unable to formulate a vision? Choosing inarticulacy is choosing awkwardness over grace, and he calls that beyond foolish. 3. It matters no matter what you do. He uses a plumber as the example, deliberately. An articulate plumber can negotiate with clients, make the case for his employees, advertise his services, introduce his coworkers, and think through his own problems. He's firing on all cylinders. The skill isn't for some narrow class of knowledge workers. It's leverage in any job there is. 4. Even the toughest people credit their words, not their strength. Peterson points to Jocko Willink, a former special operations soldier who is, in his words, about four feet wide and one tough son of a gun. And Jocko will tell you directly that his success as a warrior depended on being articulate. He could listen to his men, explain the situation to his superiors, argue for the right people to be promoted, and plan strategically enough not to lose battles. All of it downstream of communication. 5. The way you become articulate is by paying attention to what you say. That sounds too simple, so he gives an image. Imagine crossing a swamp where a hidden path of stones lies just under the murky water. You feel for the next stone with your foot, find what's solid, step, and repeat. That is exactly what you do with words. You feel your way one word at a time. 6. Test each word by whether it makes you stronger or weaker. As you speak, you can actually feel it: is this word putting me together and making me intact, or is it tearing me apart and making me weak? Peterson says you can learn to sense this. The right word solidifies you. The wrong one leaves a faint trace of shame or vulnerability, and you can learn to notice that signal and correct toward the words that hold. 7. When he started, only about 5% of what he said passed that test. He noticed 40 years ago that much of what he said actually made him feel weak, and he didn't know why. The other 95% was instrumental: language used to win the argument, to appear smart, to get his way. Only a small fraction was him genuinely feeling for the true word. The skill was built by slowly growing that percentage. 8. Cut the fillers and take the time to craft what you say. The concrete practice: stop the humming and hawing, stop leaning on "like" and "you know," and give yourself permission to take the time necessary to choose your words carefully. A pause while you find the right word beats a fast sentence full of filler. Silence isn't the enemy. Vagueness is. 9. Practice saying only what you believe to be true. This is the core discipline. Read great writers, write about the problems that genuinely obsess you, and in conversation, say the things you actually believe rather than the things that are merely useful. Peterson frames becoming articulate as a moral endeavor, because aligning what you say with what's true is what makes a person come across as genuine and trustworthy, and that combination can't easily be faked. 10. Learn the prayerful pause. When someone hands you a question or a hard proposition, don't fire back with what you already "know." Instead ask yourself, genuinely, what do I actually think about that? It has to be a real question, the kind you'd ask a stranger, posed as if you might not already know your own mind. Wait, and the answer will make itself known, because that is how thought actually works. 11. That pause is also what makes you interesting. The moment you stop performing and start genuinely inquiring, you become interesting to the person you're talking to. If they do it back, they become interesting too. Two people doing this have a real conversation, and a real conversation is how both of them grow. It's not a trick for sounding smart. It's the actual pathway to growth. 12. This is why Joe Rogan works, and it's the whole lesson. Peterson's read on Rogan: he's not trying to get anything from his guests, not chasing fame or money, so there's no instrumental use of language in how he talks. He just asks the honest questions he actually has, including the "stupid" ones that turn out to be the questions everyone listening shares. Abandon instrumentality, speak only what you believe true, and Peterson says the path in front of you becomes a golden one.

Jaynit

70,173 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Analyzing Episode 56. Season 2 aka Processing the Past Despite all the prophecies of doom, episode 56 was a delightful watch. The episode begins with Alya walking into prison, only to discover Meryem holding hands with Ciho. And, the way that entire scene is depicted, it's designed to make the audience see things from Alya's pov. Because we know not a few moments earlier, Cihan tells Meryem she should leave Mardin because there's nothing left for her there. However, from Alya's viewpoint, it seems like the past is repeating itself in the way she finds out about Mine and even Boran. Though this time, there's a slight difference because instead of following Cihan and discovering the truth herself, it's Boran who frames reality in the worst possible way. Still, Cihan and Alya's reactions differ slightly at this instance. For example, Alya's anger, while boiling at that moment, diffuses much quicker. And, while she doubts the reason Cihan keeps Meryem's presence from her, she doesn't start doubting their love. That fortress remains strong. Likewise, any time Cihan is discovered by Alya lying to her, he displays this vibe of embarrassment. You know, like wearing the expression of a kid caught doing something he shouldn't have been doing. But this time, when he rushes after Alya, there's a certain assurance in his gait. It's not overt, mind you, because Cihan knows he's in hot water. But it's almost like this time, he's sure of himself because his feelings in the matter are clear. He hides the truth for two reasons: he's protecting himself and Alya. The former because he doesn't want Alya pulling back from him at a time when she's already forced to leave the konak, and the latter because he doesn't want the spectre of Meryem to hurt her in any way. But the part I really liked in this while sequence? Alya's car breaking down. There are always moments in CihAl's story where you see some external force intervening to move their story forward. For example, the way the roads are blocked in ep42. In this episode, fate intervenes yet again, and the message is clear. Don't run from the past; face it. That message is compounded when Boran shows up on the same road to see the fruits of his labor. In the last few episodes, Alya's reactions to Boran seem to have intensified. I don't know why that is, but it seems like Alya's anger seems to be taking over her despair. To the point where Cihan becomes the one to hold Alya back, which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Anger can be cleansing, unlike passivity. And it seems the days of Alya quietly listening to Boran's BS are finally ending. Anyway, the scene moves on to Cihan driving Alya to a remote location to talk things over, which I kind of liked. I prefer when these two go far away from the maddening crowd to iron out their differences. And note, whenever that happens, they happen to be in a location that has a bird's-eye view of the scene below. Kind of like how you try to take in the bigger picture - another nice subliminal message. Cihan kicks off the conversation by saying Boran is trying to cloud Alya's mind, to which Alya responds adequately by saying the only thing messing with her mind is Cihan's attempts to lie because Boran no longer holds any importance for her. Is that true? I think so. Because even though Alya and Cihan are talking about a highly volatile topic, they're relatively calm. Accusations don't fly about either. And, I liked the fact that Alya openly tells Cihan that his trying to keep her in the dark, even to protect her, is what ends up hurting her the most. Because that is the truth. Cihan's reasoning as to why he keeps Meryem's presence from her in this scene is incomplete. He does want to protect Alya from the pain his past includes, but that's only half the reason. The bigger reason is he's trying to do his damnedest to keep Alya with him. He's already failed to try to keep her with him at the konak, but an emotional distance would likely finish him off. Which is why the talk CihAl have at Alya's apartment is so important. When Meryem calls, Cihan stops Alya from leaving the room - which sets the tone of the conversation. When Cihan relates the story of what Meryem has gone through, Alya's reaction is just what's to be expected. She's empathetic towards her plight, of being forced, of facing violence, because while Alya's lucky enough to find love with Cihan, she understands only too well how women are made to feel helpless and powerless. There's this expression on Cihan's face that can only be described as astonishment. Because, despite Alya's past, what she's gone through in Mardin, and despite Cihan's own stupidities, she finds it in her heart to feel for another woman she wouldn't be wrong to feel threatened by. And that's one of the things he is so in love with about Alya. Her compassion. When Cihan says he feels responsible for all that's gone wrong in Meryem's life since that fateful day, Alya asks him why he felt the need to hide things yet again. But this time, the whole truth comes out. Cihan admits he was afraid of her pulling back from him even more. Another thing to note, Alya refers to Meryem as Cihan's first love, not only love. So, she's not doubtful of his feelings for her. What's scary to Alya is how much of a hold those old feelings still have over Cihan. The good news from that point on is that Cihan doesn't keep anything from Alya regarding Meryem again. That includes him trying to send her to Istanbul to set up a new life for her. The scene ends on a relatively happier note of disaster averted. And Cihan and Alya both look better after talking it out. Still, as the viewers, we know that Alya's fear hasn't been defeated, just delayed. And until Cihan gives Alya the kind of resolution she gives him with Boran, it will keep pushing her away from him, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, the next scene I want to talk about is the scene where Cihan and Kaya talk at the tavern/bar. I loved that entire sequence because we keep transitioning between Cihan's focus on Alya (his future) and Alya's focus on Cihan's past. When Kaya asks Cihan how he could fall for Alya after claiming to love Meryem, when Kaya and Sahin kept waiting/fighting for their respective loves, Cihan's answer reveals one of the reasons his past has sprung up on him, because he still doesn't get it. He says he loved Meryem, was tested by that love, gained experience from it, which prepared him to fight tooth and nail for Alya. He's partially right. Yes, the past and its challenges prepared him and chiseled his determination to fight for Alya. But, he's confused about loving someone and being in love with someone. He is so in love with Alya, he's overcome when he's trying to explain the emotion. True love, the deep, enduring, transformational kind, doesn't ever fade. Almost like it's a state of permanent being, because it survives time, distance, and yes, even death. If what you think love is weakens, is downgraded, moves from the heart to merely the realm of responsibility, it's not the 'love' that mankind has written sonnets about, that people dream about, that lovers die for. Because true love doesn't change, doesn't disappear, or relocate itself into something smaller. If it does, it was never that to begin with. Yes, people can love multiple times. But that feeling of being in love, that one love that trumps everything else, is another kettle of fish entirely. And, according to Cihan's own words, his love for Alya is the kind of thing he's never experienced before. Its weighty and rooted so deeply inside him, it's impossible to escape or forget. So, yes, Ciho is partially right to say that what he experienced with Meryem helped ready the man who'd love and fight for Alya like never before, but he's wrong to think that those feelings can be categorized under the heading 'love.' Since Cihan and Alya's story deals with balance, equality, and symmetry, it's unlikely that Alya's past would reveal she never loved Boran, whereas Cihan's past would be something like oh she prepared me for the future. In fact, I suspect it's a little of both for Cihan and Alya. As in, both Boran and Meryem paved the way to their actual true love, and yes, neither of them truly loved their exes. Not to mention, Boran has exposed himself completely, and Meryem's giving off bad vibes already. Alya understood that early on because of what Boran does to her. Cihan is about to learn. Which is why stories ever truly drag the past into the present anyway, because there's a truth, a lesson, a resolution hidden within, after which, the past can finally be buried and be left behind. So, to me, the vibe of ep56 is - processing the past. Looking at it, dealing with it, but most of all, facing it head-on. Essentially, we're seeing Alya and Cihan inch towards clarity now that both pasts are back in their lives at the same time. There’s still a final understanding waiting to click into place, for CihAl, about what love truly is and what it never was. And once that realization lands, the past won’t just be faced… it will lose its hold altogether. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

Analyzing Episode 56. Season 2 aka Processing the Past Despite all the prophecies of doom, episode 56 was a delightful watch. The episode begins with Alya walking into prison, only to discover Meryem holding hands with Ciho. And, the way that entire scene is depicted, it's designed to make the audience see things from Alya's pov. Because we know not a few moments earlier, Cihan tells Meryem she should leave Mardin because there's nothing left for her there. However, from Alya's viewpoint, it seems like the past is repeating itself in the way she finds out about Mine and even Boran. Though this time, there's a slight difference because instead of following Cihan and discovering the truth herself, it's Boran who frames reality in the worst possible way. Still, Cihan and Alya's reactions differ slightly at this instance. For example, Alya's anger, while boiling at that moment, diffuses much quicker. And, while she doubts the reason Cihan keeps Meryem's presence from her, she doesn't start doubting their love. That fortress remains strong. Likewise, any time Cihan is discovered by Alya lying to her, he displays this vibe of embarrassment. You know, like wearing the expression of a kid caught doing something he shouldn't have been doing. But this time, when he rushes after Alya, there's a certain assurance in his gait. It's not overt, mind you, because Cihan knows he's in hot water. But it's almost like this time, he's sure of himself because his feelings in the matter are clear. He hides the truth for two reasons: he's protecting himself and Alya. The former because he doesn't want Alya pulling back from him at a time when she's already forced to leave the konak, and the latter because he doesn't want the spectre of Meryem to hurt her in any way. But the part I really liked in this while sequence? Alya's car breaking down. There are always moments in CihAl's story where you see some external force intervening to move their story forward. For example, the way the roads are blocked in ep42. In this episode, fate intervenes yet again, and the message is clear. Don't run from the past; face it. That message is compounded when Boran shows up on the same road to see the fruits of his labor. In the last few episodes, Alya's reactions to Boran seem to have intensified. I don't know why that is, but it seems like Alya's anger seems to be taking over her despair. To the point where Cihan becomes the one to hold Alya back, which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Anger can be cleansing, unlike passivity. And it seems the days of Alya quietly listening to Boran's BS are finally ending. Anyway, the scene moves on to Cihan driving Alya to a remote location to talk things over, which I kind of liked. I prefer when these two go far away from the maddening crowd to iron out their differences. And note, whenever that happens, they happen to be in a location that has a bird's-eye view of the scene below. Kind of like how you try to take in the bigger picture - another nice subliminal message. Cihan kicks off the conversation by saying Boran is trying to cloud Alya's mind, to which Alya responds adequately by saying the only thing messing with her mind is Cihan's attempts to lie because Boran no longer holds any importance for her. Is that true? I think so. Because even though Alya and Cihan are talking about a highly volatile topic, they're relatively calm. Accusations don't fly about either. And, I liked the fact that Alya openly tells Cihan that his trying to keep her in the dark, even to protect her, is what ends up hurting her the most. Because that is the truth. Cihan's reasoning as to why he keeps Meryem's presence from her in this scene is incomplete. He does want to protect Alya from the pain his past includes, but that's only half the reason. The bigger reason is he's trying to do his damnedest to keep Alya with him. He's already failed to try to keep her with him at the konak, but an emotional distance would likely finish him off. Which is why the talk CihAl have at Alya's apartment is so important. When Meryem calls, Cihan stops Alya from leaving the room - which sets the tone of the conversation. When Cihan relates the story of what Meryem has gone through, Alya's reaction is just what's to be expected. She's empathetic towards her plight, of being forced, of facing violence, because while Alya's lucky enough to find love with Cihan, she understands only too well how women are made to feel helpless and powerless. There's this expression on Cihan's face that can only be described as astonishment. Because, despite Alya's past, what she's gone through in Mardin, and despite Cihan's own stupidities, she finds it in her heart to feel for another woman she wouldn't be wrong to feel threatened by. And that's one of the things he is so in love with about Alya. Her compassion. When Cihan says he feels responsible for all that's gone wrong in Meryem's life since that fateful day, Alya asks him why he felt the need to hide things yet again. But this time, the whole truth comes out. Cihan admits he was afraid of her pulling back from him even more. Another thing to note, Alya refers to Meryem as Cihan's first love, not only love. So, she's not doubtful of his feelings for her. What's scary to Alya is how much of a hold those old feelings still have over Cihan. The good news from that point on is that Cihan doesn't keep anything from Alya regarding Meryem again. That includes him trying to send her to Istanbul to set up a new life for her. The scene ends on a relatively happier note of disaster averted. And Cihan and Alya both look better after talking it out. Still, as the viewers, we know that Alya's fear hasn't been defeated, just delayed. And until Cihan gives Alya the kind of resolution she gives him with Boran, it will keep pushing her away from him, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, the next scene I want to talk about is the scene where Cihan and Kaya talk at the tavern/bar. I loved that entire sequence because we keep transitioning between Cihan's focus on Alya (his future) and Alya's focus on Cihan's past. When Kaya asks Cihan how he could fall for Alya after claiming to love Meryem, when Kaya and Sahin kept waiting/fighting for their respective loves, Cihan's answer reveals one of the reasons his past has sprung up on him, because he still doesn't get it. He says he loved Meryem, was tested by that love, gained experience from it, which prepared him to fight tooth and nail for Alya. He's partially right. Yes, the past and its challenges prepared him and chiseled his determination to fight for Alya. But, he's confused about loving someone and being in love with someone. He is so in love with Alya, he's overcome when he's trying to explain the emotion. True love, the deep, enduring, transformational kind, doesn't ever fade. Almost like it's a state of permanent being, because it survives time, distance, and yes, even death. If what you think love is weakens, is downgraded, moves from the heart to merely the realm of responsibility, it's not the 'love' that mankind has written sonnets about, that people dream about, that lovers die for. Because true love doesn't change, doesn't disappear, or relocate itself into something smaller. If it does, it was never that to begin with. Yes, people can love multiple times. But that feeling of being in love, that one love that trumps everything else, is another kettle of fish entirely. And, according to Cihan's own words, his love for Alya is the kind of thing he's never experienced before. Its weighty and rooted so deeply inside him, it's impossible to escape or forget. So, yes, Ciho is partially right to say that what he experienced with Meryem helped ready the man who'd love and fight for Alya like never before, but he's wrong to think that those feelings can be categorized under the heading 'love.' Since Cihan and Alya's story deals with balance, equality, and symmetry, it's unlikely that Alya's past would reveal she never loved Boran, whereas Cihan's past would be something like oh she prepared me for the future. In fact, I suspect it's a little of both for Cihan and Alya. As in, both Boran and Meryem paved the way to their actual true love, and yes, neither of them truly loved their exes. Not to mention, Boran has exposed himself completely, and Meryem's giving off bad vibes already. Alya understood that early on because of what Boran does to her. Cihan is about to learn. Which is why stories ever truly drag the past into the present anyway, because there's a truth, a lesson, a resolution hidden within, after which, the past can finally be buried and be left behind. So, to me, the vibe of ep56 is - processing the past. Looking at it, dealing with it, but most of all, facing it head-on. Essentially, we're seeing Alya and Cihan inch towards clarity now that both pasts are back in their lives at the same time. There’s still a final understanding waiting to click into place, for CihAl, about what love truly is and what it never was. And once that realization lands, the past won’t just be faced… it will lose its hold altogether. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

21,239 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

My Mother Will Live 100 Years More People will continue to speak the name of a woman who gave kindness freely and inspired their strength By Charlie LeDuff Charlie LeDuff Mother's life was not one of accolades or prizes or financial riches. Mother was a handsome woman who lived a normal life. But when cancer came to claim her face, it exposed a beauty previously unseen by me. “That’s the thing about growing old,” she said of the affliction that had stolen her eyes and taken the bridge of her nose and left her in darkness. “Eventually God punishes every woman for her vanity.” Even so, Mother continued to wear a wristwatch so she might document the hour when her eyesight would return. Of course, it never did. She was 81. Evangeline Baldis (née Steele) was born in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the daughter of a truck driver and waitress. In her life, Mother was many things. A factory girl, a florist, a painter, a gourmet, a theologian. She was a wife to three men. Mother to five children. Grandmother of 10. Great-grandmother of three. She also offered sanctuary to many children lost in the blizzard of drugs and divorce known as The Eighties. There was always a warm meal at her table. At that time, men were packing their bags and walking out the door and women were left to go out to earn the bread. Naturally, children ran wild—including her own. On more than one occasion, Mother presented herself in an old fur coat at the threshold of a disreputable door demanding her child be returned to her. “There is a word for that,” her sister Joann said at the hour of her death. “Flair. Your mother had flair.” Weeks earlier, Mother asked: “Why does God keep me around? What does he want from me? I’m ready.” “One last great lesson, Ma,” I supposed. “I think He wants you to teach us how to die with dignity. How not to be afraid.” She nodded. And then she asked for a cigarette. And then she asked for a chocolate. And then she asked for a spritz of Oscar de la Renta. At the foot of her bed, a great-grandchild clutched at the post attempting to right herself. Mother knew the baby by the sound of her gurglings. The baby carries her name. Evangeline. The bringer of good news. The scent of lilac and sage wafted in from the garden along with the dang-dong of the wind chime. Mother had been floating in the morphine clouds for sometime. As the day grew nearer, and the dosage grew higher, I expected strange things to bubble from her haze. I did not know what exactly. Rantings perhaps. Bitterness maybe. Medicine is a truth serum, and cancer is a monster. But strange words never came. She was the same woman in death’s shadow as she was in life’s light. She was more handsome than I had ever known. One evening, in the darkened room, she asked, “Why me, Lord? “What’s that, Ma?” “Kris Kristofferson,” she said. “Why me, Lord?” It wasn’t a question. It was a request. “Why Me?” is Kristofferson’s gospel song of humility and grace; of feeling unworthy of God’s blessings. I remembered it from boyhood. I played it for her. Try me, Lord If you think there's a way I can try to repay All I've taken from you Maybe, Lord I can show someone else What I've been through myself On my way back to you She sang along in a rasping, labored voice. And then she went to sleep. Mother died today, or yesterday. But not really. It is said that a woman dies twice. Once when her heart stops. And once when her name is spoken for the last time. Considering the people she touched, the kindness she freely gave, the strength she offered, I am quite sure Mother will live 100 years more. At least.

My Mother Will Live 100 Years More People will continue to speak the name of a woman who gave kindness freely and inspired their strength By Charlie LeDuff Charlie LeDuff Mother's life was not one of accolades or prizes or financial riches. Mother was a handsome woman who lived a normal life. But when cancer came to claim her face, it exposed a beauty previously unseen by me. “That’s the thing about growing old,” she said of the affliction that had stolen her eyes and taken the bridge of her nose and left her in darkness. “Eventually God punishes every woman for her vanity.” Even so, Mother continued to wear a wristwatch so she might document the hour when her eyesight would return. Of course, it never did. She was 81. Evangeline Baldis (née Steele) was born in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the daughter of a truck driver and waitress. In her life, Mother was many things. A factory girl, a florist, a painter, a gourmet, a theologian. She was a wife to three men. Mother to five children. Grandmother of 10. Great-grandmother of three. She also offered sanctuary to many children lost in the blizzard of drugs and divorce known as The Eighties. There was always a warm meal at her table. At that time, men were packing their bags and walking out the door and women were left to go out to earn the bread. Naturally, children ran wild—including her own. On more than one occasion, Mother presented herself in an old fur coat at the threshold of a disreputable door demanding her child be returned to her. “There is a word for that,” her sister Joann said at the hour of her death. “Flair. Your mother had flair.” Weeks earlier, Mother asked: “Why does God keep me around? What does he want from me? I’m ready.” “One last great lesson, Ma,” I supposed. “I think He wants you to teach us how to die with dignity. How not to be afraid.” She nodded. And then she asked for a cigarette. And then she asked for a chocolate. And then she asked for a spritz of Oscar de la Renta. At the foot of her bed, a great-grandchild clutched at the post attempting to right herself. Mother knew the baby by the sound of her gurglings. The baby carries her name. Evangeline. The bringer of good news. The scent of lilac and sage wafted in from the garden along with the dang-dong of the wind chime. Mother had been floating in the morphine clouds for sometime. As the day grew nearer, and the dosage grew higher, I expected strange things to bubble from her haze. I did not know what exactly. Rantings perhaps. Bitterness maybe. Medicine is a truth serum, and cancer is a monster. But strange words never came. She was the same woman in death’s shadow as she was in life’s light. She was more handsome than I had ever known. One evening, in the darkened room, she asked, “Why me, Lord? “What’s that, Ma?” “Kris Kristofferson,” she said. “Why me, Lord?” It wasn’t a question. It was a request. “Why Me?” is Kristofferson’s gospel song of humility and grace; of feeling unworthy of God’s blessings. I remembered it from boyhood. I played it for her. Try me, Lord If you think there's a way I can try to repay All I've taken from you Maybe, Lord I can show someone else What I've been through myself On my way back to you She sang along in a rasping, labored voice. And then she went to sleep. Mother died today, or yesterday. But not really. It is said that a woman dies twice. Once when her heart stops. And once when her name is spoken for the last time. Considering the people she touched, the kindness she freely gave, the strength she offered, I am quite sure Mother will live 100 years more. At least.

Michigan Enjoyer

13,004 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Considering what Ana & Stew have uncovered, let's revisit this clip where Bari Weiss & Erika discuss "conspiracies" surrounding The Charlie Kirk case. Bari says, "Egyptian aircrafts have been tracking you. What is going on? Why are there so many conspiracies spreading about what seems to be a pretty open & shut case." What exactly makes this an open & shut case? Is that why Erika said "I forgive him" at the memorial? You can't forgive someone who's innocent, right? Nothing to see here, right?? Case closed. NOT. Erika essentially blames social media for what she refers to as "conspiracies". They don't want us to notice & share what we know with one another. They underestimated the power of social media today in 2026. They thought that buying TikTok would get people to shut up. They thought wrong. Erika looks extremely angry & irritated all throughout, but still looks forced. She actually looks scared while trying to appear composed. Her thoughts even seem scattered as if she has more to say but can't say it. She then pauses and has a blank look on her face, she sighs, smiles & says, "Egyptian planes" while looking a bit unhinged. Bari interrupts her & asks if she believes that Tyler killed Charlie, almost without hesitation she says, "yes, I do" as if she had to solidify her "I forgive him (because I said he did it)". Bari then asks, "Why do you think it's so hard for so many people to believe that reality?" At this point I realized that they want us to believe that their lies are reality. Erika then has an eerie smile on her face & replies "cause it's too simple." The reality is that it's not that simple. What they tried to sell us is simple & that's where they messed up. They didn't account for people to pushback & demand the truth because things didn't make sense. Erika then proceeds to ramble: "And let me tell you this. Why in the world? ... Why should we? ... Prior to the trial, lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to some how then. I don't even know what they would do with it. But I will say, and I wanna get on the Egyptian plane thing..." Her thoughts are all over the place. She doesn't know if she's coming or going. Her anger might be performative but the pressure she was receiving was real. Who was pressuring her to do this? One thing is certain: The planes have them all messed up. This is what is driving them crazy. THE PLANES. She couldn't let it go & she wanted to separate herself from the "conspiracy theory" about the planes. Before jumping back into the planes, she mentions the United HealthCare case. She was trying to align Tyler Robinson with Luigi Mangione. Wicked is an understatement. At one point Bari says "Are you nervous he's not gonna get a fair trial?" to which Erika responds "I'm nervous that there could be a ... they'll say 'well, we can't find a fair jury'. They're gonna taint the jury pool. And in that case..." She doesn't finish the thought & just sighs and smiles like a mad woman. In that case what, Erika? What are you guys going to do when people learn the truth? What is going to happen to the truth seekers?! She brings up Egyptian planes AGAIN because she didn't get a chance to elaborate with all her rambling. This was clearly a topic that they wanted her to address. They wanted her to shut down anything having to do with planes. She proceeds to explain how she wasn't on any Egyptian planes when that claim was never made. Epic fail. This only sparked more curiosity in the public. The amount of times that she angrily smiles & starts a thought without finishing it is very telling. Was it a duper's delight? Did it make her feel happy to deceive people? Or was it an incongruent smile? Seems her internal state was leaking through as she tried to bite her tongue in some instances & remain composed. It just didn't work. This was a mistake. Did she bite off more than she could chew? It seems so.

Considering what Ana & Stew have uncovered, let's revisit this clip where Bari Weiss & Erika discuss "conspiracies" surrounding The Charlie Kirk case. Bari says, "Egyptian aircrafts have been tracking you. What is going on? Why are there so many conspiracies spreading about what seems to be a pretty open & shut case." What exactly makes this an open & shut case? Is that why Erika said "I forgive him" at the memorial? You can't forgive someone who's innocent, right? Nothing to see here, right?? Case closed. NOT. Erika essentially blames social media for what she refers to as "conspiracies". They don't want us to notice & share what we know with one another. They underestimated the power of social media today in 2026. They thought that buying TikTok would get people to shut up. They thought wrong. Erika looks extremely angry & irritated all throughout, but still looks forced. She actually looks scared while trying to appear composed. Her thoughts even seem scattered as if she has more to say but can't say it. She then pauses and has a blank look on her face, she sighs, smiles & says, "Egyptian planes" while looking a bit unhinged. Bari interrupts her & asks if she believes that Tyler killed Charlie, almost without hesitation she says, "yes, I do" as if she had to solidify her "I forgive him (because I said he did it)". Bari then asks, "Why do you think it's so hard for so many people to believe that reality?" At this point I realized that they want us to believe that their lies are reality. Erika then has an eerie smile on her face & replies "cause it's too simple." The reality is that it's not that simple. What they tried to sell us is simple & that's where they messed up. They didn't account for people to pushback & demand the truth because things didn't make sense. Erika then proceeds to ramble: "And let me tell you this. Why in the world? ... Why should we? ... Prior to the trial, lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to some how then. I don't even know what they would do with it. But I will say, and I wanna get on the Egyptian plane thing..." Her thoughts are all over the place. She doesn't know if she's coming or going. Her anger might be performative but the pressure she was receiving was real. Who was pressuring her to do this? One thing is certain: The planes have them all messed up. This is what is driving them crazy. THE PLANES. She couldn't let it go & she wanted to separate herself from the "conspiracy theory" about the planes. Before jumping back into the planes, she mentions the United HealthCare case. She was trying to align Tyler Robinson with Luigi Mangione. Wicked is an understatement. At one point Bari says "Are you nervous he's not gonna get a fair trial?" to which Erika responds "I'm nervous that there could be a ... they'll say 'well, we can't find a fair jury'. They're gonna taint the jury pool. And in that case..." She doesn't finish the thought & just sighs and smiles like a mad woman. In that case what, Erika? What are you guys going to do when people learn the truth? What is going to happen to the truth seekers?! She brings up Egyptian planes AGAIN because she didn't get a chance to elaborate with all her rambling. This was clearly a topic that they wanted her to address. They wanted her to shut down anything having to do with planes. She proceeds to explain how she wasn't on any Egyptian planes when that claim was never made. Epic fail. This only sparked more curiosity in the public. The amount of times that she angrily smiles & starts a thought without finishing it is very telling. Was it a duper's delight? Did it make her feel happy to deceive people? Or was it an incongruent smile? Seems her internal state was leaking through as she tried to bite her tongue in some instances & remain composed. It just didn't work. This was a mistake. Did she bite off more than she could chew? It seems so.

Belle

26,651 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

$🚨Hero police officer reveals his fears after being sacked for tackling knife-wielding teenager - as Home Secretary faces calls to step in An award-winning police officer who was sacked for a 'lack of respect' after arresting a knife-carrying teenager has claimed the saga has left him worrying about whether he can 'pay his mortgage'. The shocking footage shows how PC Lorne Castle grabbed the 15-year-old boy, who was suspected of assault, and pushed him into a wall before slamming him into the ground and proceeding to place his hand over the youth's face while shouting threats and curse words. During the commotion a Stanley-type knife fell out of the teenager's waistband. PC Castle, 46, was dismissed from Dorset Police over the Bournemouth arrest, sparking a wave of criticism as it emerged the teen was suspected of assaulting two people including an elderly gentlemen. He has now lifted the lid on a nightmare 16 months which he said 'could have broken him' - as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper faces calls to step in. The police officer told GB News: 'I came into police nine or 10 years ago. Prior to that, I was in the sports industry, went to Bournemouth University where I did law. 'I've had a confident life and am happy and get on with people. The last year and a half, when they've put me on restricted duties, I'm not allowed face-to-face contact with people. 'I'm isolated. I don't know whether I'm going to be able to pay the mortgage and bring money home until I see how this goes.' PC Castle also gave an insight into what was going through his head during the incident, which resulted in him being found guilty of gross misconduct. 'My intent was to arrest a potentially violent suspect without injuries,' he said. 'He was arrested, no injuries and no complaint, and a knife was removed from the street. 'It's not a nice situation for anyone to be in...other officers have been in that situation and that's why I am here now. Any mistake, pause or hesitation can have dramatic results. 'My intention was good and that's why I have maintained my innocence, because I know my own mindset. 'If I know it can be analysed like a sport, armchair critiquing, some time down the line, it's gonna make you pause. Whether that's good or bad it needs to be looked at.' It comes after Dorset Police released the full bodycam footage from PC Castle's partner on the stop, allowing the public to judge the chaotic episode for themselves. Following the arrest PC Castle's colleagues reported concerns about his conduct to senior officers, prompting a 16-month investigation and gross misconduct proceedings. A misconduct panel last week found PC Castle made the boy feel 'frightened and intimidated' and showed him a 'lack of courtesy and respect' during the arrest in January last year. The officer admitted that he 'lost control' during the arrest and tearfully apologised for his 'out of character' actions at a police disciplinary hearing. The panel, led by Wiltshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Deborah Smith, found him guilty of gross misconduct. They said he failed to act with self-control, did not treat the boy with courtesy or respect and that his 'shouting, swearing, finger pointing, taking hold of the boy's face suggested use of leg restraints was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate'. It was alleged the officer also grabbed the boy's throat but this was not proven. PC Castle was dismissed without notice and barred from serving again. The bodycam footage showed how PC Castle was the first out of the patrol car before putting the boy to the wall and then pushing him to the ground while shouting: 'You're under arrest'. While on top of the teenager on the ground, he then shouted: 'Get on the ground. Get down. Get down. 'Show me your f***ing hands, now. Put your f***ing hands behind your [back].' The teen, who is clearly distressed, screams and told PC Castle 'I can't' - as the officer is on top of him. PC Castle's female colleague can then by heard trying to intervene to de-escalate the situation, but Castle would not be stopped. While pointing his finger into the teen's face, he yelled: 'Right, listen, stop screaming like a little b****. Do you understand that? Shut up.' He continues: 'Roll over. Right, you try resisting again, do you understand? Right, shut up. 'If you try resisting one more time - right get your f***ing hands behind your back, do you understand? 'One hand at a time! One hand at a time. Stop screaming.' Speaking into his radio PC Castle then asks for another unit to be sent over because the suspect is 'being a little b****.' He then begins yelling at the boy again, while still on top of him on the ground, and pointing into his face. 'Right, stop resisting or I'm going to smash you. Do you understand? Put your hands behind your back.' PC Castle then tells members of the public who are watching on: 'Move back, now.' He places his hands on top of the boy's face, prompting him to cry out in what appears to be pain. He shouts: 'You are under arrest at the moment on suspicion of assault. Right do not move.' It is just 90 seconds after PC Castle opened the car door. Throughout the arrest, the 15-year-old could be heard screaming and shouting 'what have I done wrong?'. At one point he starts crying and appears to be struggling to draw breath. On the day of the arrest, the panel heard that the boy was suspected of assaulting an elderly man while riding an e-scooter before getting embroiled in a fracas with another youth outside McDonalds. PC Castle, who has twice won a national bravery award including one for saving an elderly woman from drowning in a swollen river in 2023, spotted the suspect walking up Richmond Hill in Bournemouth before the stop. His colleague attempted to step in to calm the situation several times but was all but ignored by PC Castle, video footage shows. Giving evidence, PC Castle said he became 'overwhelmed and scared' when the boy resisted as his mind flashed back to his arrest of a county lines drug dealer 18 months earlier which led him fearing for his life. As the officer struggled with the dealer, his associate who was stood behind was being told to 'cut him' - before an off-duty officer intervened to defend him. PC Castle admitted he had overstepped the mark with his language and aggression and broke down in tears as he said: 'I'm embarrassed by the video and I apologise for my actions. 'Anyone who knows me in public or private life knows that is not how I behave. When he started screaming and resisting I panicked and became overwhelmed. 'I did not choke the suspect and I did not get him in a headlock. I was trying to keep his head still with the palm of my hand so he did not hit his head. 'I did not put my full weight on him as my knees were on the concrete. I only applied enough weight to keep his body still. 'During the arrest I saw the knife fall out of his waistband so he was arrested for a knife offence. I think the arrest needed to be made but I lost control of the situation.' Mark Ley Morgan, representing Dorset Police at the hearing, said the knife was not relevant as PC Castle did not know the boy had it when making the arrest. Mr Morgan said: 'PC Castle breached standards of professional behaviour by failing to act with self control and failing to treat him with courtesy or respect. 'He abused his power and authority and his behaviour undermined confidence in the police. 'It was totally unnecessary and disproportionate, and it is so serious that dismissal would be justified.' 'PC Castle has let the police service and his colleagues down and he does not represent the many hard-working officers and staff of Dorset Police. 'The outcome reflects the seriousness of this matter and ensures that he will no longer hold a role in policing and the privilege of constable. 'I am grateful to the officers for having the courage to do the right thing and report their concerns about PC Castle's actions.' After the hearing, Dorset Police Deputy Chief Constable Rachel Farrell acknowledged that officers did a 'tough job' but said PC Castle let the force down by his actions. She said: 'I have never been in any doubt that PC Castle's actions were excessive, aggressive and inappropriate and I can understand the communities we serve will be concerned about this case. But the judgment proved divisive with many reacting online and speaking out in support of the officer. Norman Brennan, a retired police officer and founder of the campaign group Protect the Protectors, accused Dorset Police of throwing PC Castle ‘under a bus’. He said: 'Senior officers at Dorset Police have taken leave of their senses.. This decision epitomises how they have lost touch with the danger and reality of frontline policing. It is bloody madness. 'Police officers when facing volatile or violent situations will at times swear and use some unsavoury words. 'All arrests involve some form of force and pushing someone even in the face during a struggle is not always intentional and even if it is its part and parcel in many arrests when restraining a suspect. No arrest is without some sort of force. 'I'm sick and tired of officers being disciplined for things like this and I think the majority of the public would think this is absolutely bonkers. 'Many senior officers kowtow to the constant criticism of the police in a sort of appeasement and often throw officers under the bus or to the wolves as sacrificial lambs. Cases like this are more likely to deter people from joining the police.'$

🚨Hero police officer reveals his fears after being sacked for tackling knife-wielding teenager - as Home Secretary faces calls to step in An award-winning police officer who was sacked for a 'lack of respect' after arresting a knife-carrying teenager has claimed the saga has left him worrying about whether he can 'pay his mortgage'. The shocking footage shows how PC Lorne Castle grabbed the 15-year-old boy, who was suspected of assault, and pushed him into a wall before slamming him into the ground and proceeding to place his hand over the youth's face while shouting threats and curse words. During the commotion a Stanley-type knife fell out of the teenager's waistband. PC Castle, 46, was dismissed from Dorset Police over the Bournemouth arrest, sparking a wave of criticism as it emerged the teen was suspected of assaulting two people including an elderly gentlemen. He has now lifted the lid on a nightmare 16 months which he said 'could have broken him' - as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper faces calls to step in. The police officer told GB News: 'I came into police nine or 10 years ago. Prior to that, I was in the sports industry, went to Bournemouth University where I did law. 'I've had a confident life and am happy and get on with people. The last year and a half, when they've put me on restricted duties, I'm not allowed face-to-face contact with people. 'I'm isolated. I don't know whether I'm going to be able to pay the mortgage and bring money home until I see how this goes.' PC Castle also gave an insight into what was going through his head during the incident, which resulted in him being found guilty of gross misconduct. 'My intent was to arrest a potentially violent suspect without injuries,' he said. 'He was arrested, no injuries and no complaint, and a knife was removed from the street. 'It's not a nice situation for anyone to be in...other officers have been in that situation and that's why I am here now. Any mistake, pause or hesitation can have dramatic results. 'My intention was good and that's why I have maintained my innocence, because I know my own mindset. 'If I know it can be analysed like a sport, armchair critiquing, some time down the line, it's gonna make you pause. Whether that's good or bad it needs to be looked at.' It comes after Dorset Police released the full bodycam footage from PC Castle's partner on the stop, allowing the public to judge the chaotic episode for themselves. Following the arrest PC Castle's colleagues reported concerns about his conduct to senior officers, prompting a 16-month investigation and gross misconduct proceedings. A misconduct panel last week found PC Castle made the boy feel 'frightened and intimidated' and showed him a 'lack of courtesy and respect' during the arrest in January last year. The officer admitted that he 'lost control' during the arrest and tearfully apologised for his 'out of character' actions at a police disciplinary hearing. The panel, led by Wiltshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Deborah Smith, found him guilty of gross misconduct. They said he failed to act with self-control, did not treat the boy with courtesy or respect and that his 'shouting, swearing, finger pointing, taking hold of the boy's face suggested use of leg restraints was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate'. It was alleged the officer also grabbed the boy's throat but this was not proven. PC Castle was dismissed without notice and barred from serving again. The bodycam footage showed how PC Castle was the first out of the patrol car before putting the boy to the wall and then pushing him to the ground while shouting: 'You're under arrest'. While on top of the teenager on the ground, he then shouted: 'Get on the ground. Get down. Get down. 'Show me your fing hands, now. Put your fing hands behind your [back].' The teen, who is clearly distressed, screams and told PC Castle 'I can't' - as the officer is on top of him. PC Castle's female colleague can then by heard trying to intervene to de-escalate the situation, but Castle would not be stopped. While pointing his finger into the teen's face, he yelled: 'Right, listen, stop screaming like a little b**. Do you understand that? Shut up.' He continues: 'Roll over. Right, you try resisting again, do you understand? Right, shut up. 'If you try resisting one more time - right get your f*ing hands behind your back, do you understand? 'One hand at a time! One hand at a time. Stop screaming.' Speaking into his radio PC Castle then asks for another unit to be sent over because the suspect is 'being a little b****.' He then begins yelling at the boy again, while still on top of him on the ground, and pointing into his face. 'Right, stop resisting or I'm going to smash you. Do you understand? Put your hands behind your back.' PC Castle then tells members of the public who are watching on: 'Move back, now.' He places his hands on top of the boy's face, prompting him to cry out in what appears to be pain. He shouts: 'You are under arrest at the moment on suspicion of assault. Right do not move.' It is just 90 seconds after PC Castle opened the car door. Throughout the arrest, the 15-year-old could be heard screaming and shouting 'what have I done wrong?'. At one point he starts crying and appears to be struggling to draw breath. On the day of the arrest, the panel heard that the boy was suspected of assaulting an elderly man while riding an e-scooter before getting embroiled in a fracas with another youth outside McDonalds. PC Castle, who has twice won a national bravery award including one for saving an elderly woman from drowning in a swollen river in 2023, spotted the suspect walking up Richmond Hill in Bournemouth before the stop. His colleague attempted to step in to calm the situation several times but was all but ignored by PC Castle, video footage shows. Giving evidence, PC Castle said he became 'overwhelmed and scared' when the boy resisted as his mind flashed back to his arrest of a county lines drug dealer 18 months earlier which led him fearing for his life. As the officer struggled with the dealer, his associate who was stood behind was being told to 'cut him' - before an off-duty officer intervened to defend him. PC Castle admitted he had overstepped the mark with his language and aggression and broke down in tears as he said: 'I'm embarrassed by the video and I apologise for my actions. 'Anyone who knows me in public or private life knows that is not how I behave. When he started screaming and resisting I panicked and became overwhelmed. 'I did not choke the suspect and I did not get him in a headlock. I was trying to keep his head still with the palm of my hand so he did not hit his head. 'I did not put my full weight on him as my knees were on the concrete. I only applied enough weight to keep his body still. 'During the arrest I saw the knife fall out of his waistband so he was arrested for a knife offence. I think the arrest needed to be made but I lost control of the situation.' Mark Ley Morgan, representing Dorset Police at the hearing, said the knife was not relevant as PC Castle did not know the boy had it when making the arrest. Mr Morgan said: 'PC Castle breached standards of professional behaviour by failing to act with self control and failing to treat him with courtesy or respect. 'He abused his power and authority and his behaviour undermined confidence in the police. 'It was totally unnecessary and disproportionate, and it is so serious that dismissal would be justified.' 'PC Castle has let the police service and his colleagues down and he does not represent the many hard-working officers and staff of Dorset Police. 'The outcome reflects the seriousness of this matter and ensures that he will no longer hold a role in policing and the privilege of constable. 'I am grateful to the officers for having the courage to do the right thing and report their concerns about PC Castle's actions.' After the hearing, Dorset Police Deputy Chief Constable Rachel Farrell acknowledged that officers did a 'tough job' but said PC Castle let the force down by his actions. She said: 'I have never been in any doubt that PC Castle's actions were excessive, aggressive and inappropriate and I can understand the communities we serve will be concerned about this case. But the judgment proved divisive with many reacting online and speaking out in support of the officer. Norman Brennan, a retired police officer and founder of the campaign group Protect the Protectors, accused Dorset Police of throwing PC Castle ‘under a bus’. He said: 'Senior officers at Dorset Police have taken leave of their senses.. This decision epitomises how they have lost touch with the danger and reality of frontline policing. It is bloody madness. 'Police officers when facing volatile or violent situations will at times swear and use some unsavoury words. 'All arrests involve some form of force and pushing someone even in the face during a struggle is not always intentional and even if it is its part and parcel in many arrests when restraining a suspect. No arrest is without some sort of force. 'I'm sick and tired of officers being disciplined for things like this and I think the majority of the public would think this is absolutely bonkers. 'Many senior officers kowtow to the constant criticism of the police in a sort of appeasement and often throw officers under the bus or to the wolves as sacrificial lambs. Cases like this are more likely to deter people from joining the police.'

Grifty

103,498 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨🛸💥🔥 Have We Cracked Gravity? 🔥💥🛸🚨 Thoughts? "I can see that it's a perfect triangle, and it's gigantic, and it has a white light at each apex of the triangle and a large, white light in the center. And it takes off, and it zips out of sight." 2006, Eglin AFB... (This sounds similar to what Dylan Borland says he saw at Langley AFB. If this stuff is so secret, why do they seem so lax in allowing others, who are not cleared, to see it? If this craft exists... Is it ours, that we developed own our own? Is it craft that we constructed and reverse engineered, based, in part, on technology of unknown origin that we have acquired? Is it a craft of unknown origin that we acquired and learned how to fly? Are "they" working with us and showing us how to fly "their" craft? Was Will Miller right? And if you don't know who Will Miller is, do some searching. I'll pull up some of my older quotes later.) ~~~ Daniel Gockerell: "I step outside, and I look to my left, and about, I would say, three, four hundred yards, there was a clearing. And surrounding this clearing is these high-mass portable generator lights like they use on construction for...in roadways that you see and stuff, and highways and stuff like that. And I saw Humvees, military personnel out there, it looked like, and some black SUVs. "And I see hovering, about 15 to 20 feet off the ground, this giant, maybe 300 or so feet in length (size of a football field. ~Joe), aircraft. There was no visible cockpit, you know, no visible like, traditional fuselage or engine. Like, I couldn't see...it just, it was different to me. "So, right about the time I get out and I notice this, it hovers, it goes straight up. And when I say hover, I don't mean in a traditional sense. So when you think about, uh, you know, any fixed-wing aircraft, any bird that we have, known to man right now, even a rotary bird, it oscillates when it hovers. This just goes straight up and it's dead quiet, nothing, not a sound. I could hear the buzzing from the generator lights, right? "So, this gets about to the canopy, like, height, a little over the canopy, and does a slight bank, and takes off. And it rips right over the canopy like, looks like it was heading northeast, which I'm guessing. I honestly couldn't remember, just, I don't know, sometimes you know, you feel like you know your cardinal directions, like, which way is home. "Anyway, this aircraft, when it banks, I can see that it's a perfect triangle, and it's gigantic, and it has a white light at each apex of the triangle and a large, white light in the center. And it takes off, and it zips out of sight. I mean, Mach something we don't know. And, I mean, it takes off. And the biggest shock to me at that point was there was no audible report. There was nothing...like something going that fast, it's gonna bust the sound barrier, you're gonna hear it. And I didn't. I heard nothing. And, at that point, again, it was just the buzzing of the generator lights out there. "I watched this as I'm smoking my cigarette, seemingly do several touch and goes, but it doesn't go down at that little drop zone that it took off. It just comes back, stays there for a second, couple seconds, and then takes off again. Comes back, stays there for a couple seconds, takes off again. And at that point I grew bored of it. And I was impressed, obviously, but I'm like, okay, this is our military testing some awesome technology and... "You know, again, this isn't my wheelhouse, so I'm not, you know, this is...I'm not really realizing that this is some sort of zero-point energy or something that we, you know, we've never seen before. So, it's nothing like I've ever seen before. I've never seen any military or civilian bird have the capabilities that something like this has. Again, there's no signage, there's no visible cockpit fuselage, you know, there's nothing that I can see that, you know, would make me think it's any kind of traditional bird that we've seen, or I've heard about. It takes off and I go back inside, and that's it. "So, the biggest thing to me, and when we were discussing it, is the notable observations, and that there's zero oscillation, right? The propulsion and noise...there was no audible report, no hum, nothing. What was it? It lacked, uh, like, an obviously visible cabin, uh, any signage, engine housing, exhaust systems. And it's the sheer speed that it that, you know, that was, you know, one of the most notable things."

🚨🛸💥🔥 Have We Cracked Gravity? 🔥💥🛸🚨 Thoughts? "I can see that it's a perfect triangle, and it's gigantic, and it has a white light at each apex of the triangle and a large, white light in the center. And it takes off, and it zips out of sight." 2006, Eglin AFB... (This sounds similar to what Dylan Borland says he saw at Langley AFB. If this stuff is so secret, why do they seem so lax in allowing others, who are not cleared, to see it? If this craft exists... Is it ours, that we developed own our own? Is it craft that we constructed and reverse engineered, based, in part, on technology of unknown origin that we have acquired? Is it a craft of unknown origin that we acquired and learned how to fly? Are "they" working with us and showing us how to fly "their" craft? Was Will Miller right? And if you don't know who Will Miller is, do some searching. I'll pull up some of my older quotes later.) ~~~ Daniel Gockerell: "I step outside, and I look to my left, and about, I would say, three, four hundred yards, there was a clearing. And surrounding this clearing is these high-mass portable generator lights like they use on construction for...in roadways that you see and stuff, and highways and stuff like that. And I saw Humvees, military personnel out there, it looked like, and some black SUVs. "And I see hovering, about 15 to 20 feet off the ground, this giant, maybe 300 or so feet in length (size of a football field. ~Joe), aircraft. There was no visible cockpit, you know, no visible like, traditional fuselage or engine. Like, I couldn't see...it just, it was different to me. "So, right about the time I get out and I notice this, it hovers, it goes straight up. And when I say hover, I don't mean in a traditional sense. So when you think about, uh, you know, any fixed-wing aircraft, any bird that we have, known to man right now, even a rotary bird, it oscillates when it hovers. This just goes straight up and it's dead quiet, nothing, not a sound. I could hear the buzzing from the generator lights, right? "So, this gets about to the canopy, like, height, a little over the canopy, and does a slight bank, and takes off. And it rips right over the canopy like, looks like it was heading northeast, which I'm guessing. I honestly couldn't remember, just, I don't know, sometimes you know, you feel like you know your cardinal directions, like, which way is home. "Anyway, this aircraft, when it banks, I can see that it's a perfect triangle, and it's gigantic, and it has a white light at each apex of the triangle and a large, white light in the center. And it takes off, and it zips out of sight. I mean, Mach something we don't know. And, I mean, it takes off. And the biggest shock to me at that point was there was no audible report. There was nothing...like something going that fast, it's gonna bust the sound barrier, you're gonna hear it. And I didn't. I heard nothing. And, at that point, again, it was just the buzzing of the generator lights out there. "I watched this as I'm smoking my cigarette, seemingly do several touch and goes, but it doesn't go down at that little drop zone that it took off. It just comes back, stays there for a second, couple seconds, and then takes off again. Comes back, stays there for a couple seconds, takes off again. And at that point I grew bored of it. And I was impressed, obviously, but I'm like, okay, this is our military testing some awesome technology and... "You know, again, this isn't my wheelhouse, so I'm not, you know, this is...I'm not really realizing that this is some sort of zero-point energy or something that we, you know, we've never seen before. So, it's nothing like I've ever seen before. I've never seen any military or civilian bird have the capabilities that something like this has. Again, there's no signage, there's no visible cockpit fuselage, you know, there's nothing that I can see that, you know, would make me think it's any kind of traditional bird that we've seen, or I've heard about. It takes off and I go back inside, and that's it. "So, the biggest thing to me, and when we were discussing it, is the notable observations, and that there's zero oscillation, right? The propulsion and noise...there was no audible report, no hum, nothing. What was it? It lacked, uh, like, an obviously visible cabin, uh, any signage, engine housing, exhaust systems. And it's the sheer speed that it that, you know, that was, you know, one of the most notable things."

Joe Murgia

77,769 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

For the record, I am much more of a college basketball enthusiast than an NBA Draft expert. One thing that has stood out to me throughout this draft cycle, however, is how little Richie Saunders has been discussed relative to his production. Obviously, age, injury concerns, and a lack of elite physical tools have all limited his draft buzz. Those concerns are fair. Still, Saunders was nothing short of one of the most productive and efficient scorers in college basketball last season. Richie Saunders was one of only 10 Power Conference players last season to post a True Shooting Percentage of at least 63% while attempting 8.5 or more three-pointers per 40 minutes. Among that group, he ranked second in points per 40 minutes. Additionally, Saunders was one of only two players in that same group to also post a Free Throw Attempt Rate of at least 35%, highlighting not only his perimeter shooting ability but also his effectiveness at generating rim pressure. He also finished an impressive 67% of his attempts at the rim. The combination of high-volume shooting, elite efficiency, and consistent rim pressure provides a strong statistical foundation for his NBA projection. Saunders projects as a prototypical floor-spacing possession finisher at the NBA level. An overwhelming 90.5% of his field goal attempts last season came either at the rim or from beyond the three-point line, reflecting the type of shot profile NBA teams covet for his archetype. While Saunders was assisted on the majority of his made baskets, the numbers do not suggest a player who is completely dependent on others to create offense. 34.1% of his made two-point field goals were assisted (64th percentile) and 92.2% of his made three-pointers were assisted (65th percentile), reinforcing his projection as a high-level off-ball floor spacer. Saunders also converted 44.1% of his corner three-point attempts, another indicator that his shooting should translate well to an NBA role. Defense is unlikely to be Saunders' calling card at the next level, but there are indicators that suggest he can hold his own. While steal percentage can sometimes be misleading, Saunders posted a strong 3.1% STL%, which, when paired with his reported +5-inch wingspan, points toward solid anticipation and the ability to disrupt passing lanes on the perimeter. Additionally, his 0.93x Personal Foul Efficiency (90th percentile) is noteworthy. Saunders consistently avoided unnecessary fouls while remaining engaged defensively, a valuable trait for role players expected to stay on the floor. When projecting Saunders' offensive role, players such as Cameron Johnson, AJ Green, Max Strus, and Will Richard come to mind. This comparison is not necessarily about overall talent level, but rather the archetype: floor-spacing wings who thrive playing alongside higher-usage creators, make quick decisions, punish defensive mistakes, and provide offensive value without requiring heavy on-ball responsibility. With Saunders on the floor, BYU was better in nearly every meaningful offensive category. Most notably the following listed below. On/Off ORTG: 125.3/114.3 TS%: 59.6%/56.9% A:T Ratio: 1.39/1.06 The offensive improvements are significant, but what may be even more impressive is Saunders' ability to elevate the players around him. There may be no better example than fellow BYU star and potential No. 1 overall pick AJ Dybantsa. Dybantsa saw increases in TS%, 2P%, 3P%, and FTAr when sharing the floor with Saunders, illustrating the value of Saunders' spacing, gravity, and willingness to play within a complementary role. Elite complementary players are difficult to find, and Saunders consistently demonstrated an ability to make life easier for those around him. Saunders' floor-spacing ability is amplified by the speed of his release and his willingness to fire immediately off the catch. His ability to quickly get into his shot forces defenses to close out aggressively, creating additional opportunities for him to attack off the bounce. When defenders run him off the line, Saunders does an excellent job leveraging his shooting gravity to create straight-line drives to the rim. While he may not possess elite burst, he consistently capitalizes on defensive overreactions and attacks open space effectively. As someone who primarily evaluates college basketball rather than NBA draft boards, Richie Saunders has been one of the more surprising cases of this draft cycle. The concerns are understandable. He's older than the typical prospect, suffered a significant injury, and doesn't possess the type of elite physical tools that usually drive draft buzz. At the same time, it's difficult to ignore what Saunders actually produced on the court. He was one of the most efficient high-volume scorers in college basketball, combining elite shooting volume, strong rim finishing, and an ability to generate free throws at a level rarely seen from players who occupy a similar offensive role. His shot profile, floor-spacing ability, and offensive efficiency all align with the types of complementary wings that continue to carve out long NBA careers. Saunders may never be a primary creator or a player offenses are built around, but the NBA has consistently found value in wings who can space the floor, attack closeouts, make quick decisions, and fit seamlessly alongside stars. Whether he ultimately hears his name called in the late first round, second round, or enters the league through a two-way contract, Saunders feels like the type of prospect whose production and NBA-ready skill set could allow him to outperform his draft slot.

Caden Hoffman

115,806 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨“This Post Will Destroy Every Fake MAGA Patriot and Intel-Asset Infiltrator on This Platform”🚨 Some of you demand play-by-play updates while President Trump dismantles the most powerful, satanic, and demonic cabal in human history, a cabal literally run by the agents of satan himself. You want Trump to livestream the battle plan to save humanity like it’s a reality show. You want him to post his moves in real-time… while the Cabal’s intelligence networks watch every keystroke. You want him to hand over the Super Bowl playbook for humanity to the very demons we’re fighting, because your feelings told you, you deserve it? NEWSFLASH: You don’t deserve the playbook in real time if you didn't sign up to deploy it. You deserve the results. You deserve a free country. You deserve food that’s not poisoned for profit. You deserve fair & free elections. You deserve justice. You deserve safety for your children. You deserve freedom from systemic slavery. But NO, you don’t deserve to be briefed mid-operation just so your dopamine fires while global operations hang in the balance. That’s not how war works. That’s not how victory is secured. REAL warriors are out there right now, risking their lives in the shadows. They’re undercover in cartel strongholds, infiltrating trafficking rings, and snatching children out of hellholes while you sit comfortably behind a keyboard virtue signaling, pretending you've earned a voice in this fight. You have a voice in the fight, you didn't earn it. Other men who sacrificed their lives earned it - not you. You’ve never risked your life for this country. You’ve never stared evil in the face with nothing but courage and training to back you up. You’ve never kicked in doors to rescue kids while praying you’d make it home alive. The only thing you’re entitled to is results, period. You don’t get to cry because it’s not unfolding how you want, or at the speed your emotions demand. You have no experience, No training, and no clue how to dismantle the most powerful satanic empire in human history. How do I know? Because many of you exposed yourself with this gem: “Just let the whole system crash if that’s what it takes, we can handle the truth.” NEWS FLASH #2: That’s not strategy, that’s the emotional outburst of a man without a plan, fishing for likes and cheers. Here’s the reality: Most of America can’t handle the truth! Get mad, argue - it is the truth. This is not the AMERICA of 1776. This is the AMERICA of soft men being critical of REAL warriors. COVID was the test. They wore masks that didn’t protect them. They took jabs that killed or maimed them, years after knowing they were deadly. To keep a job. They lined their newborns up for Remdesivir and stayed silent. And you? You posted. You tweeted. You virtue signaled. You didn’t stop it. Now you want people to believe you’ll lead the charge when the system collapses? Spare me the ego. Unlike you, I’ve gone to war with evil. Gunfights. Fist fights. Door breaching as the first man in the stack. This is what I know from that life: This is not a movie. Good does NOT automatically rise from the ashes of collapse. Evil does. Why? Because evil is organized. Because good is slow to mobilize. Because most of humanity is inherently good and evil exploits that every single time. You think collapse equals freedom? It equals open season on the innocent, especially the children. Need proof? Why do you think the Deep State keeps pushing civil war, riots and millions of illegals into the United States? Because they know what you don’t: chaos favors evil. Meanwhile, President Trump is playing on a global battlefield, orchestrating peace, securing sovereignty, and threading the needle of maximum justice with minimum loss of life, lives will perish, innocent will perish-this is what happens in WAR you are not built to handle. And you think your angry thread dictated his moves? LOLOLOL. Trump created the environment that gave you the freedom to rant in the first place. He baited your rant for his plan. Expose. Unite. Momentum. He’s being hunted by the most powerful intelligence apparatus on Earth and you’re over here thinking your social media meltdown matters? Here’s the truth: Some of you are knowingly weaponizing this environment to turn the weak-minded against the President. You’re not fighting evil. You’re feeding it. You're a part of it. Let’s talk about Epstein. Some of you parroting that Trump called Epstein’s crimes a “hoax” are either: • Foolish • Unresearched • Or operatives trying to sabotage support for President Trump. Why? Because in the words of Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Epstein’s victims: “The only thing I can say about President Trump is that he was the only person who picked up the phone, said ‘let’s talk,’ and gave me all the time I needed. He had good information that helped us. He gave no indication of involvement in anything untoward.” While Clinton was flying the Lolita Express 26 times to the island and others were lawyering up, Trump helped the victims. He’s not confused about Epstein, he knows exactly who Epstein was/is. And more importantly, he knows what Epstein was a front for. Trump’s calling out the investigation as the hoax, the fake justice, the planted evidence, the destroyed files, the perjured agents, and the two-tiered system designed to protect the guilty and frame the innocent. Some of you scream “Don’t trust the government!” in one breath and demand the government give you the truth about Epstein in the next. You want the the investigation from the DOJ you say is against you? That’s not intelligence. That’s next-level ReTard. President Trump is running the largest RICO investigation in American history, with 450,000+ sealed indictments and counting. You know what everyone is suddenly talking about again? Jeffrey Epstein. Even the left. Even Mockingbird media. Even the controlled ops. Why? Because Trump understands the power of momentum. He understands the power of common enemies. He understands he must unify America without endless wars and catastrophes... So what did he do? He exposed to America a common enemy Epstein. A face for evil. A symbol of systemic betrayal. And a thread that connects the entire Cabal. This is not a social media platform anymore. This is the trench warfare of the Information Age. You’re watching 5GW in real time and mistaking it for campaign season and policies. Trump rescued over 10,000 missing children. Congress just raised that number to 35,000 (pending confirmation from Tom Homan). He’s overseen the arrest of over 1,000 pedophile traffickers and that’s in under 6 1/2 months. Yet many of you “child-first” influencers never report it, or worse...mock it. Why? Because you’re not in this for the children. You’re in this for influence. And some of you are leveraged by the very establishment Trump is destroying. Let’s be clear: I want Hillary Clinton and the rest indicted. We all do. But Hillary isn’t the one snatching kids from the streets. She’s the customer. Trump is hunting the foot soldiers. He’s dismantling the system. And you’re mad he’s not giving you viral optics? You say he’s protecting pedos? He’s the only president who’s declared war on them. Ask yourself: Why do these influencers really want Trump gone? Because they know what I know... Trump is taking down the network. And when he wins, they fall with it. 6½ months in, look what’s already happened. The same people who swore Trump would: -Start WW3 -Send troops into Iran -Crash the economy with tariffs -Destroy the dollar Were wrong. Every. Single. Time. And Trump, as always, was right. Demand results. Keep digging into Epstein. But don’t fall for the psyop of taking down Trump in the process. You can seek truth and support your President. Because in this war, one thing is certain: He’s the only one fighting it for real, not from a keyboard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Semper Fi, -ALPHA

🚨“This Post Will Destroy Every Fake MAGA Patriot and Intel-Asset Infiltrator on This Platform”🚨 Some of you demand play-by-play updates while President Trump dismantles the most powerful, satanic, and demonic cabal in human history, a cabal literally run by the agents of satan himself. You want Trump to livestream the battle plan to save humanity like it’s a reality show. You want him to post his moves in real-time… while the Cabal’s intelligence networks watch every keystroke. You want him to hand over the Super Bowl playbook for humanity to the very demons we’re fighting, because your feelings told you, you deserve it? NEWSFLASH: You don’t deserve the playbook in real time if you didn't sign up to deploy it. You deserve the results. You deserve a free country. You deserve food that’s not poisoned for profit. You deserve fair & free elections. You deserve justice. You deserve safety for your children. You deserve freedom from systemic slavery. But NO, you don’t deserve to be briefed mid-operation just so your dopamine fires while global operations hang in the balance. That’s not how war works. That’s not how victory is secured. REAL warriors are out there right now, risking their lives in the shadows. They’re undercover in cartel strongholds, infiltrating trafficking rings, and snatching children out of hellholes while you sit comfortably behind a keyboard virtue signaling, pretending you've earned a voice in this fight. You have a voice in the fight, you didn't earn it. Other men who sacrificed their lives earned it - not you. You’ve never risked your life for this country. You’ve never stared evil in the face with nothing but courage and training to back you up. You’ve never kicked in doors to rescue kids while praying you’d make it home alive. The only thing you’re entitled to is results, period. You don’t get to cry because it’s not unfolding how you want, or at the speed your emotions demand. You have no experience, No training, and no clue how to dismantle the most powerful satanic empire in human history. How do I know? Because many of you exposed yourself with this gem: “Just let the whole system crash if that’s what it takes, we can handle the truth.” NEWS FLASH #2: That’s not strategy, that’s the emotional outburst of a man without a plan, fishing for likes and cheers. Here’s the reality: Most of America can’t handle the truth! Get mad, argue - it is the truth. This is not the AMERICA of 1776. This is the AMERICA of soft men being critical of REAL warriors. COVID was the test. They wore masks that didn’t protect them. They took jabs that killed or maimed them, years after knowing they were deadly. To keep a job. They lined their newborns up for Remdesivir and stayed silent. And you? You posted. You tweeted. You virtue signaled. You didn’t stop it. Now you want people to believe you’ll lead the charge when the system collapses? Spare me the ego. Unlike you, I’ve gone to war with evil. Gunfights. Fist fights. Door breaching as the first man in the stack. This is what I know from that life: This is not a movie. Good does NOT automatically rise from the ashes of collapse. Evil does. Why? Because evil is organized. Because good is slow to mobilize. Because most of humanity is inherently good and evil exploits that every single time. You think collapse equals freedom? It equals open season on the innocent, especially the children. Need proof? Why do you think the Deep State keeps pushing civil war, riots and millions of illegals into the United States? Because they know what you don’t: chaos favors evil. Meanwhile, President Trump is playing on a global battlefield, orchestrating peace, securing sovereignty, and threading the needle of maximum justice with minimum loss of life, lives will perish, innocent will perish-this is what happens in WAR you are not built to handle. And you think your angry thread dictated his moves? LOLOLOL. Trump created the environment that gave you the freedom to rant in the first place. He baited your rant for his plan. Expose. Unite. Momentum. He’s being hunted by the most powerful intelligence apparatus on Earth and you’re over here thinking your social media meltdown matters? Here’s the truth: Some of you are knowingly weaponizing this environment to turn the weak-minded against the President. You’re not fighting evil. You’re feeding it. You're a part of it. Let’s talk about Epstein. Some of you parroting that Trump called Epstein’s crimes a “hoax” are either: • Foolish • Unresearched • Or operatives trying to sabotage support for President Trump. Why? Because in the words of Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Epstein’s victims: “The only thing I can say about President Trump is that he was the only person who picked up the phone, said ‘let’s talk,’ and gave me all the time I needed. He had good information that helped us. He gave no indication of involvement in anything untoward.” While Clinton was flying the Lolita Express 26 times to the island and others were lawyering up, Trump helped the victims. He’s not confused about Epstein, he knows exactly who Epstein was/is. And more importantly, he knows what Epstein was a front for. Trump’s calling out the investigation as the hoax, the fake justice, the planted evidence, the destroyed files, the perjured agents, and the two-tiered system designed to protect the guilty and frame the innocent. Some of you scream “Don’t trust the government!” in one breath and demand the government give you the truth about Epstein in the next. You want the the investigation from the DOJ you say is against you? That’s not intelligence. That’s next-level ReTard. President Trump is running the largest RICO investigation in American history, with 450,000+ sealed indictments and counting. You know what everyone is suddenly talking about again? Jeffrey Epstein. Even the left. Even Mockingbird media. Even the controlled ops. Why? Because Trump understands the power of momentum. He understands the power of common enemies. He understands he must unify America without endless wars and catastrophes... So what did he do? He exposed to America a common enemy Epstein. A face for evil. A symbol of systemic betrayal. And a thread that connects the entire Cabal. This is not a social media platform anymore. This is the trench warfare of the Information Age. You’re watching 5GW in real time and mistaking it for campaign season and policies. Trump rescued over 10,000 missing children. Congress just raised that number to 35,000 (pending confirmation from Tom Homan). He’s overseen the arrest of over 1,000 pedophile traffickers and that’s in under 6 1/2 months. Yet many of you “child-first” influencers never report it, or worse...mock it. Why? Because you’re not in this for the children. You’re in this for influence. And some of you are leveraged by the very establishment Trump is destroying. Let’s be clear: I want Hillary Clinton and the rest indicted. We all do. But Hillary isn’t the one snatching kids from the streets. She’s the customer. Trump is hunting the foot soldiers. He’s dismantling the system. And you’re mad he’s not giving you viral optics? You say he’s protecting pedos? He’s the only president who’s declared war on them. Ask yourself: Why do these influencers really want Trump gone? Because they know what I know... Trump is taking down the network. And when he wins, they fall with it. 6½ months in, look what’s already happened. The same people who swore Trump would: -Start WW3 -Send troops into Iran -Crash the economy with tariffs -Destroy the dollar Were wrong. Every. Single. Time. And Trump, as always, was right. Demand results. Keep digging into Epstein. But don’t fall for the psyop of taking down Trump in the process. You can seek truth and support your President. Because in this war, one thing is certain: He’s the only one fighting it for real, not from a keyboard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Semper Fi, -ALPHA

ALPHAWARRIOR

189,341 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

MrBeast: "If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers in six months" "Your videos suck. You think your videos are good, but they suck. They just do. And the sooner you learn how to make good, great videos that people actually want to watch, the sooner you'll get views." MrBeast shares his early reality: "When I was 14, I thought my videos were the best in the world. They weren't, they were terrible. To be successful, you kind of have to have a little bit of that ego where you think your content's great. But also, if you have sub-1,000 subscribers, there's a good probability your videos just suck. They just do." He explains what to do about it: "You need to make hundreds of videos. Improve something every time. And just get to the point where they don't suck. When you make good content, you'll blow up. It's not the algorithm. It's not anything. Most people who are in my position just made terrible videos, and that's okay. Because you've got to make a bunch of videos and improve over time to be great." MrBeast uses an analogy: "You don't just pick up a baseball and become an MLB-level athlete within a year. It takes many, many, many years. YouTube's kind of the same way." On analysis paralysis: "A lot of people get analysis paralysis. They'll sit there and plan their first video for three months. If you have zero videos on your channel, your first video is not gonna get views. Period. Your first 10 are not gonna get views. I can very confidently say that. So stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on end. Just get to work and start uploading." He gives the formula: "All you need to do is make 100 videos and improve something every time. Do that, and then on your 101st video, we'll start talking. Maybe you can get some views. But your first 100 are gonna suck." How to improve something each time: "The second video: put more effort into the script. The third one: learn a new editing trick. The fourth one: figure out a way to have better inflections in your voice. The fifth one: study a new thumbnail tip and implement it. The sixth one: figure out a new title. There's infinite ways. The coloring, the frame rate, the editing, the filming, the production, the jokes, the pacing, every little thing can be improved. There's literally no such thing as a perfect video." On the algorithm: "What YouTube wants is for people to click on a video and watch it. That's what it is at its core. By studying the algorithm, you'll learn that you're more studying human psychology. What do humans want to watch?" MrBeast shares a simple reframe: "Anytime you say the word 'algorithm,' just replace it with 'audience' and it works perfectly. 'The algorithm didn't like that video?' No, the audience didn't like that video. Literally, that's it. If people are clicking and watching, it gets promoted more. The algorithm just reflects what the people want." On titles: "Short, simple, and just so freaking interesting that you have to click. If someone reads it, are they like, do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's gonna haunt them if they don't click?" He adds nuance: "Keep it below 50 characters. Above 50 characters, on certain devices it goes dot, dot, dot, and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on." MrBeast shares the extremity principle: "The more extreme the opinion, typically the higher the click-through rate. 'Fiji water sucks', that'd do fine. But 'Fiji water is the worst water I've ever drank in my life', way more extreme, would do way better. But then you have to deliver. The more extreme you are, the more extreme you have to be in the video." On the first 5 seconds: "Before you film a video, what is the thumbnail? What is the title? Then what's the first 5 seconds? Then what's the first 30 seconds?" He explains why autoplay changed everything: "On YouTube now, videos automatically play. So many people don't even see the thumbnail because it autoplays so quickly. The thumbnail is irrelevant for them. I have to visually convince you to click on the video in the first 5 seconds. Before, the hook was important because you had to convince people to watch. Now you have to convince people to click and watch at the same time, with the first 5 seconds." On matching expectations: "Your title and thumbnail set expectations. At the very beginning of the video, to minimize drop-off, you want to assure them that those expectations are being met. If you click on a video called 'Tether is a scam' and at the very beginning, he starts talking about literally anything else, you're like, 'Oh, this is BS. This isn't what I clicked on.' But if at the very start you go, 'Tether is a scam and I'm gonna teach you why,' then it's like, okay, you match the expectations. Then you want to exceed them." He emphasizes the importance: "The thing people undervalue the most is literally the first 10 seconds of the video. That 15% difference in viewership between losing 35% of viewers in the first 30 seconds versus losing 20%, that really does make the difference between 2 million views and 10 million views. You just had a more strategic intro that hooked them." On removing dull moments: "You basically want to remove every dull moment. Find the 10 most critical people you know, make them watch the video, and just roast it. If I talk to a camera for 10 seconds without a cut, a lot of people will get bored. Having a B-cam and C-cam three seconds in, cutting to a different angle, now it's more interesting even though it's essentially the same thing." On keeping viewers watching: "Give them why they clicked. Tell them why they should watch. Then just stick on topic. That right there isn't even super complex, but I would already put you in the upper echelon of YouTube. A lot of people drag it out. It's like, 'I'm going to eat $100 ice cream, but first...' and then it's them birthday shopping for their mom. That's not why I came here." On quality over quantity: "It's much easier to get 5 million views on one video than 50,000 views on 100 videos. A lot of small YouTubers just post videos that aren't bad but aren't great, and none of them ever pop off, so they never get an audience. It might be better to upload half or a third or even a fifth of the videos, but make the videos you upload so freaking good that the algorithm has to promote it." He warns against the consistency trap: "When you set a consistent schedule and you're constantly having to upload videos that aren't as good as you'd like because you gotta hit 'Oh, this Monday I said I'd upload', that's a dangerous trap. The viewers notice the quality isn't as good and it makes them less likely to watch. I think it hurts your longevity." On the real metric that matters: "A big thing that everyone underestimates, what was your experience with your last video? If people loved the last video of yours that they watched, they're more likely to watch your next one. When people watch your video, you don't want them to go, 'Okay, that was good, but that's enough of you for the day.' What you want is them to go, 'Holy crap, that was crazy! Oh my god, what's that?' and they watch 10 videos. That's how you get high view counts. People watch 10 videos, not one." On thumbnails: "You want it to be simple. When they're scrolling, you want them to instantly understand what you're conveying and feel some type of emotion. Make it so interesting, or spike their curiosity so much, that if they don't click it, they'll wonder before they go to bed what happened?" He gives an example: "If you uploaded 'I rode a skateboard with 1,000 other people on it', and people are falling off the side, it's about to go off a big ramp if you don't click that, you're gonna be so curious. Later in the day, when you're daydreaming, you'll think, 'What happened to those 1,000 people on that skateboard?' That's the mindset you should have when making thumbnails." On knowledge being the only barrier: "It's all knowledge. It really is. I could start a new channel tomorrow without using my face or my voice, without ever promoting it, and in six months have 20 million subscribers. I just could. It's purely knowledge. If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers no matter where you are right now within six months." He addresses the skeptics: "90% of the people watching don't agree with that. Everyone has excuses. 'Nah, YouTube just doesn't work like that, Jimmy.' But I mentor a lot of people. I see it all the time. It is possible. It is simply knowledge. The second you accept that it is knowledge and you start your journey of learning figuring out what makes a good video, what does my audience want, how can I elevate and then you take that knowledge and just assume 'I will never understand what the perfect video is' and every single day be devoted to learning and improving as much as possible there you go." On money not being the barrier: "There are tons of viral ideas that don't require money. It does not require money to go viral. One of my most-viewed videos was spending 24 hours in a desert, we just grabbed a tent and some stuff and went to the desert. It got 60-70 million views. People say, 'I could be MrBeast if I had money.' A, I didn't start off with money; I was poor, I had no money. It took me seven years just to buy a camera saving up from YouTube. And B, some of our most-viewed videos literally anyone can do." On why no one will outwork him: "No one's ever gonna do what I do better than me. It's just not humanly possible. I reinvest every penny I make. I work every hour I'm awake. I devote every atom in my brain to solving this. I hire the best people on the planet. I've been doing this for 14 years. And I think in decades, not years. I'm gonna be doing this for another 20-30 years. If I thought someone was doing better than me, I'd just start sleeping less so I could work even more." But he doesn't recommend it: "I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. My personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible. That is why I exist on this planet. And I don't recommend it. You should have work-life balance. You should not devote your entire life to this one thing. I have a mental breakdown every other week because I push myself so hard. I don't recommend it." The only question that matters: "Subscribers don't matter. Views don't matter. I mean, they do. But everything you want as a creator comes from making the best videos possible and thumbnails. The video part's the hard part. Ask: 'How can I make my videos better?' Do that every single day for years. And then you'll probably get views."

MrBeast: "If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers in six months" "Your videos suck. You think your videos are good, but they suck. They just do. And the sooner you learn how to make good, great videos that people actually want to watch, the sooner you'll get views." MrBeast shares his early reality: "When I was 14, I thought my videos were the best in the world. They weren't, they were terrible. To be successful, you kind of have to have a little bit of that ego where you think your content's great. But also, if you have sub-1,000 subscribers, there's a good probability your videos just suck. They just do." He explains what to do about it: "You need to make hundreds of videos. Improve something every time. And just get to the point where they don't suck. When you make good content, you'll blow up. It's not the algorithm. It's not anything. Most people who are in my position just made terrible videos, and that's okay. Because you've got to make a bunch of videos and improve over time to be great." MrBeast uses an analogy: "You don't just pick up a baseball and become an MLB-level athlete within a year. It takes many, many, many years. YouTube's kind of the same way." On analysis paralysis: "A lot of people get analysis paralysis. They'll sit there and plan their first video for three months. If you have zero videos on your channel, your first video is not gonna get views. Period. Your first 10 are not gonna get views. I can very confidently say that. So stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on end. Just get to work and start uploading." He gives the formula: "All you need to do is make 100 videos and improve something every time. Do that, and then on your 101st video, we'll start talking. Maybe you can get some views. But your first 100 are gonna suck." How to improve something each time: "The second video: put more effort into the script. The third one: learn a new editing trick. The fourth one: figure out a way to have better inflections in your voice. The fifth one: study a new thumbnail tip and implement it. The sixth one: figure out a new title. There's infinite ways. The coloring, the frame rate, the editing, the filming, the production, the jokes, the pacing, every little thing can be improved. There's literally no such thing as a perfect video." On the algorithm: "What YouTube wants is for people to click on a video and watch it. That's what it is at its core. By studying the algorithm, you'll learn that you're more studying human psychology. What do humans want to watch?" MrBeast shares a simple reframe: "Anytime you say the word 'algorithm,' just replace it with 'audience' and it works perfectly. 'The algorithm didn't like that video?' No, the audience didn't like that video. Literally, that's it. If people are clicking and watching, it gets promoted more. The algorithm just reflects what the people want." On titles: "Short, simple, and just so freaking interesting that you have to click. If someone reads it, are they like, do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's gonna haunt them if they don't click?" He adds nuance: "Keep it below 50 characters. Above 50 characters, on certain devices it goes dot, dot, dot, and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on." MrBeast shares the extremity principle: "The more extreme the opinion, typically the higher the click-through rate. 'Fiji water sucks', that'd do fine. But 'Fiji water is the worst water I've ever drank in my life', way more extreme, would do way better. But then you have to deliver. The more extreme you are, the more extreme you have to be in the video." On the first 5 seconds: "Before you film a video, what is the thumbnail? What is the title? Then what's the first 5 seconds? Then what's the first 30 seconds?" He explains why autoplay changed everything: "On YouTube now, videos automatically play. So many people don't even see the thumbnail because it autoplays so quickly. The thumbnail is irrelevant for them. I have to visually convince you to click on the video in the first 5 seconds. Before, the hook was important because you had to convince people to watch. Now you have to convince people to click and watch at the same time, with the first 5 seconds." On matching expectations: "Your title and thumbnail set expectations. At the very beginning of the video, to minimize drop-off, you want to assure them that those expectations are being met. If you click on a video called 'Tether is a scam' and at the very beginning, he starts talking about literally anything else, you're like, 'Oh, this is BS. This isn't what I clicked on.' But if at the very start you go, 'Tether is a scam and I'm gonna teach you why,' then it's like, okay, you match the expectations. Then you want to exceed them." He emphasizes the importance: "The thing people undervalue the most is literally the first 10 seconds of the video. That 15% difference in viewership between losing 35% of viewers in the first 30 seconds versus losing 20%, that really does make the difference between 2 million views and 10 million views. You just had a more strategic intro that hooked them." On removing dull moments: "You basically want to remove every dull moment. Find the 10 most critical people you know, make them watch the video, and just roast it. If I talk to a camera for 10 seconds without a cut, a lot of people will get bored. Having a B-cam and C-cam three seconds in, cutting to a different angle, now it's more interesting even though it's essentially the same thing." On keeping viewers watching: "Give them why they clicked. Tell them why they should watch. Then just stick on topic. That right there isn't even super complex, but I would already put you in the upper echelon of YouTube. A lot of people drag it out. It's like, 'I'm going to eat $100 ice cream, but first...' and then it's them birthday shopping for their mom. That's not why I came here." On quality over quantity: "It's much easier to get 5 million views on one video than 50,000 views on 100 videos. A lot of small YouTubers just post videos that aren't bad but aren't great, and none of them ever pop off, so they never get an audience. It might be better to upload half or a third or even a fifth of the videos, but make the videos you upload so freaking good that the algorithm has to promote it." He warns against the consistency trap: "When you set a consistent schedule and you're constantly having to upload videos that aren't as good as you'd like because you gotta hit 'Oh, this Monday I said I'd upload', that's a dangerous trap. The viewers notice the quality isn't as good and it makes them less likely to watch. I think it hurts your longevity." On the real metric that matters: "A big thing that everyone underestimates, what was your experience with your last video? If people loved the last video of yours that they watched, they're more likely to watch your next one. When people watch your video, you don't want them to go, 'Okay, that was good, but that's enough of you for the day.' What you want is them to go, 'Holy crap, that was crazy! Oh my god, what's that?' and they watch 10 videos. That's how you get high view counts. People watch 10 videos, not one." On thumbnails: "You want it to be simple. When they're scrolling, you want them to instantly understand what you're conveying and feel some type of emotion. Make it so interesting, or spike their curiosity so much, that if they don't click it, they'll wonder before they go to bed what happened?" He gives an example: "If you uploaded 'I rode a skateboard with 1,000 other people on it', and people are falling off the side, it's about to go off a big ramp if you don't click that, you're gonna be so curious. Later in the day, when you're daydreaming, you'll think, 'What happened to those 1,000 people on that skateboard?' That's the mindset you should have when making thumbnails." On knowledge being the only barrier: "It's all knowledge. It really is. I could start a new channel tomorrow without using my face or my voice, without ever promoting it, and in six months have 20 million subscribers. I just could. It's purely knowledge. If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers no matter where you are right now within six months." He addresses the skeptics: "90% of the people watching don't agree with that. Everyone has excuses. 'Nah, YouTube just doesn't work like that, Jimmy.' But I mentor a lot of people. I see it all the time. It is possible. It is simply knowledge. The second you accept that it is knowledge and you start your journey of learning figuring out what makes a good video, what does my audience want, how can I elevate and then you take that knowledge and just assume 'I will never understand what the perfect video is' and every single day be devoted to learning and improving as much as possible there you go." On money not being the barrier: "There are tons of viral ideas that don't require money. It does not require money to go viral. One of my most-viewed videos was spending 24 hours in a desert, we just grabbed a tent and some stuff and went to the desert. It got 60-70 million views. People say, 'I could be MrBeast if I had money.' A, I didn't start off with money; I was poor, I had no money. It took me seven years just to buy a camera saving up from YouTube. And B, some of our most-viewed videos literally anyone can do." On why no one will outwork him: "No one's ever gonna do what I do better than me. It's just not humanly possible. I reinvest every penny I make. I work every hour I'm awake. I devote every atom in my brain to solving this. I hire the best people on the planet. I've been doing this for 14 years. And I think in decades, not years. I'm gonna be doing this for another 20-30 years. If I thought someone was doing better than me, I'd just start sleeping less so I could work even more." But he doesn't recommend it: "I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. My personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible. That is why I exist on this planet. And I don't recommend it. You should have work-life balance. You should not devote your entire life to this one thing. I have a mental breakdown every other week because I push myself so hard. I don't recommend it." The only question that matters: "Subscribers don't matter. Views don't matter. I mean, they do. But everything you want as a creator comes from making the best videos possible and thumbnails. The video part's the hard part. Ask: 'How can I make my videos better?' Do that every single day for years. And then you'll probably get views."

Jaynit

125,085 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

Manu 𓃵𓃶

1,164,051 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

101,660 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

"You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.

"You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.

Sishuwa Sishuwa

30,736 görüntüleme • 18 gün 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

#TRANSCRIBED : (UNTOLD STORY) 𝗞𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗢 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗢𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗦 In an explosive and deeply personal address, Canadian investigative journalist Judi Rever took to the stage on the Oslo Freedom Forum to dismantle what she calls “one of the biggest lies of modern times”: the global myth of Rwandan President Paul Kagame as a hero. Rever, who has spent nearly 30 years documenting war crimes in the Great Lakes region, delivered an unflinching indictment of Kagame’s violent legacy, one she claims has been deliberately buried by world powers, global corporations, and the media. READ FULL TRANSCRIBED UNTOLD STORY BELOW. I'm here today to tell you about one of the biggest lies of modern times, and about someone who's been posing as a hero for a very long time, someone who's everywhere in plain sight from Davos to the Olympics, when in reality he's been taking you for a ride. That person is Rwanda's dictator, Paul Kagame. In 1996, as a young Canadian journalist, I landed a dream job in Paris covering the African continent. At the time, I was hungry for life experience and eager to learn. It turned out that Africa was the best teacher. Almost immediately into that job, I was drawn into covering the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. Paul Kagame, who had been hailed a hero for supposedly stopping the genocide against Tutsis committed by Hutus, was now launching a military invasion of Congo. Ostensibly, his objective was to root out Hutu genocidaires who were living in the refugee camps inside Congo's border. But for those of us who were paying attention, we realised the Paul Kagame's Tutsi troops were systematically massacring Hutu refugees in Congo. In May and June of 1997, I went to Congo, a country the size of Western Europe. With the help of Congolese aid workers, I went into the forest and what I saw was devastating. Hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians had been chased across the country and hunted down like animals by Paul Kagame's Tutsi forces. I met wounded, traumatised and starving women in the forest. I saw catatonic children emaciated and covered in scabies. The testimony that I collected from the forest of Congo and the pictures I took of mass graves convinced me the Paul Kagame's forces had committed a genocide against Congolese and Rwandan Hutus in 1996 and 97. The United Nations would later classify these crimes as a possible genocide. After Congo, I crossed over on foot into Rwanda and interviewed more Hutu survivors who had just come home. I essentially asked them two questions, the same questions I had asked Rwandans in Congo. Why did you flee Rwanda in the first place in 1994 and decide to stay in Congolese refugee camps, enduring brutal conditions instead of going home, where Paul Kagame had reportedly stopped the genocide in 1994, stopped the violence, and was restoring peace and prosperity to Rwanda? These Hutu survivors told me one after the other that in fact, Paul Kagame's Tutsi army had slaughtered Hutus during the genocide. Their relatives had been massacred. They were afraid of Kagame's army. They also told me that many Hutus who returned from Congo to Rwanda were disappearing. This was astounding to me. Remember, these were early days. I'd never heard these stories before, but I knew that I had to keep researching this story. These interviews were very dangerous to do inside Rwanda. But I realised that the official genocide narrative of one category of perpetrator, one category of victim, was a sham and Kagame was no saviour. I have since spent almost 30 years of my life investigating the crimes that Kagame's forces committed before, during, and after the genocide. I've interviewed hundreds of victims, witnesses, defectors from Kagame's own army, UN officials, and whistleblowers. And one of those whistleblowers leaked to me a confidential UN document which revealed that Kagame's Tutsi commandos actually slaughtered Tutsis during the genocide. These were false flags, staged operations. This evidence, and other types of evidence like this, completely disrupted the established doctrine of the Rwandan genocide. My research reveals that both Hutus and Tutsis were victims of genocide in 1994, and both groups were perpetrators. What's more, powerful insiders at the United Nations knew about these massive atrocities committed by Kagame's army and covered them up for years. I've asked myself, why is it that Kagame's record has been sanitised? Why has he gotten away with committing crimes over 3 decades, egregious crimes? And why has the United Nations granted him de facto immunity? The answer, I believe, lies in Congo, a country that is rich in strategic minerals that are essential for our global economy. Chances are that the cell phone you're using or the Tesla you're driving is made from Congolese minerals that have been laundered by Rwanda. One of the most trafficked and strategic minerals on the market today is tantalum. Tantalum metal is valuable because it can be extremely resistant to high temperatures. Tantalum components are able to store a tremendous amount of energy charge in a small space. Tantalum is used in rockets, satellites, missiles, smart cars, and smart cities. Canada and Australia have reserves of tantalum, but their tantalum is very expensive and they're not producing much of it. Brazil is an exporter and a producer of tantalum, but not in the quantities needed for the global economy. Congo has the richest grade of tantalum. It has the cheapest tantalum; it's the biggest producer. And Congo is Kagame's playground. Kagame and his international mafia launder vast quantities of tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Congo into Rwanda, onto Rwanda's Switzerland-like paved roads, and into the lucrative global supply chain. And when I examined this global supply chain in detail, I discovered that all the major suppliers to big tech and weapons companies source their tantalum in Rwanda. So what's happening is that Paul Kagame is ensuring a cheap, steady supply of strategic minerals that are needed for the global economy. And our thirst for technology is ensuring his criminal longevity. If there's one thing you take away from my talk today, it's that the technology that we're using is tied to Kagame's violence, and the laundered minerals themselves constitute criminal property. Anyone who acquires, possesses, uses or profits from that criminal property is laundering. So, we as consumers, when we purchase devices that contain that criminal property, we are engaging in laundering as well, whether we know it or not. Kagame is currently tightening his grip on Congo. His latest invasion is illegal and a violation of Congolese sovereignty. But unlike Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where the world rallied to condemn Vladimir Putin and sanction him, Kagame has gotten off scot-free, and he is still a rock star and treated so by global elites. We've seen football teams such as Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain continue to sign sponsorship deals with Rwanda. We've seen international sporting bodies such as FIFA and the NBA continue to do business with him. Imagine how Kagame's victims feel. I refuse to be part of this global criminal project. Lobbyists and governments can prop up his regime. Businesses can live the lie because they profit from it. The media can amplify his propaganda. And Kagame can impose his lies on people he controls. But he cannot control me. Paul Kagame, I know who you are, and I know what you've done. In fact, Paul Kagame's regime's crimes and his agents' campaign against me have actually emboldened me to continue this work. More than a decade ago, his agents threatened me and threatened my family. I kept going anyhow because the fear of dying galvanised me into finishing what I had started. In 2018, after my book was launched, I was a victim of smears. I was blacklisted, essentially, and labelled a genocide denier. Remember, I acknowledge that two genocides occurred in Rwanda, one against Tutsis and one against Hutus. I have not buried history with the Rwandan's help, I have unearthed it. None of what I've experienced has compared to what his regime has done to the Congolese and Rwandan people. The rebellions that Kagame has sponsored over 30 years have left more than 6,000,000 Congolese dead. These wars have eviscerated the Congolese nation. Rwandans, meanwhile, live in an open-air prison where history is state property. Any discussion of Hutu suffering is criminalised. Hutus in general, even Hutu children, are branded irredeemable perpetrators. Tutsi genocide survivors are persecuted and, at times, are killed. Kizito Mihigo was a beloved Tutsi genocide survivor and gospel singer who preached reconciliation and denounced crimes by Kagame's regime against Hutus and Tutsis. He was arrested and later found dead in custody. Aimable Kalasira, Yvone Idamange and Deo Mushayidi, all Tutsi genocide survivors who have denounced human rights violations in a country led by Paul Kagame. They have been arrested. They are languishing in jail and effectively silenced. We must break the silence. If you believe that all victims matter. If you believe in the truth, demand accountability. Demand that Paul Kagame once and for all be tried for the crimes he's committed over 3 decades. Demand he be tried in an international court. Demand that corporations stop buying strategic minerals from Rwanda where they are soaked in the blood of Congolese people. I am tied to Paul Kagame. He has made me who I am today. He has brought me here. We are all tied to Paul Kagame, but that doesn't mean we have to be his accomplices. We need to be accountable. We need to be responsible for our consumer choices and ensure that those choices are not fueling wars in Central Africa. I urge accountability, not only for the sake of Rwandans and Congolese, but for our collective integrity. Thank you by Judi Rever

#TRANSCRIBED : (UNTOLD STORY) 𝗞𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗢 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗢𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗦 In an explosive and deeply personal address, Canadian investigative journalist Judi Rever took to the stage on the Oslo Freedom Forum to dismantle what she calls “one of the biggest lies of modern times”: the global myth of Rwandan President Paul Kagame as a hero. Rever, who has spent nearly 30 years documenting war crimes in the Great Lakes region, delivered an unflinching indictment of Kagame’s violent legacy, one she claims has been deliberately buried by world powers, global corporations, and the media. READ FULL TRANSCRIBED UNTOLD STORY BELOW. I'm here today to tell you about one of the biggest lies of modern times, and about someone who's been posing as a hero for a very long time, someone who's everywhere in plain sight from Davos to the Olympics, when in reality he's been taking you for a ride. That person is Rwanda's dictator, Paul Kagame. In 1996, as a young Canadian journalist, I landed a dream job in Paris covering the African continent. At the time, I was hungry for life experience and eager to learn. It turned out that Africa was the best teacher. Almost immediately into that job, I was drawn into covering the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. Paul Kagame, who had been hailed a hero for supposedly stopping the genocide against Tutsis committed by Hutus, was now launching a military invasion of Congo. Ostensibly, his objective was to root out Hutu genocidaires who were living in the refugee camps inside Congo's border. But for those of us who were paying attention, we realised the Paul Kagame's Tutsi troops were systematically massacring Hutu refugees in Congo. In May and June of 1997, I went to Congo, a country the size of Western Europe. With the help of Congolese aid workers, I went into the forest and what I saw was devastating. Hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians had been chased across the country and hunted down like animals by Paul Kagame's Tutsi forces. I met wounded, traumatised and starving women in the forest. I saw catatonic children emaciated and covered in scabies. The testimony that I collected from the forest of Congo and the pictures I took of mass graves convinced me the Paul Kagame's forces had committed a genocide against Congolese and Rwandan Hutus in 1996 and 97. The United Nations would later classify these crimes as a possible genocide. After Congo, I crossed over on foot into Rwanda and interviewed more Hutu survivors who had just come home. I essentially asked them two questions, the same questions I had asked Rwandans in Congo. Why did you flee Rwanda in the first place in 1994 and decide to stay in Congolese refugee camps, enduring brutal conditions instead of going home, where Paul Kagame had reportedly stopped the genocide in 1994, stopped the violence, and was restoring peace and prosperity to Rwanda? These Hutu survivors told me one after the other that in fact, Paul Kagame's Tutsi army had slaughtered Hutus during the genocide. Their relatives had been massacred. They were afraid of Kagame's army. They also told me that many Hutus who returned from Congo to Rwanda were disappearing. This was astounding to me. Remember, these were early days. I'd never heard these stories before, but I knew that I had to keep researching this story. These interviews were very dangerous to do inside Rwanda. But I realised that the official genocide narrative of one category of perpetrator, one category of victim, was a sham and Kagame was no saviour. I have since spent almost 30 years of my life investigating the crimes that Kagame's forces committed before, during, and after the genocide. I've interviewed hundreds of victims, witnesses, defectors from Kagame's own army, UN officials, and whistleblowers. And one of those whistleblowers leaked to me a confidential UN document which revealed that Kagame's Tutsi commandos actually slaughtered Tutsis during the genocide. These were false flags, staged operations. This evidence, and other types of evidence like this, completely disrupted the established doctrine of the Rwandan genocide. My research reveals that both Hutus and Tutsis were victims of genocide in 1994, and both groups were perpetrators. What's more, powerful insiders at the United Nations knew about these massive atrocities committed by Kagame's army and covered them up for years. I've asked myself, why is it that Kagame's record has been sanitised? Why has he gotten away with committing crimes over 3 decades, egregious crimes? And why has the United Nations granted him de facto immunity? The answer, I believe, lies in Congo, a country that is rich in strategic minerals that are essential for our global economy. Chances are that the cell phone you're using or the Tesla you're driving is made from Congolese minerals that have been laundered by Rwanda. One of the most trafficked and strategic minerals on the market today is tantalum. Tantalum metal is valuable because it can be extremely resistant to high temperatures. Tantalum components are able to store a tremendous amount of energy charge in a small space. Tantalum is used in rockets, satellites, missiles, smart cars, and smart cities. Canada and Australia have reserves of tantalum, but their tantalum is very expensive and they're not producing much of it. Brazil is an exporter and a producer of tantalum, but not in the quantities needed for the global economy. Congo has the richest grade of tantalum. It has the cheapest tantalum; it's the biggest producer. And Congo is Kagame's playground. Kagame and his international mafia launder vast quantities of tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Congo into Rwanda, onto Rwanda's Switzerland-like paved roads, and into the lucrative global supply chain. And when I examined this global supply chain in detail, I discovered that all the major suppliers to big tech and weapons companies source their tantalum in Rwanda. So what's happening is that Paul Kagame is ensuring a cheap, steady supply of strategic minerals that are needed for the global economy. And our thirst for technology is ensuring his criminal longevity. If there's one thing you take away from my talk today, it's that the technology that we're using is tied to Kagame's violence, and the laundered minerals themselves constitute criminal property. Anyone who acquires, possesses, uses or profits from that criminal property is laundering. So, we as consumers, when we purchase devices that contain that criminal property, we are engaging in laundering as well, whether we know it or not. Kagame is currently tightening his grip on Congo. His latest invasion is illegal and a violation of Congolese sovereignty. But unlike Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where the world rallied to condemn Vladimir Putin and sanction him, Kagame has gotten off scot-free, and he is still a rock star and treated so by global elites. We've seen football teams such as Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain continue to sign sponsorship deals with Rwanda. We've seen international sporting bodies such as FIFA and the NBA continue to do business with him. Imagine how Kagame's victims feel. I refuse to be part of this global criminal project. Lobbyists and governments can prop up his regime. Businesses can live the lie because they profit from it. The media can amplify his propaganda. And Kagame can impose his lies on people he controls. But he cannot control me. Paul Kagame, I know who you are, and I know what you've done. In fact, Paul Kagame's regime's crimes and his agents' campaign against me have actually emboldened me to continue this work. More than a decade ago, his agents threatened me and threatened my family. I kept going anyhow because the fear of dying galvanised me into finishing what I had started. In 2018, after my book was launched, I was a victim of smears. I was blacklisted, essentially, and labelled a genocide denier. Remember, I acknowledge that two genocides occurred in Rwanda, one against Tutsis and one against Hutus. I have not buried history with the Rwandan's help, I have unearthed it. None of what I've experienced has compared to what his regime has done to the Congolese and Rwandan people. The rebellions that Kagame has sponsored over 30 years have left more than 6,000,000 Congolese dead. These wars have eviscerated the Congolese nation. Rwandans, meanwhile, live in an open-air prison where history is state property. Any discussion of Hutu suffering is criminalised. Hutus in general, even Hutu children, are branded irredeemable perpetrators. Tutsi genocide survivors are persecuted and, at times, are killed. Kizito Mihigo was a beloved Tutsi genocide survivor and gospel singer who preached reconciliation and denounced crimes by Kagame's regime against Hutus and Tutsis. He was arrested and later found dead in custody. Aimable Kalasira, Yvone Idamange and Deo Mushayidi, all Tutsi genocide survivors who have denounced human rights violations in a country led by Paul Kagame. They have been arrested. They are languishing in jail and effectively silenced. We must break the silence. If you believe that all victims matter. If you believe in the truth, demand accountability. Demand that Paul Kagame once and for all be tried for the crimes he's committed over 3 decades. Demand he be tried in an international court. Demand that corporations stop buying strategic minerals from Rwanda where they are soaked in the blood of Congolese people. I am tied to Paul Kagame. He has made me who I am today. He has brought me here. We are all tied to Paul Kagame, but that doesn't mean we have to be his accomplices. We need to be accountable. We need to be responsible for our consumer choices and ensure that those choices are not fueling wars in Central Africa. I urge accountability, not only for the sake of Rwandans and Congolese, but for our collective integrity. Thank you by Judi Rever

Xtrafrica

12,211 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

THE TRUTH ABOUT OCTOBER 7TH: Reports confirm that Netanyahu, the Mossad and the IDF deliberately allowed the October 7th attack by Hamas to take place. They knew one year in advance of the attack and did nothing to stop it. They deliberately stood down during the attack allowing many more innocent Israelis to be slaughtered in order to get domestic and international support for war in Gaza and Iran. HOW DID OCTOBER 7TH HAPPEN? On October 7th, Hamas was able to carry out its shocking terror attack against Israel, despite Israel’s intelligence, military and security apparatus commonly considered the best in the world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tweeted and quickly deleted a statement denying any foreknowledge of the October 7th attack. “Under no circumstances and at no stage was Prime Minister Netanyahu warned of war intentions on the part of Hamas" the tweet said, before it was promptly deleted. Why did Netanyahu’s team delete that tweet? Because in fact he did have intelligence that there would be an attack by Hamas and tried to hide this from the world. Foreign security services, Israeli security services and the Israeli public all knew that Hamas was planning a violent, cross-border incursion where they would attempt to over-run and attack the kibbutz communities in southern Israel and take prisoners back to Gaza. And they also knew when. But it happened anyway. Why? Ten days before the attack, and then again three days before the attack, Egypt intelligence officials passed “repeated warnings” to the highest levels of Israel’s government. In one of these warnings, Egypts premiere intelligence minister General Abbas Kamel personally called Netanyahu and warned that Hamas was about to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Unnamed Egyptian officials told YNET News that they were shocked by Netanyahu’s “indifference to the news.” But Israel didn’t have to trust or believe Egypt, because actually, most of the warnings of the October 7th attack came from Israeli civilians and the Israeli military itself. The civilians and soldiers who brought these emergency warnings to the military were ignored and in some cases, strangely enough, threatened with legal action. In 2022, the IDF, through confidential sources, or spies, in Gaza, actually obtained the detailed Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attack plans. Codenamed “Jericho Wall” by Israel, the excursion plan called for a barrage of rockets to begin the attack and for gunmen to pour into Israel en masse via para-gliders, on motorcycles and on foot and take hostages back into Gaza, all of which happened on October 7th. Hamas followed the blueprint that Israel already had with shocking precision. So Israel had the attack blueprints, but were they taken seriously by the IDF? Yes, the plans were diligently studied. A presentation on the planned attack was given to senior officers in the IDF’S Gaza division. The presentation concluded with this sentence: “This invasion constitutes the gravest threat that IDF forces are facing in the defense of Israel” So in response to this, did Israel’s security establishment beef up and enhance their surveillance of Hamas militants on the other side of the border? No, stunningly, they actually did the exact opposite. They decided to entirely stop monitoring Hamas’s handheld radio traffic. Because they saw it “as a waste of effort” even though during that same time in 2022, Israelis living in the kibbutz communities near the Gaza border, most of whom have some type of military training due to Israel’s mandatory IDF service laws, were, according to Israeli media, picking up clear evidence that Hamas was “practicing the breaching of the fence and conquering kibbutzim and seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.” Then, In April 2023, 6 months before the attack, again according to Israeli media, the IDF “restricted the ability” of Israelis living near the border “to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic.” In September 2023, less than a month before the attack, the head of the IDF’s “Devil’s Advocate” intelligence unit, which challenges prevailing narratives within Israel’s military, twice alerted senior decision-makers in both the army and political spheres about Hamas’ plans for a large-scale cross-border military operation. He reiterated these warnings in person at Intelligence Branch strategic assessment sessions on September 26th and 27th. Just days before the attack. So it was clear to everyone that Hamas wasn’t only planning to do something horrible, but it was also clear what that horrible and evil thing was. According to a female IDF soldier who spoke to Israel’s channel 12 news program, she was constantly trying to warn her superiors about the gravity of Hamas training exercises. She was threatened with legal action. “We were told that if we continue to harass on this issue, you will stand trial.” So, Egypt knew, the Israeli military knew, and the Israeli civilians knew. Yet, two days before October 7th, the Israeli military took two entire commando brigades, or around 100 soldiers, away from the the soon to be breached locations of the Gaza border and sent them to the other side of the country, to the West Bank village of Huwara despite no Hamas presence being in Huwara and despite there being giant Israeli dance parties taking place right along the same border fence where violent, escalating and obvious Hamas drills of breaching and kidnapping were taking place. According to Israeli media reports, Lt. Col. Sahar Fogel, an operations officer at the IDF’s Gaza Division, opposed the approval of the Nova Party based on the last minute nature of its event application and the intensifying Hamas drills at the border and because if something were to happen, more soldiers were on holiday. It was the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The Lt. Col. explained his opposition to the party’s approval to his superiors. He was instructed to allow the event. Israeli Newspaper Haaretz reported that other Gaza division officers privately “told of irregular conduct and pressure surrounding the approval of the party.” In February 2024, Elkana Federman, the head of security for the Nova festival gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 14 where he made a statement that hasn’t been reported on by any American media. “I had a guard at the festival who had served in the Re’im Division [near Gaza border], and a week before the festival he sent me a voice message, basically warning me, saying, ‘Elkana, something is going to happen over Sukkot. I just wanted to let you know, there are a lot of warnings, I passed the voice message on to local IDF officials and they told me everything was all right.” The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal. They have been likened to tragic events such as September 11th and the Holocaust, so it comes as a surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his Likud party have at times described the attacks as somewhat of a political gift. Nissim Vaturi, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the Knesset, referred to the attack as sort of gift from God because they are being used to justify the current ongoing war, stating: “We were meant to fight this war against Hamas, as is happening now, and luckily for us it came from the heavens.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel didn’t have domestic or international support to invade or destroy Gaza. He said the October 7th Hamas attack solved both of those problems for him, stating “We couldn’t get the domestic consensus to make a definitive solution to the problem of Hamas. That is, no one would agree across the Israeli public to go in and basically destroy Hamas, go throughout Gaza and destroy Hamas. We didn’t have the international consensus either; nobody would understand why we are doing it. Both conditions were created because of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.” Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this ghastly attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza? The evidence proves, yes. WHERE WAS THE IDF? During the October 7th attacks what did the Israeli military do? For hours they did nothing, it was a deliberate military stand down order. It's important to remember that Israel is just slightly bigger than the size of the state of New Jersey. But for some reason, once the Hamas attacks began, the time it took the Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive, fight and rescue Israelis at the different kibbutz communities and sites being attacked took anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20 hours. The New York Times has reported: “Thousands of soldiers were less than 40 minutes from the towns that were under attack.” A video that Israeli media obtained from an army helicopter, corroborated by Israeli survivors, prove that there were more than 500 Israeli soldiers directly outside of the Kibbutz entrance, fully armed, with Humvees and tanks but it took 10 hours for those soldiers to show up. Avital, a survivor of the Be’eri attack, described to Haaretz: “500 soldiers stood outside, with equipment and vehicles. I remember yelling at them, ‘We’re being slaughtered, come in, save us and no one said anything.” So why did it take so long for help to arrive? Haaretz reported: “At 7 A.M., the party organizers called Lt. Col. Elad Zandani, the man tasked with approving the festival and told him that terrorists were shooting the partygoers. He suggested that they fend for themselves. The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3 P.M., that’s an 8 hour response time for one of the most efficient, capable and well militarized security forces in the world operating in a country the size of New Jersey with their Gaza division only a few miles away. And what makes this even more strange? Around 4 hours into the Hamas assault, at 10:46AM, Israel was already launching operations and bombing targets inside of Gaza. So, if Israel could begin an offensive attack into Gaza within 4 hours, why did it take more than 6 hours and in most cases more than 10 hours and even 20 hours in some cases to mobilize inside of their own country to stop the ongoing attack and to defend the lives of their own people? The New York Times quoted Ben Zion, an Israeli military reservist who spoke to Israeli media. He said his unit voluntarily left central Israel in a convoy at 1:30PM, they got together and left for the south on their own. He expected to see the roads packed with soldiers and equipment and armored vehicles heading south. “The roads were empty!” he recalled in an interview. Roughly seven hours into the fighting, he turned to the reservist next to him and asked: “Where’s the IDF?” The brutal and deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th is so central to justifying Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza that Israel is actually outlawing questioning the October 7th government narrative. Israelis who spread information counter to the October 7th government narrative, which the Israeli Knesset calls “falsehoods and propaganda” could face up to 5 years in prison. Between the abundance of concrete evidence that suggests Israeli military allowed October 7th to happen by ignoring dozens of reliable and specific warnings, threatening soldiers with legal actions who tried to warn their military superiors and taking troops away from the area of the Gaza border that was attacked and now evidence that suggests there was some type of military stand down order in place on October 7th, it is important to ask, what was October 7th and what kind of war is the United States supporting? WHAT IS THE HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE? Images and videos of burnt cars, blacked and charred bodies and incinerated homes in southern Israel were plastered on every phone screen and television after the October 7th Hamas attack. The images and videos were used by the Israeli government to justify the military’s heavy handed tactics in their ongoing war against Hamas, But were all the images and videos actually the result of the Hamas attack? Innocent Israeli civilians were brutally killed by Hamas on October 7th, but there is evidence that proves the IDF killed their own Israeli citizens in what is known as the Hannibal Directive. To understand what the Israeli military did to their own civilians on October 7th, you have to understand the political aspirations of Hamas and what the goal of taking hostages is, it is political leverage. There are over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. 3,000 of whom haven’t been to trial or charged with a crime. When militant groups manage to capture Israeli civilians or soldiers it gives them leverage to force a prisoner swap and get some of their people out of Israeli prison. For example, in 1986, Hamas managed to kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. They demanded 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in return for these soldiers. After this, the military drafted a secret field order to prevent future kidnappings. It was called the "Hannibal Directive." The directive gets its name from the Carthaginian general who chose to poison himself rather than allow himself to be captured alive by the romans. In 2003, strangely enough on October 7th 2003, three Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and brought into Lebanon. Following the activation of the Hannibal Directive, IDF attack helicopters fired indiscriminately on 26 vehicles thus ensuring the death of their own soldiers and therefore robbing Lebanese militants of the ability to demand Israel make concessions. The Last known application of the Hannibal Directive was in 2014. In Rafah. Hamas fighters managed to capture an Israeli soldier, Lt. Hadar Goldin. Instead of allowing the lieutenant to be used as leverage by Hamas, the military killed him. Dropping bombs, missiles and shells on the area he was being held, killing the soldier and also over 100 Palestinian civilians. The scale of the Hannibal Directive on October 7th was entirely different from those of the past. A retired Israeli air force general, Nof Erez, described it during a podcast with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper saying “The Hannibal Directive was apparently applied at a certain stage, because at the moment they understand there is a kidnapping, they immediately say, ‘Guys, this is Hannibal.’ But the Hannibal we trained for all of the last twenty years, is for a vehicle we know at what point of the fence it enters, on what side it drives, and maybe even on which road it drives. This was a Mass Hannibal.” We know the Hannibal Directive means to kill your own, so what does “mass Hannibal” mean? A large mainstream Israeli media outlet reported: “In the week after Black Shabbat, October 7th, soldiers of elite units, at the initiative of the Southern Command, checked about 70 vehicles that remained in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by a combat helicopter, an anti-tank missile or a tank, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” 70 vehicles and in some cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. These are Israelis killed by Israel. Again, only reported on in the Israeli media. Tuval Escapa, is a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri. He set up a hotline so kibbutz residents could communicate with the Israeli army. He told Haaretz that “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions, including shelling houses on their occupants” in order to eliminate would-be hostages as well the terrorists. They shelled entire houses. Do we hear this in the American mainstream media? That the Israeli military targeted and destroyed over 70 cars with hellfire missiles that were filled with Israelis and that they decimated entire Israeli homes with tank shells? A report in Haaretz on October 20th notes that the Israeli military also carried out an airstrike on their own military base, the Erez crossing. That base was filled with Israeli Civil Administration officers and soldiers at the time. An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat gave an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli hostages during gun battles with Hamas militants. IDF General Barak Hiram, prevented hundreds of troops from entering Kibbutz Be’eri for hours on October 7th, when he finally allowed the IDF to go in, he ordered tanks to fire on multiple homes. The tank shells killed at least 12 Israeli hostages and 3 children. Recently the UN published an investigation confirming several of these facts, namely, that the IDF had in fact activated the Hannibal Directive on October 7th stating “The Commission is aware of allegations that Israeli Special Forces used the “Hannibal Directive” to prevent the capture of Israeli civilians and their transfer to Gaza, even at the cost of killing them" The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive. The Israeli military, Israeli civilians and the United Nations all admit to the IDF purposely killing their own on October 7th. How many? It’s hard to know the exact number, but the imagery of charred bodies and incinerated cars and homes are still being used to this day to manufacture consent and support for Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip, where more than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 innocent children. ISRAEL'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAMAS: Israel and Netanyahu helped funnel over $1 Billion dollars to Hamas in order to keep Palestine from being recognized as a State. It was Netanyahu and Israel who helped create Hamas thinking that they could control them and would be able to use Hamas as an excuse for their continued military operations and occupation in Gaza. ISRAEL'S SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The front lines of the war between Israel and Hamas are expanding and moving beyond Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis intensified their involvement, going from simply attacking Israeli bound cargo ships to now navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and managed to strike inside Tel Aviv causing a massive explosions. In addition to their ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has attacked or been attacked by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to promise Israel unconditional and limitless support. But has anyone even asked if this support is LEGAL? According to the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments of the Armed Foreign Assistance Act, which is now a part of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States cannot give foreign aid, whether that’s economic or military, to any nuclear armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, but the United States gives billions of dollars every year to Israel and according to all international arms organizations, Israel has anywhere from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads and Israel has not signed the NPT. So how does this legally happen? The United States and Israel simply pretend Israel does not have nuclear weapons, literally, that’s what’s done. It is called “Nuclear Ambiguity.” This nuclear ambiguity, which allows Israel to continue to receive billions from the U.S. and also operate and maintain their nuclear arsenal with absolutely no international oversight and zero regulation, is maintained and preserved through the threat of force. Due to a previously Top Secret gag order, all U.S. government agency employees and contractors are forbidden from discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Even insinuating or mentioning information that’s already in the public domain is forbidden for all federal employees and contractors. It sounds hard to believe but let’s give an example: James Doyle used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a nuclear security specialist. He violated this gag order. Doyle wrote an academic article arguing that Nuclear weapons do not do a good job at deterring countries from attacking one another, he wrote: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking British territory in 1982 or Iraq from attacking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.” A clear reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. Doyle’s security clearance was promptly withdrawn, his home was raided, his computers were seized and he was fired from the Department of Energy. So apparently that’s how it works. In 2018, The New Yorker published a stunning report in which they discuss another way Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is enforced: secret presidential letters. According to former U.S. officials and former Israeli officials, every recent US administration since Clinton in 1993 has performed the same ritual as it came into office. They all agreed to undermine U.S. law by signing secret letters, brought to them by hand by their Israeli counterparts stipulating that they’ll never acknowledge what everyone knows: that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons. The National Archives is currently refusing to release the letters, arguing that even confirming their existence would violate the secrecy pact. So there’s a gag order that stops all federal employees and contractors from simply acknowledging Israel’s nuclear weapons and U.S. presidents sign secret letters promising not to acknowledge or pressure Israel to do anything relating to their proliferation status. That means asking questions like these are entirely off limits enforced by the threat of government violence or law fare. But all of this information leads to a series of questions: Where does Israel dispose of the toxic waste its program generates? Are Israel’s nuclear weapons ever used to coerce the U.S. into making adverse policy decisions? How about our allies? Besides apartheid South Africa, has Israel offered any of its nuclear weapons for sale to other foreign countries? To U.S. adversaries? Has Israel mounted nuclear weapons onto its German supplied Dolphin class submarines? Or their American supplied F-35 jets? No questions are allowed and what is the cost, the dollar amount, for Americans, of this “nuclear ambiguity” policy? To be exact, almost $240 billion dollars of military and economic aid has gone from the U.S. taxpayer since the passing of the Symington and Glenn Amendments. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. And none of that quarter of a trillion dollars should have been allowed under U.S. law. That’s the price of keeping Israel’s secret. A quarter trillion and yet where is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international nuclear inspectors? The same ones who monitor every other nuclear armed country in the world? DOES ISRAEL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS? Before the war, Israel’s Christian minority were already being targeted with dispossession and violence. In Jerusalem’s Old City, narrow streets line the ancient neighborhood and Jewish Israeli civilians spitting on and attacking Christian clergy members is commonplace in Israel. Evidence of this shows a video from a few days before October 7th of Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem carrying a cross while a group of Orthodox Jewish Israelis many of them children walk by and spit at the Christians. It’s become mainstream to believe Christians don’t belong in Israel and only Jewish people do. A few years ago, the mission, the Virgin Mary’s place of death, was attacked and vandalized by Israelis. The graffiti on the ancient walls read “Death to heretical Christians, the enemies of Israel,” and “May his name and memory be obliterated,” in reference to Jesus. According to Haaretz, at a Jewish school, the leader of an anti-assimilation group Bentzi Gopstien told students that it’s quote “mitzvah” or a “good deed” to burn and destroy Christian churches. Should Americans, especially Christian Americans be allowing billions of their tax dollars to be used to ethnically cleanse, attack and bomb Holy sites and Christian civilians? What has happened since Israel has launched its war against Hamas? Israel has displaced 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, 80% of the buildings and homes have been reduced to rubble, at least 45,000 Palestinians have been killed with 50% being women and children. In America, we’re told we should prioritize sending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over dealing with our own issues here at home because Israel needs to be able defend itself. Well, it seems like what initially appeared as a defensive war, is appearing more like an offensive war with the expansionist goal of the permanent military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this terrible attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza, a genocide justified by an attack that Israel could have stopped had they wanted to.

THE TRUTH ABOUT OCTOBER 7TH: Reports confirm that Netanyahu, the Mossad and the IDF deliberately allowed the October 7th attack by Hamas to take place. They knew one year in advance of the attack and did nothing to stop it. They deliberately stood down during the attack allowing many more innocent Israelis to be slaughtered in order to get domestic and international support for war in Gaza and Iran. HOW DID OCTOBER 7TH HAPPEN? On October 7th, Hamas was able to carry out its shocking terror attack against Israel, despite Israel’s intelligence, military and security apparatus commonly considered the best in the world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tweeted and quickly deleted a statement denying any foreknowledge of the October 7th attack. “Under no circumstances and at no stage was Prime Minister Netanyahu warned of war intentions on the part of Hamas" the tweet said, before it was promptly deleted. Why did Netanyahu’s team delete that tweet? Because in fact he did have intelligence that there would be an attack by Hamas and tried to hide this from the world. Foreign security services, Israeli security services and the Israeli public all knew that Hamas was planning a violent, cross-border incursion where they would attempt to over-run and attack the kibbutz communities in southern Israel and take prisoners back to Gaza. And they also knew when. But it happened anyway. Why? Ten days before the attack, and then again three days before the attack, Egypt intelligence officials passed “repeated warnings” to the highest levels of Israel’s government. In one of these warnings, Egypts premiere intelligence minister General Abbas Kamel personally called Netanyahu and warned that Hamas was about to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Unnamed Egyptian officials told YNET News that they were shocked by Netanyahu’s “indifference to the news.” But Israel didn’t have to trust or believe Egypt, because actually, most of the warnings of the October 7th attack came from Israeli civilians and the Israeli military itself. The civilians and soldiers who brought these emergency warnings to the military were ignored and in some cases, strangely enough, threatened with legal action. In 2022, the IDF, through confidential sources, or spies, in Gaza, actually obtained the detailed Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attack plans. Codenamed “Jericho Wall” by Israel, the excursion plan called for a barrage of rockets to begin the attack and for gunmen to pour into Israel en masse via para-gliders, on motorcycles and on foot and take hostages back into Gaza, all of which happened on October 7th. Hamas followed the blueprint that Israel already had with shocking precision. So Israel had the attack blueprints, but were they taken seriously by the IDF? Yes, the plans were diligently studied. A presentation on the planned attack was given to senior officers in the IDF’S Gaza division. The presentation concluded with this sentence: “This invasion constitutes the gravest threat that IDF forces are facing in the defense of Israel” So in response to this, did Israel’s security establishment beef up and enhance their surveillance of Hamas militants on the other side of the border? No, stunningly, they actually did the exact opposite. They decided to entirely stop monitoring Hamas’s handheld radio traffic. Because they saw it “as a waste of effort” even though during that same time in 2022, Israelis living in the kibbutz communities near the Gaza border, most of whom have some type of military training due to Israel’s mandatory IDF service laws, were, according to Israeli media, picking up clear evidence that Hamas was “practicing the breaching of the fence and conquering kibbutzim and seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.” Then, In April 2023, 6 months before the attack, again according to Israeli media, the IDF “restricted the ability” of Israelis living near the border “to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic.” In September 2023, less than a month before the attack, the head of the IDF’s “Devil’s Advocate” intelligence unit, which challenges prevailing narratives within Israel’s military, twice alerted senior decision-makers in both the army and political spheres about Hamas’ plans for a large-scale cross-border military operation. He reiterated these warnings in person at Intelligence Branch strategic assessment sessions on September 26th and 27th. Just days before the attack. So it was clear to everyone that Hamas wasn’t only planning to do something horrible, but it was also clear what that horrible and evil thing was. According to a female IDF soldier who spoke to Israel’s channel 12 news program, she was constantly trying to warn her superiors about the gravity of Hamas training exercises. She was threatened with legal action. “We were told that if we continue to harass on this issue, you will stand trial.” So, Egypt knew, the Israeli military knew, and the Israeli civilians knew. Yet, two days before October 7th, the Israeli military took two entire commando brigades, or around 100 soldiers, away from the the soon to be breached locations of the Gaza border and sent them to the other side of the country, to the West Bank village of Huwara despite no Hamas presence being in Huwara and despite there being giant Israeli dance parties taking place right along the same border fence where violent, escalating and obvious Hamas drills of breaching and kidnapping were taking place. According to Israeli media reports, Lt. Col. Sahar Fogel, an operations officer at the IDF’s Gaza Division, opposed the approval of the Nova Party based on the last minute nature of its event application and the intensifying Hamas drills at the border and because if something were to happen, more soldiers were on holiday. It was the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The Lt. Col. explained his opposition to the party’s approval to his superiors. He was instructed to allow the event. Israeli Newspaper Haaretz reported that other Gaza division officers privately “told of irregular conduct and pressure surrounding the approval of the party.” In February 2024, Elkana Federman, the head of security for the Nova festival gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 14 where he made a statement that hasn’t been reported on by any American media. “I had a guard at the festival who had served in the Re’im Division [near Gaza border], and a week before the festival he sent me a voice message, basically warning me, saying, ‘Elkana, something is going to happen over Sukkot. I just wanted to let you know, there are a lot of warnings, I passed the voice message on to local IDF officials and they told me everything was all right.” The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal. They have been likened to tragic events such as September 11th and the Holocaust, so it comes as a surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his Likud party have at times described the attacks as somewhat of a political gift. Nissim Vaturi, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the Knesset, referred to the attack as sort of gift from God because they are being used to justify the current ongoing war, stating: “We were meant to fight this war against Hamas, as is happening now, and luckily for us it came from the heavens.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel didn’t have domestic or international support to invade or destroy Gaza. He said the October 7th Hamas attack solved both of those problems for him, stating “We couldn’t get the domestic consensus to make a definitive solution to the problem of Hamas. That is, no one would agree across the Israeli public to go in and basically destroy Hamas, go throughout Gaza and destroy Hamas. We didn’t have the international consensus either; nobody would understand why we are doing it. Both conditions were created because of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.” Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this ghastly attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza? The evidence proves, yes. WHERE WAS THE IDF? During the October 7th attacks what did the Israeli military do? For hours they did nothing, it was a deliberate military stand down order. It's important to remember that Israel is just slightly bigger than the size of the state of New Jersey. But for some reason, once the Hamas attacks began, the time it took the Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive, fight and rescue Israelis at the different kibbutz communities and sites being attacked took anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20 hours. The New York Times has reported: “Thousands of soldiers were less than 40 minutes from the towns that were under attack.” A video that Israeli media obtained from an army helicopter, corroborated by Israeli survivors, prove that there were more than 500 Israeli soldiers directly outside of the Kibbutz entrance, fully armed, with Humvees and tanks but it took 10 hours for those soldiers to show up. Avital, a survivor of the Be’eri attack, described to Haaretz: “500 soldiers stood outside, with equipment and vehicles. I remember yelling at them, ‘We’re being slaughtered, come in, save us and no one said anything.” So why did it take so long for help to arrive? Haaretz reported: “At 7 A.M., the party organizers called Lt. Col. Elad Zandani, the man tasked with approving the festival and told him that terrorists were shooting the partygoers. He suggested that they fend for themselves. The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3 P.M., that’s an 8 hour response time for one of the most efficient, capable and well militarized security forces in the world operating in a country the size of New Jersey with their Gaza division only a few miles away. And what makes this even more strange? Around 4 hours into the Hamas assault, at 10:46AM, Israel was already launching operations and bombing targets inside of Gaza. So, if Israel could begin an offensive attack into Gaza within 4 hours, why did it take more than 6 hours and in most cases more than 10 hours and even 20 hours in some cases to mobilize inside of their own country to stop the ongoing attack and to defend the lives of their own people? The New York Times quoted Ben Zion, an Israeli military reservist who spoke to Israeli media. He said his unit voluntarily left central Israel in a convoy at 1:30PM, they got together and left for the south on their own. He expected to see the roads packed with soldiers and equipment and armored vehicles heading south. “The roads were empty!” he recalled in an interview. Roughly seven hours into the fighting, he turned to the reservist next to him and asked: “Where’s the IDF?” The brutal and deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th is so central to justifying Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza that Israel is actually outlawing questioning the October 7th government narrative. Israelis who spread information counter to the October 7th government narrative, which the Israeli Knesset calls “falsehoods and propaganda” could face up to 5 years in prison. Between the abundance of concrete evidence that suggests Israeli military allowed October 7th to happen by ignoring dozens of reliable and specific warnings, threatening soldiers with legal actions who tried to warn their military superiors and taking troops away from the area of the Gaza border that was attacked and now evidence that suggests there was some type of military stand down order in place on October 7th, it is important to ask, what was October 7th and what kind of war is the United States supporting? WHAT IS THE HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE? Images and videos of burnt cars, blacked and charred bodies and incinerated homes in southern Israel were plastered on every phone screen and television after the October 7th Hamas attack. The images and videos were used by the Israeli government to justify the military’s heavy handed tactics in their ongoing war against Hamas, But were all the images and videos actually the result of the Hamas attack? Innocent Israeli civilians were brutally killed by Hamas on October 7th, but there is evidence that proves the IDF killed their own Israeli citizens in what is known as the Hannibal Directive. To understand what the Israeli military did to their own civilians on October 7th, you have to understand the political aspirations of Hamas and what the goal of taking hostages is, it is political leverage. There are over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. 3,000 of whom haven’t been to trial or charged with a crime. When militant groups manage to capture Israeli civilians or soldiers it gives them leverage to force a prisoner swap and get some of their people out of Israeli prison. For example, in 1986, Hamas managed to kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. They demanded 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in return for these soldiers. After this, the military drafted a secret field order to prevent future kidnappings. It was called the "Hannibal Directive." The directive gets its name from the Carthaginian general who chose to poison himself rather than allow himself to be captured alive by the romans. In 2003, strangely enough on October 7th 2003, three Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and brought into Lebanon. Following the activation of the Hannibal Directive, IDF attack helicopters fired indiscriminately on 26 vehicles thus ensuring the death of their own soldiers and therefore robbing Lebanese militants of the ability to demand Israel make concessions. The Last known application of the Hannibal Directive was in 2014. In Rafah. Hamas fighters managed to capture an Israeli soldier, Lt. Hadar Goldin. Instead of allowing the lieutenant to be used as leverage by Hamas, the military killed him. Dropping bombs, missiles and shells on the area he was being held, killing the soldier and also over 100 Palestinian civilians. The scale of the Hannibal Directive on October 7th was entirely different from those of the past. A retired Israeli air force general, Nof Erez, described it during a podcast with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper saying “The Hannibal Directive was apparently applied at a certain stage, because at the moment they understand there is a kidnapping, they immediately say, ‘Guys, this is Hannibal.’ But the Hannibal we trained for all of the last twenty years, is for a vehicle we know at what point of the fence it enters, on what side it drives, and maybe even on which road it drives. This was a Mass Hannibal.” We know the Hannibal Directive means to kill your own, so what does “mass Hannibal” mean? A large mainstream Israeli media outlet reported: “In the week after Black Shabbat, October 7th, soldiers of elite units, at the initiative of the Southern Command, checked about 70 vehicles that remained in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by a combat helicopter, an anti-tank missile or a tank, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” 70 vehicles and in some cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. These are Israelis killed by Israel. Again, only reported on in the Israeli media. Tuval Escapa, is a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri. He set up a hotline so kibbutz residents could communicate with the Israeli army. He told Haaretz that “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions, including shelling houses on their occupants” in order to eliminate would-be hostages as well the terrorists. They shelled entire houses. Do we hear this in the American mainstream media? That the Israeli military targeted and destroyed over 70 cars with hellfire missiles that were filled with Israelis and that they decimated entire Israeli homes with tank shells? A report in Haaretz on October 20th notes that the Israeli military also carried out an airstrike on their own military base, the Erez crossing. That base was filled with Israeli Civil Administration officers and soldiers at the time. An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat gave an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli hostages during gun battles with Hamas militants. IDF General Barak Hiram, prevented hundreds of troops from entering Kibbutz Be’eri for hours on October 7th, when he finally allowed the IDF to go in, he ordered tanks to fire on multiple homes. The tank shells killed at least 12 Israeli hostages and 3 children. Recently the UN published an investigation confirming several of these facts, namely, that the IDF had in fact activated the Hannibal Directive on October 7th stating “The Commission is aware of allegations that Israeli Special Forces used the “Hannibal Directive” to prevent the capture of Israeli civilians and their transfer to Gaza, even at the cost of killing them" The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive. The Israeli military, Israeli civilians and the United Nations all admit to the IDF purposely killing their own on October 7th. How many? It’s hard to know the exact number, but the imagery of charred bodies and incinerated cars and homes are still being used to this day to manufacture consent and support for Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip, where more than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 innocent children. ISRAEL'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAMAS: Israel and Netanyahu helped funnel over $1 Billion dollars to Hamas in order to keep Palestine from being recognized as a State. It was Netanyahu and Israel who helped create Hamas thinking that they could control them and would be able to use Hamas as an excuse for their continued military operations and occupation in Gaza. ISRAEL'S SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The front lines of the war between Israel and Hamas are expanding and moving beyond Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis intensified their involvement, going from simply attacking Israeli bound cargo ships to now navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and managed to strike inside Tel Aviv causing a massive explosions. In addition to their ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has attacked or been attacked by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to promise Israel unconditional and limitless support. But has anyone even asked if this support is LEGAL? According to the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments of the Armed Foreign Assistance Act, which is now a part of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States cannot give foreign aid, whether that’s economic or military, to any nuclear armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, but the United States gives billions of dollars every year to Israel and according to all international arms organizations, Israel has anywhere from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads and Israel has not signed the NPT. So how does this legally happen? The United States and Israel simply pretend Israel does not have nuclear weapons, literally, that’s what’s done. It is called “Nuclear Ambiguity.” This nuclear ambiguity, which allows Israel to continue to receive billions from the U.S. and also operate and maintain their nuclear arsenal with absolutely no international oversight and zero regulation, is maintained and preserved through the threat of force. Due to a previously Top Secret gag order, all U.S. government agency employees and contractors are forbidden from discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Even insinuating or mentioning information that’s already in the public domain is forbidden for all federal employees and contractors. It sounds hard to believe but let’s give an example: James Doyle used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a nuclear security specialist. He violated this gag order. Doyle wrote an academic article arguing that Nuclear weapons do not do a good job at deterring countries from attacking one another, he wrote: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking British territory in 1982 or Iraq from attacking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.” A clear reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. Doyle’s security clearance was promptly withdrawn, his home was raided, his computers were seized and he was fired from the Department of Energy. So apparently that’s how it works. In 2018, The New Yorker published a stunning report in which they discuss another way Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is enforced: secret presidential letters. According to former U.S. officials and former Israeli officials, every recent US administration since Clinton in 1993 has performed the same ritual as it came into office. They all agreed to undermine U.S. law by signing secret letters, brought to them by hand by their Israeli counterparts stipulating that they’ll never acknowledge what everyone knows: that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons. The National Archives is currently refusing to release the letters, arguing that even confirming their existence would violate the secrecy pact. So there’s a gag order that stops all federal employees and contractors from simply acknowledging Israel’s nuclear weapons and U.S. presidents sign secret letters promising not to acknowledge or pressure Israel to do anything relating to their proliferation status. That means asking questions like these are entirely off limits enforced by the threat of government violence or law fare. But all of this information leads to a series of questions: Where does Israel dispose of the toxic waste its program generates? Are Israel’s nuclear weapons ever used to coerce the U.S. into making adverse policy decisions? How about our allies? Besides apartheid South Africa, has Israel offered any of its nuclear weapons for sale to other foreign countries? To U.S. adversaries? Has Israel mounted nuclear weapons onto its German supplied Dolphin class submarines? Or their American supplied F-35 jets? No questions are allowed and what is the cost, the dollar amount, for Americans, of this “nuclear ambiguity” policy? To be exact, almost $240 billion dollars of military and economic aid has gone from the U.S. taxpayer since the passing of the Symington and Glenn Amendments. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. And none of that quarter of a trillion dollars should have been allowed under U.S. law. That’s the price of keeping Israel’s secret. A quarter trillion and yet where is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international nuclear inspectors? The same ones who monitor every other nuclear armed country in the world? DOES ISRAEL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS? Before the war, Israel’s Christian minority were already being targeted with dispossession and violence. In Jerusalem’s Old City, narrow streets line the ancient neighborhood and Jewish Israeli civilians spitting on and attacking Christian clergy members is commonplace in Israel. Evidence of this shows a video from a few days before October 7th of Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem carrying a cross while a group of Orthodox Jewish Israelis many of them children walk by and spit at the Christians. It’s become mainstream to believe Christians don’t belong in Israel and only Jewish people do. A few years ago, the mission, the Virgin Mary’s place of death, was attacked and vandalized by Israelis. The graffiti on the ancient walls read “Death to heretical Christians, the enemies of Israel,” and “May his name and memory be obliterated,” in reference to Jesus. According to Haaretz, at a Jewish school, the leader of an anti-assimilation group Bentzi Gopstien told students that it’s quote “mitzvah” or a “good deed” to burn and destroy Christian churches. Should Americans, especially Christian Americans be allowing billions of their tax dollars to be used to ethnically cleanse, attack and bomb Holy sites and Christian civilians? What has happened since Israel has launched its war against Hamas? Israel has displaced 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, 80% of the buildings and homes have been reduced to rubble, at least 45,000 Palestinians have been killed with 50% being women and children. In America, we’re told we should prioritize sending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over dealing with our own issues here at home because Israel needs to be able defend itself. Well, it seems like what initially appeared as a defensive war, is appearing more like an offensive war with the expansionist goal of the permanent military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this terrible attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza, a genocide justified by an attack that Israel could have stopped had they wanted to.

Truth Justice ™

603,047 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Farrukh

165,871 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce