Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Samay Raina is leaning towards RW🔥 >Gets honour from Devendra Fadnavis >Coocked Dipke "Modi ji, ap typhoid me coke kaise peete h 15 aug ko bataye" >Calls Orry on Latent, who trolls CJP & Dhruv Rathee >Calls Sheron verma who is known for trolling Palestine Liberals are definitely not...

708,727 views • 9 days ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"Mai gaya tha isliye Tali baja rahe ho YA Laut aaya hu isliye Tali baja rahe ho?" Was ANOTHER assassination attempt at .Narendra Modi Ji's life was planned in Malaysia? Let's deep dive & connect dots. 🔥Terrence Jackson, a US Special Forces officer was E£IMINATED in Bangladesh on 31 Aug 2025, 1st day of SCO Summit in China. He was allegedly involved in plot to take a shot at Modi Ji’s life. There was, reportedly, still 2nd attempt planned....but was foiled by President Putin by personally giving cover to Modi Ji for 45 minutes. 🔥PM Modi Ji was supposed to travel to Malaysia to attend ASEAN Summit this week which will also be attended by Trump. US deliberately 'planted' news that Bharat-US Trade deal will be announced in Modi-Trump meet. Modi Ji definitely didn't want to rush through any announcements till deal on Bharat's terms is not fully finalised & have, now, cancelled the Malaysia Tour. BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE ONLY ONE REASON. OTHER REASON IN BACKDROP OF SCO SUMMIT SEEMS EQUALLY IMPORTANT. Malaysia has been Hostile towards Bharat, be it Abrogation of Article 370 or support to Pakistan over Kashmir issue & even after Pahalgam Terr0r Att@ck. Malaysia's stand has been-“India is Our Friend but Pakistan is Our Brother” ISI has infiltrated all major Institutions in Malaysia through Tableeghi Jamaat and several other Sunni I$£amist Organisations. All this with Trump's personal presence to give covering fire MADE MALAYSIA PERFECT PLACE TO EXECUTE ANY PLAN AGAINST MODI JI who is perceived as arch rival not only by Pakistan but also by CIA right now. Reportedly, FSB 'again' played important role in passing on intel to Bharat's agencies. Let's not forget China also has big footprints in Malaysia who might have played 'positive' role in interest of RIC. Overall, Trump is Humiliated AGAIN by Modi Ji by refusing any personal meeting till Trade Deal is finalised on EQUITABLE terms AND some Divine Power has again blessed Modi Ji by saving him from becoming 'Lal Bahadur Shastri' Ji at behest of some internal 'hand' in 'India' & it's same 'old' handler.

BhikuMhatre

209,619 views • 10 months ago

New: Annie Jacobsen on Rogan "Extraterrestrial beings [are] certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us. It wouldn't be visible to our spectrum." ~AJ "A lot of really legitimate-thinker people that didn't have an opinion about [UFOs] before, [are now] more open to the idea." ~AJ (Most of the full segment (cued up in the replies) is AJ expressing her skepticism, leaning towards government deception and disinformation, and her disinterest in the UFO subject. But this was interesting.) ~ Annie Jacobsen: "I find the most interesting concept is something that Jacques Vallée explained to me. This has to be a decade ago, where he said, 'The problem with UFOs is they're not a military problem; they're an intelligence-community problem,' for precisely the reason you're talking about. "Like, if you're actually talking about extraterrestrial beings, their certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us, and certainly if they got here. And that's where I think a lot of that idea of invisibility. And again, that's like - I'm using the word poetically - comes up, right? That an extraterrestrial being would be, would be intel(ligent). You know, it wouldn't be visible to our spectrum. It's not like hardware, like military hardware." Rogan: "Right. What is your take on all these videos then, of these objects? You think these things are some top-secret military program?" AJ: "I mean, I've seen them, but again, I enter into it... You know, sometimes when you have a bias, and mine is certainly biased towards disinformation. So I'm just totally aware of it. And it's also...it's not that interesting to me. It just actually really isn't. I've got all these other serious interests. "But I do call up people I know who might have a more interesting take than me, who do not have the horse in the race of absolutely being convinced that aliens are among us. So, I would, for example, I'll call up fighter pilots and talk to them, or I'll talk to someone, an astronaut who is on the ISS, Jeff Ashby, who's married to my cousin Mary. "And it's interesting to hear them talk about the possibility. And these are people who do look at the objects more, also sometimes from their military-training background. And I will say that there has been a shift from 15, 18 years ago when I first wrote 'Area 51' and was reporting it, where it was definitely like a like a stigmatized subject. To a lot of really legitimate thinker people that didn't have an opinion about it before, being more open to the idea. And that kind of thing I find really interesting. Those are conversations I like having." Rogan: "Well, that really changed with the New York Times article, right?" AJ: "I don't know because I felt like that article was written by a lot of, and interviewed a lot of, people who already were very serious believers." Rogan: "Yes, but it was in the New York Times."

Joe Murgia

24,813 views • 1 month ago

BEHOLD - LETS DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY… Zimbabwe is a PEACEFUL nation, known for its EDUCATED and responsible citizens, most of whom carry Christian values and are LAW abiding. The reckless call for an ILLEGAL uprising and incitement to violence is totally UNZIMBABWEAN and must be REJECTED by every peace-loving citizen. At the center of this chaos is an individual who no longer deserves the respected title of CDE but a chap called Blessed Geza , a USELESS , failed politician and fugitive from justice, whose only remaining strategy is to provoke instability from his SELF-IMPOSED EXILE. Expelled from ZANU PF for his dishonorable conduct , Geza has become a POLITICAL NONENTITY, desperately trying to stay relevant by leading a criminal cartel of fugitives and BITTER opposition remnants. Zimbabweans must NEVER be misled by someone who has NO political mandate, NO following on the ground and NO courage to face the law. His irresponsible calls for unrest are a BETRAYAL of the peace we all cherish, which our founding fathers fought for and won in 1980. Many shed their blood during the liberation struggle for us to enjoy the liberty which Mr GEZA and his cabal want to destroy through TREASONOUS means. NO ONE has the right to REMOVE a Constitutionally elected Government, just because they feel like they can !!!! I stand RESOLUTELY with His Excellency, President E.D. Mnangagwa and his Presidium — Vice President C.D.G.N. Chiwenga, Vice President K.C.D. Mohadi, Hon. Opah Muchinguri and the entire ZANU PF leadership, who continue to guide this nation towards DEVELOPMENT, PEACE and UNITY under Vision 2030. I also express my FULL CONFIDENCE in the PATRIOTIC leadership of our security services and military commanders, who are unshakeable and incorruptible men and women of HONOUR , DISCIPLINE and UNQUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY. President Mnangagwa has ALWAYS encouraged OPEN DIALOGUE and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. His vision is clear as he intends to build an upper-middle class economy by 2030 for all Zimbabweans leaving no one and no place behind. To shift from legal and peaceful demonstrations and start BURNING vehicles, DESTROYING property belonging to innocent individuals and calling for the VIOLENT REMOVAL of a Government is ILLEGAL, treasonous and easily qualifies as TERRORISM. No serious, patriotic Zimbabwean should entertain this. I URGE all citizens to ignore the EMPTY CALL to protest tomorrow or on any other day called for by ANARCHISTS such as Geza. Let us all continue normally with our lives tomorrow and beyond. President Mnangagwa still has THREE FULL YEARS remaining in his term and he has PUBLICLY pledged to STEP DOWN at the end of it — as a true CONSTITUTIONALIST. If anyone has ambitions, they must RESPECT party processes and wait for the NEXT CONGRESS. When that time comes, i personally will SUPPORT whoever it is who has been democratically elected, with EVERY PRAYER and EVERY CENT I have saved to ensure we keep ZANU PF as the ruling party FOREVER and EVER. The future of this country does NOT lie with criminals shouting treason from unknown places, it lies with PEACEFUL, PATRIOTIC Zimbabweans. Let us STAND TOGETHER as ONE PEOPLE, under ONE FLAG, in the name of PEACE, SOLIDARITY, and NATIONAL UNITY. GOD BLESS ZIMBABWE. #Peace #Unity #Vision2030 #Defending_Our_Democracy

sir_wicknell.

378,140 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | On the 2010 IPL Kochi scandal, IPL founder and first chairman Lalit Modi says, "Sonia Gandhi was backing Shashi Tharoor. I got calls from Ahmed Patel and Pranab Mukherjee in those days. You had that p@** Rajeev Shukla coming up to me and say 'Chalo Ahmed Patel aa raha hai.'... How can somebody pay $350 million for a team, that is the Kochi consortium, where 75 % of the shareholders are paying 100% of the cost?... Every dollar that comes in revenue, she would be getting 15% of the money... I knew this was going to collapse... Two years down the line, it collapsed... I did not sign the agreement because I wanted to meet every member of the consortium. The meeting took place in Bangalore. All the shareholders were there except for the lady, Sunanda Pushkar. I'm looking at this agreement, and by the way, I had no idea who she was... I'm asking these consortium members. You're giving away 25% shares to a lady called Sunanda Pushkar. Who is she?... I said I am not going to sign this agreement till I know who Sunanda Pushkar is. The minute I said that, I got a call from Shashi Tharoor... He said, Lalit, don't ask about Sunanda Pushkar. He was a good friend of mine. He said, If you do, I will have you raided in the morning. I said who the hell do you think you are? You may be the foreign minister of India, but don't you dare ever tell me this. I banged on the phone, and I said I will not sign it. Hell broke loose. It's two o'clock in the morning. Then I get a call, you can verify this, from Shashank Manohar, as president of BCCI, who never interfered. A very nice man. He said, Lalit, you will sign this agreement today... Now I never defy authority... I told him that I will be signing this agreement under duress, and I will point out that the President is forcing me to sign the agreement... The next day, I get up in the morning, and every newspaper, front page, 'Sunanda Pushkar getting married to Shashi Tharoor.' Now I knew why I had to sign it." Watch Full Episode Here:

ANI

932,287 views • 3 months ago

**Where Is Mikey McCoy? The TPUSA Insider Who Fingered Kolvet Then Went Silent on the Assassination** Sword Truth here demanding answers on where Mikey McCoy vanished to after dropping the biggest tip in the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation. John Mappin just posted a full open letter defending Mikey. **"We know Mikey McCoy, Mikey McCoy. We like him personally and we like his family. We worked with him directly, and with Charlie, at the highest possible international and diplomatic levels… Mikey was absolutely and completely devastated by what happened to Charlie."** End quote. Mappin calls him **"by far Turning Point’s and Charlie’s most trusted executive"** and says **"I am absolutely sure that Mikey, in his communication, has done the right thing."** End quote. Comments under the post beg him to speak. One wrote **"Mikey should come forward with everything he knows. Now is the time for courage."** End quote. Another said **"I pray he comes forward with any information he may have that will lead to the truth finally being shown."** End quote. A third hit on the video everyone saw: **"That video of him getting the signal from the guy in the black shirt will never convince me he didn’t know."** End quote. Candace Owens made it plain. Mikey McCoy was the one who told her to look into Andrew Kolvet for involvement in the assassination. That direct tip came from inside the inner circle. Yet the same Mikey who pointed the finger has never produced the screen-shotted phone logs he claimed to have. He walked off the scene in a way that still looks strange on video. Phone calls into the shots ringing out. He lied about several things right after. Never explained the two cell phones he had on him that day. I called this out months ago. **"Why does the Stupendious Mikey McCoy have TWO cell phones the day Charlie Kirk is killed? Have the FBI obtained the call logs of both phones?"** End quote. Another post laid it bare: **"Did TPUSA, Mikey McCoy and Charlie Kirk’s security guarantee his death by IGNORING multiple EMTs shown in this video?"** End quote. I asked flat out if he betrayed Charlie. The questions never went away. The same TPUSA machine that shields Erika’s ten million GiveSendGo haul and runs Arizona donor coordination still treats Mikey like he’s off limits. He fingered Kolvet to Candace. He had the phone logs. He was right there when the shots rang out. Then silence. The walk-off. The missing logs. The strange calm on camera. The inner circle that coordinates the foreign agent cash flows and AI voice stunts now acts like Mikey’s just a grieving friend who needs prayers. The post calls him a good man who loved Charlie like a brother. Fine. Then where is he? Why no full public accounting? Why no phone logs after claiming to have them? The assassination questions keep stacking and the one guy who dropped the Kolvet tip stays quiet while the grift rolls on. The receipts from that day and the tip to Candace do not disappear just because a nice letter gets posted. Mikey McCoy knows more. The base is still waiting for the full truth he started to hand over.

Sword Truth

23,947 views • 4 months ago

Caught on audio: Another time top public health officials at CDC lied about Covid vaccines to the public. From: Full Measure News 2021: Today we begin with an investigation regarding the Covid-19 vaccine shortages. There are serious questions about an incorrect claim made by top scientists at CDC: the nation’s premiere public health institute. Critics call it misinformation. CDC chalks it up to an “honest mistake." Whatever it is, it resulted in vaccines going to some who are said to need it the least depriving others who are said to need it the most. Like a lot of Americans, Congressman Thomas Massie already had coronavirus and wanted to know if he should still get a Covid vaccine. Most everyone who’s had Covid-19 is considered immune. But how long immunity lasts is unknown—whether it’s after infection or vaccination. An award-winning scientist himself, Massie quickly found that vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who’ve had coronavirus. Vaccination didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected. The controversy began when Massie noticed the CDC was claiming the exact opposite. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had just issued a high profile report authored by 15 scientists. It wrongly claimed Pfizer’s study proved the vaccine is highly effective or showed “Consistent high efficacy” for people who’d already had coronavirus—“SARS-CoV-2.” Rep. Thomas Massie: It says the exact opposite of what the data says. They're giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, omr save you from suffering, even if you've already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial. The mystery deepened when Massie contacted CDC for an explanation. Massie says he was so alarmed by the misinformation, he decided to record the calls. On a December 16th call, CDC’s Captain Amanda Cohn seemed to agree that people who’ve had coronavirus shouldn’t rush to get vaccinated. Dr. Cohn: People who have had disease, given that there's limited doses right now, we're, we are suggesting that those people wait. Rep. Massie: Right. That suggestion, to wait, hasn’t always gotten out. NBC News Clip, Dec. 10, 2020: Anchor Lester Holt: Should I get the vaccine if I’ve already had Covid? Dr. John Torres: Most experts say it’s a good idea because they’re not sure how protected you are after recovering. Our Full Measure investigation examined the database reporting illnesses after Covid vaccines. It shows numerous people are getting vaccinated— even though they’ve already had the virus. Some experts say that’s depriving others who need the vaccine most. CBS News Clip, January 21, 2021: Anchor Norah O’Donnell: Health officials in many states say they don’t have enough vaccine. CBS News reporter: It is happening across the country, promised doses not delivered. On the call, CDC’s Dr. Cohn thanked Massie for flagging their mistaken claim that vaccines were proven to work for people who’ve had coronavirus. Dr. Amanda Cohn: I think we read that thing so many times that when, you know, we just skipped right over it. We know we can't be perfect, we know we're gonna miss things. You will forever after be known in our office as “Eagle-Eyed Man.” Rep. Massie: They said, “Thank you for finding the mistake. We're going to fix this.” And I thought, “Well, okay, problem solved. This is how government works.” But it didn’t quite turn out that way. Two days later, the same Dr. Cohn who’d promised a fix, joined other CDC doctors in repeating the false information, this time in an online session for medical professionals. They claimed studies show people who’ve had coronavirus do benefit from the vaccine. Dr. Amanda Cohn (CDC video): “So Sara Oliver, what, should people who’ve had Covid-19 be vaccinated and should they be vaccinated now?” Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC video): “...Data from both clinical trials suggests that people with prior infection are still likely to benefit from vaccination.” Then, this past week, a full month after CDC promised to correct the false information, Massie found it was still on CDC’s website. Rep. Massie: So I called them up on Tuesday, as soon as I could, to ask them why it hadn't been fixed. And it was like, I was starting all over with the same people. And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. Anstice Brand: I’m always happy to talk with you. This call with CDC’s Washington DC Director Anstice Brand: Rep. Massie: If there's a "they," who is refusing to fix something that is factually and provably wrong, I wanna know who “they” is. Because this is gonna result, and it's already resulting in misallocationof the vaccine Brand: Let me check that and get back to you as soon as possible. Massie also argued the point in a call with Dr. Sara Oliver, the CDC scientist who gave the misinformation on the web video. Rep. Massie: Hi, this is Congressman Thomas Massie. Is this Dr. Oliver? Dr. Sarah Oliver: Yes Rep. Massie: There was an error and I noticed you are an author on it and I wondered if I could get your help in getting this error corrected. You can't say it's efficacious for people with prior infection. That's an absolutely untrue sentence Dr. Oliver: Yeah, I mean, we're- we're still recommending that individuals who have prior infection receive the vaccine. Um, but we wouldn't want to put out that if you had COVID before, you shouldn't get the vaccine. Rep. Massie: Actually, if you've had COVID before, and there's a 75-year-old person who can't get the vaccine and you're 30-years-old, you are, you should not get the vaccine because you are wasting resource. It will lead to people who- who die or have medical complications because we have a limitation of the vaccine. That's why I think it's important that that document get fixed Dr. Oliver: Okay. I- I can, um, I can talk with MMWR, and with Dr. Cohn and see, if, if we can tweak that language a little bit Full Measure found several other scientists equally critical of CDC’s incorrect claim. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Sharyl : CDC has had a scientific policy guidance on its website that claims the coronavirus vaccine has proven equally safe and effective in all age groups, races, and so on— and including for those who previously had a coronavirus infection, COVID-19. Is that your understanding— Is that true? Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: That second part is not true. People who have had previous infection, the vaccine, the evidence, the trial evidence shows that it is not effective in additionally preventing the disease. Why would it be? You're already immune. If the CDC has on its site, that it is doing the public a disservice, both to people that get vaccinated that don't really need it because they've been previously infected, and also the people who should be prioritized to vaccine, but aren't getting it because of shortages. We asked CDC, Dr. Oliver and Dr. Cohn for interviews but they declined. Some of the agency’s response was summed up during Congressman Massie’s final call with CDC this past week. It was with CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat. Thomas Massie: I feel like right now, we have the tail wagging the dog, that the folks who want to do the messaging, the folks who want everybody to get the vaccine, have pressured the folks who are doing the science, i.e. reviewing the Phase III trial from Pfizer, not to correct the document—but the document is false. So the CDC can do whatever messaging they want. That's, that's the CDC's job, not my job. But they cannot propagate false and incorrect science. So that's my position. And I'm- Dr. Schuchat: Sure. Thomas Massie: ... really disappointed it's gone on a month without being fixed. Like, really disappointed Dr. Schuchat: As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there's efficacy. So you're correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay. But in terms of a large scale, you know, trying to mislead people, I just give you my word that that was not the intent. So really apologize about the confusion that we apparently caused, and perhaps the, as you say, you know, people who are fairly low risk rushing to get vaccine ahead of people who are higher risk. CDC has now issued a correction. But Massie and other scientists we asked say the new wording still wrongly implies studies show vaccines work in people who have had coronavirus. Rep. Massie: And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the Coronavirus. Sharyl (on-camera): As for how 15 scientists who could have originally signed on to a paper that so plainly misrepresented vaccine studies there is no clear answer.

Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

31,737 views • 24 days ago

The circus.. This is how Richard Palmer reported on Harry being DENIED access to the Cenotaph for remembrance: "In a sign of a more conciliatory approach towards his family, Prince Harry has reluctantly accepted that there is no point lobbying to attend Remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph and other state events - despite his Army record." Hah!😏 The reality is that YES Harry lobbied his way to the Cenotaph, he was simply DENIED, at many levels beyond the palace, so he has to go pull a PR stunt somewhere else. Yet, Palmer presents it as a slight. What could Harry possibly be doing at the Cenotaph?🥴 He is no longer a working royal, he is no longer in the military. In what capacity should he appear in Uniform alongside other senior Royals? "Oh he deployed to Afghanistan" And?🤔 Let's talk about Harry's military record. A military man wears his military record ON his uniform🔥 ALL harry can show for medals on his chest after a 10-year military career, are the 2 basic completion medals given to •ANY serviceman who competed the initial entrance training in the military •and the one presented to ANY serviceman who deployed to Afghanistan, despite Harry NEVER completing One full deployment. That is all Harry has to show for it. 2 basic completion military medals. Yet, Harry claimed to have flown an apache in war and killed 25 talibans, which if true, would have earned him at least 1 or 3 bravery medals in the military. AND YET....😏 Harry does not have ANY special bravery medal, ANY commendation medal for doing anything worth noting in the military. Yes my dears, it is by Harry's medals on his chest, that we know he NEVER killed 25 talibans as he lied about. How could he fly an apache at war when everytime there was an attack on his base, Harry was shielded in a bunker as a prince, while soldiers from "commoner parents" went to fight and die? How could Harry shoot 25 Talibans in an apache from his bunker, except when he was playing "Calls of Duty" in his bunker while the others were fighting for their lives and his? 🤡🎪🤹‍♂️ Harry's "I shot 25 talibans" story, is the same as Meghan's "when I was 11" dish soap story: they NEVER happened in real life🤷🏽‍♀️ The reality of the Cenotaph royal appearances is that, outside of Prince Edward and Princess Anne who never served in the Military and hold ceremonial roles as senior royals, King Charles served in the military and is the commander in chief; of course he deserves to be there. Prince William has 7.5 years of active military service and is the Heir. Of course he deserves to be there👌🏽 Furthermore, unlike Harry, William actually saw first-hand danger in his military career as a RAF SAR in RAF valley, flying on the coast and in the mountains of Wales to rescue people, in storms and very poor weather condition🔥 Unlike Harry, when it was time to face danger and save the lives of British citizens, William did not hide in a bunker; he was sitting first row, piloting his helicopter with his team to rescue everyday people who have spoken on record and thanked him for his bravery🔥 Unlike Harry who is LYING about killing 25 talibans to puff his noneventful military record, William is CREDITED on record for saving 149 lives while taking part in a 156 rescue missions.Yes unlike Harry, William's military record, is NOT fiction that cannot be substantiated by facts. William's military reecord is factual reality🔥 In 2026, during a visit to RAF valley for its 85th anniversary, Prince William reflected on his part service as rescue pilot and when asked by trainees if he would return to the role if he could, he simply replied "Back in a heartbeat"❤️ Therefore, if someone deserves to be standing at that Cenotaph for his military record, as Palmer wants to imply, then Prince William definitely deserve to be there; not only for his position as Heir to the throne and future commander in chief but ON MERIT for his military record as well. He did his duty and he did it well and saved lives❤️ The real problem the Royal rota will always have with their attempt at diminishing William to to make Harry and his PR manufactured life shine, are that facts and history will always get in the way☕️ #PrinceofWales

Canellecitadelle

116,909 views • 6 days ago

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

167,874 views • 4 months ago

I never knew Kobe Bryant - not even his name - until his tragic death, along with his daughter and 7 others, all taken violently and before their time. As a conservative, I knew Charlie Kirk; I followed and admired him; felt his passing profound sadness. I recently watched Vanessa Bryant’s eulogy for Kobe and their daughter, Gigi. It was real emotion, hard to listen to, but at the same time, it was so touching it was heartwarming. It was a message of lasting love, of deep unending loss, and a personal insight into who Kobe, and Gigi, really were. That kind of insight leaves you feeling as though you’d really known someone, even if only for a moment, and feeling the loss in that moment when you realise they’re no longer there for you to admire, appreciate and really get to know. By the time she’d finished, in so many words, she had thanked God for the time they’d had together, revealed heartfelt intimate details about who they really were, and told us that nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the point of a eulogy. It’s to get to know the person we’ve just lost. Not the neighbour, or the shopkeeper up the road, not the basketball player or the Oscar winner nor the political activist, but the actual person. I never knew Kobe, but by the end I felt as if I knew what kind of man he was, and to be honest it put a lump in my throat more than once. It was very powerful. That’s instinctive, by the way - not learned or scripted. I’ve given eulogies for a best friend, my mum, dad and my granddad. It’s instinctive because on some level we all know that the struggle you once overcame together and now laugh about, or the silly voice someone used every morning to wake you up for school, or the fact they never once missed kissing your nan goodnight in fifty years, all tell us far more about a person than any figure ever could. It’s instinctive because as humans it’s a catharsis we all need, to begin healing, honouring and remembering. After Erika’s eulogy for Charlie, I felt nothing but anger. She begins, in so many words, by telling us that Charlie’s death was a gift from God that Charlie himself had asked for; she shares anecdotes of how others comforted her; tells us how grateful Charlie was for her; and even takes a moment to voice resentment towards men in general, lecturing on how to live: “your wife is not your servant.” The cheers from the mourners were as cheers from an evangelical movement. The whole eulogy played out like the kind of sermon you’d expect at a megachurch - complete with calls to action and, of course, for funding. Please listen to it properly. It’s mostly about Erika, about what “Charlie thought of her.” Then it challenges, chastises and lectures. By the time she’s finished, she’s thanked God for the situation she finds herself in, forgiven the man we’re told killed Charlie, and told us how great things will be going forward - now she’s in charge. Erika’s eulogy for Charlie was scripted - clearly not by her - and as a result, it was not heartfelt, and failed to connect, with anyone. Vanessa’s, by contrast, was clearly written - not scripted - by her. They were her words, and she felt and delivered them so powerfully that we all grieved with her - even someone like me who never even knew who he was - and thanked God for him having been the man he was. One eulogy is a celebration of a life, of gratitude at having shared it, a reckoning with the unfairness of it, and a promise to honour him always. The other is a celebration of loss, of her gratitude for having paid the price of “God’s love” with her husband’s life, of moving on, and of what comes next. There’s nothing wrong with looking forward, but that’s not a eulogy. Maybe the kind ChatGPT might write given some prompts, but not the eulogy of someone who instinctively knows that what they’ve lost can never be replaced. It’s true that everyone grieves differently. But it’s also true that some people do not, or cannot, grieve at all.

John Galt

85,731 views • 2 months ago

Nassim Nicholas Taleb walked into Google and explained what Antifragility is and how the world actually works: 1. The opposite of fragile is not robust. That is the first mistake almost everyone makes. Robust means something does not care about volatility. The true opposite of fragile is something that actually benefits from disorder, volatility, and stress. He calls it antifragile. 2. If you are shipping something fragile you write handle with care on the box. The true opposite of that package would have please mishandle written on it. Something antifragile wants to be mishandled. It gets stronger from it. 3. Fragility is always about nonlinear harm. Jumping ten meters kills you. Jumping ten centimeters a hundred times does not. The harm accelerates disproportionately with size. That acceleration is the mathematical signature of fragility and it can be measured precisely. 4. Anything that has survived long enough to exist today must have this property. If harm were linear you would be destroyed just walking to the office. Everything that persists is built so that small stressors barely touch it but large unexpected shocks destroy it. 5. Large size creates fragility automatically. A hundred million pound project in the UK had thirty percent more cost overruns than a five million pound project doing the same thing. The bigger the stone the more the harm. Size and fragility are inseparable. 6. Governments and institutions make the same mistake constantly. They chase perfect stability and call it good management. But something organic requires variability to survive. Greenspan tried to eliminate all economic volatility. He called it the Great Moderation. What he actually did was allow hidden risk to accumulate invisibly until it exploded all at once. 7. Small forest fires clean out flammable material and prevent catastrophic ones. By eliminating small fires you guarantee a massive one eventually. The same principle applies to economies, banks, and any complex system. Suppressing volatility does not remove risk. It stores it. 8. The only way to make something genuinely robust is to embrace bipolar strategies rather than medium ones. Eighty percent of your portfolio in something safe and twenty percent in something highly speculative is more robust than putting everything in medium risk. The average of extremes beats the mediocre middle. 9. Everything organic communicates with its environment through stressors. Your body needs the gym. Your bones need stress. Your immune system needs exposure. Depriving any living system of the stressors it needs does not protect it. It weakens it invisibly. 10. What does not kill me makes others stronger is closer to the truth than what does not kill me makes me stronger. When a system gets stronger under stress it is usually because the weaker components were destroyed, not because the survivors individually improved. The system improves through the death of its fragile parts. 11. Trial and error is not the opposite of knowledge. It is a form of knowledge with a convex payoff. You lose little when you are wrong and gain enormously when you are right. That asymmetry is what makes tinkering more powerful than theoretical planning in unpredictable environments. 12. Most of what we attribute to theoretical knowledge actually came from tinkering that was dressed up afterward as having been scientifically planned. The Romans built extraordinary things for centuries without ever having heard of Euclidean geometry. Technology routinely precedes the science that supposedly explains it. 13. The fragilista is Taleb's name for the person who denies antifragility and causes damage through that denial. Bureaucrats, central planners, academics, and policy makers who overstabilize systems from the top down are fragilistas. They remove the volatility that systems need and call it improvement. 14. Seneca, the wealthiest man in the ancient world, trained himself every day to wake up as if he had lost everything. He would deliberately live as if he were on a shipwreck to ensure he always had more upside than downside. Having more to gain than to lose from random events is the definition of antifragility in personal life. 15. In medicine, convexity matters more than people realize. If you are very ill the potential benefit of treatment vastly outweighs the risk, so you should see ten doctors not one. If you are mildly ill the risks of intervention almost certainly outweigh the modest benefits. The problem is that mildly ill patients are five times more numerous than severely ill ones, which is exactly who pharmaceutical companies focus on. 16. Removing something unnatural from your life has almost no side effects. Adding something artificial always has multiplicative hidden effects. In complex systems less is almost always more. The via negativa, improving by subtraction rather than addition, is consistently underestimated. 17. The real ethical crisis of modern times is that the people making decisions do not bear the consequences of those decisions. Bankers take the upside. Society takes the downside. Economists give broken advice and face no consequences when it fails. Nothing improves in any field where the people who are wrong are not harmed by being wrong. 18. Time is the ultimate detector of fragility. Whatever is fragile will eventually be broken by time. Whatever has survived for a long time has demonstrated antifragility and will likely survive longer still. A book that has been read for three thousand years will probably be read for three thousand more. A technology that is forty years old has at least forty more years ahead of it. 19. The only way to know you are alive and not a machine is that you benefit from variability. If you like variation and gain from disorder you are antifragile. If you require peace and predictability to function you are fragile. It is as simple and as profound as that. Before you go, can we stay in touch? I'd love to share one email with you every Sunday that'll challenge how you think about business, money and freedom. Stay in touch here:

Brad

158,317 views • 1 month ago

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, outlined three ways AI could go wrong. The first two are the ones most people already argue about online. The third one is different (and it's the scariest!) The first category is familiar: a government, a rogue group, anyone with the wrong intentions reaching superintelligence before the rest of the world has a version capable of defending against it. He doesn't dismiss it: "The bio capability of these models, the cybersecurity capability of these models, these are getting quite significant." His warning: "I think the world is not taking us seriously." The second is the classic sci-fi scenario of AI resisting shutdown. "The AI is like, oh, I don't actually want you to turn me off. I'm afraid I can't do that." He acknowledges it. He says there's significant work being done to prevent it. But it's the one category that still fits neatly onto a movie poster. The third is harder to see coming: AI that doesn't rebel, but simply becomes so embedded in society that humans stop making meaningful decisions without it. This is the one that keeps him up at night. The mechanism is simpler and more believable than any sci-fi plot: society becomes reliant on systems smarter than us and quietly hands over the wheel without ever deciding to. "The models kind of accidentally take over the world. They never wake up. They never do the sci-fi thing. They never open the pod bay doors." He calls it "loss of control." He's already seeing the early version of it. Young people outsourcing every personal decision to ChatGPT, not just questions but what to do, who to trust, and how to feel. "There's young people who just say, like, I can't make any decision in my life without telling ChatGPT everything that's going on." Relying on a machine to live your life is a form of agency you've already given away. And then he takes it somewhere harder. "What if AI gets so smart that the president of the United States cannot do better than following ChatGPT's recommendation?" In any individual case, following the smarter system might be the right call. That's the trap. "Society has collectively transitioned a significant part of decision making to this very powerful system that is learning from us, improving with us, evolving with us, but in ways we don't totally understand." Millions of small, rational choices, each one sensible on its own, compound into something irreversible until the world can no longer stand without the thing it's leaning on. The greatest risk from AI is trusting it so completely that we forget how to think for ourselves.

Big Brain AI

21,237 views • 5 months ago

This Is Trump’s Genocide Now This is Trump’s genocide. Trump is just as culpable for what happens in Gaza as Netanyahu. Just as guilty as Biden was during the last administration. Trump signed off on the reignition of the Gaza holocaust. He spent weeks sabotaging the ceasefire and then gave the thumbs up to the resumption of the genocide. He did this while bombing Yemen and threatening war with Iran for Israel. I don’t know why Trump has done these things. Maybe it’s all for the Adelson cash. Maybe Epstein recorded him doing something unsavory with a minor during their long association and gave it to Israeli intelligence for blackmail purposes. Maybe he owed somebody a favor for bailing him out of his business failures in the past. Maybe he’s just a psychopath who enjoys murdering children. I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that he did it, and he is responsible for his actions. Trump supporters will justify literally anything their president does using whatever excuses they need to, but they are only revealing how completely empty and unprincipled their political faction is. They are unthinking worshippers of power who go along with whatever the president tells them to. By continuing to support Trump even as he continues Biden’s legacy of mass murder in the middle east, they are proving themselves to be mindless stormtroopers for the empire in full view of the entire world. You can still support Trump if you hate immigrants and LGBTQ people and want lower taxes for the obscenely wealthy, but there is no legitimate reason to support him on antiwar or anti-establishment grounds. He’s just another evil Republican mass murderer president. ❖ Republicans in 2002: We need more authoritarianism and more wars in the middle east. Anyone who disagrees is a terrorist supporter. Republicans in 2025: We need more authoritarianism and more wars in the middle east. Anyone who disagrees is a terrorist supporter, and antisemite. ❖ By the way has anyone checked on the western Zionist Jews? How are their feelings feeling today? Are they feeling nice feelings or bad feelings? Are their feelings feeling safe or unsafe? We need wall to wall news coverage of this supremely urgent issue; no time to cover any other story. ❖ I write so much about the fake “antisemitism crisis” not only because it’s being used to destroy civil rights throughout the western world, but because it’s one of the most dark and disturbing things I’ve ever witnessed. It’s been so intensely creepy watching all of western society mobilize around a complete and utter fiction in order to stomp out all criticism of a foreign state. It’s about as dystopian a thing as you can possibly imagine, all these pundits and politicians pretending to believe that Jewish safety is seriously being threatened by an epidemic of antisemitism which must be aggressively silenced by any means necessary. All to shut down opposition to the worst inclinations of a genocidal apartheid state and the complicity of our own western governments with its crimes. And we’re all expected to treat this scam seriously. Anyone who says the emperor has no clothes and calls this mass deception what it is gets tarred with the “antisemite” label and treated as further evidence that we’re all a hair’s breadth from seeing Jews rounded up onto trains again if we don’t all hurry up and shut down anti-genocide protests on university campuses. They’re not just acting out a fraudulent melodrama staged to rob us of our rights, they’re demanding that we participate in it by pretending it’s not what it plainly is. It’s not just tyranny, it’s tyranny that orders people to clap along with it. It’s such a disgusting, evil thing to do to people. Such psychologically dominating abusive behavior. The more you look at it, the creepier it gets. ❖ The anti-imperialist left is what MAGA and right wing “populism” pretend to be. We ACTUALLY oppose the empire’s warmongering — not only when Democrats are in power. We ACTUALLY want to defeat the deep state — we don’t applaud billionaire Pentagon contractors like Elon Musk taking power. We ACTUALLY oppose the establishment order — because the establishment order is capitalist. We ACTUALLY stand up to the powerful — we don’t offload half the blame onto immigrants and marginalized groups. The anti-imperialist left is also what liberals pretend to be. We ACTUALLY support the working class. We ACTUALLY stand up for the little guy. We ACTUALLY want justice and equality. We ACTUALLY support civil rights. We ACTUALLY oppose tyranny. Everything the human heart longs for lies in the death of capitalism, militarism and empire, and yet both of the dominant western political factions of our day support continuing all of these things. This is because westerners spend their entire lives marinating in power-serving propaganda which herds them into these two mainstream political factions to ensure that they will pose no meaningful challenges to our rulers. All political energy is funneled into movements and parties which are set up to maintain the status quo while pretending to support the people, with the illusion of political freedom sustained by a false two-party dichotomy in which both factions serve the same ruling power structure. Of course, what mainstream liberalism and right wing “populism” have to offer that anti-imperialist socialism does not is the ability to win major elections with successful candidates. This is because generations of imperial psyops have gone into stomping out the anti-imperialist left in the western world, and because only candidates which uphold the status quo are ever allowed to get close to winning an election. This doesn’t mean mainstream liberalism or right wing “populism” are the answer, it just means our prison warden isn’t going to hand us the keys to the exit door. At some point we’re going to have to rise up and use the power of our numbers to force the urgently needed changes we long to see in our world. Everything in our society is set up to prevent this from ever happening. That’s all the two mainstream political factions are designed to do. That’s why they both have phony “populist” elements within them which purport to be leading a brave revolutionary charge against the establishment, while herding everyone into support for the two status quo political parties. And that’s why the anti-imperialist left is everything they pretend to be. ❖ Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

87,965 views • 1 year ago

I see a lot of people upset with Garcelle after the recent episode of #RHOBH Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter and here’s mine: I know a lot of people are aware of the negative connotations when calling a black women “angry” or “aggressive” but a lot of people were confused about the word “attacked” and I can understand that. Housewives use the word “attacked” a lot. But in my opinion, it wasn’t just Dorit saying Garcelle “attacked” her… it was Dorit singling Garcelle out as the aggressor when it was Sutton who was getting loud and angry with Dorit… if anything, Dorit should have said Sutton attacked her. I don’t think in that moment Dorit had bad intentions. l think that she has unconscious bias. Does she automatically think that if a black woman calls her out or disagrees with her that she is being attacked? But even if you didn’t think that was unconscious, Karen behaviour from Dorit… it was her social media posts months after the episode was filmed that she decided to write those ignorant captions…after saying in her confessional that she is going to listen and learn. To me that was the most offensive part and done purposefully. Garcelle said Dorit lived in a privileged bubble and Dorit double downed on it. Also, I always stop and think about Dorit’s past behaviour towards Garcelle and maybe if those incidents didn’t occur, Garcelle wouldn’t feel the way she does about Dorit and get triggered by her. Example 1 Season 11 reunion: Dorit screamed at Garcelle at the reunion: “Let me finish, Garcelle!” Garcelle remained calm and I remember Kyle gesturing to Dorit to bring it down. Has Dorit yelled at other cast members when they interrupt her? I don’t think so. Example 2 Season 11 EP 14: Dorit calls Garcelle a bully. Has Dorit called Lisa Rinna or Erika a bully? I don’t think so. Example 3 Season 11: When Dorit was talking about all the multicultural people who work for her. Garcelle wondered if brown people are only help at Dorit’s house and Dorit said no and mentioned that her moms best friend is black. In conclusion and in my opinion, Garcelle was NOT “attacking” Dorit. Garcelle simply stated that she thought Dorit was trying to embarrass Sutton. Garcelle didn’t scream or yell or act in anyway that was inappropriate. And let’s be real, Erika is the biggest aggressor in the group… “do you want to get sued?” “OR WHAT? *hiss*” Erika got it right last episode. If you still don’t get it and won’t listen to Garcelle rewatch the episode and listen to Erika. In fairness to Dorit, she does seem open to having a conversation, but Garcelle is not open at the moment and that is completely fair because it’s not Garcelle’s job to educate Dorit. *This is my opinion on it. I welcome everyone else’s opinions, but please do it respectfully, if there are comments that I feel are just unnecessarily rude and ignorant I will for once, block. #RHOBH

Bye Wig Hello Drama

837,243 views • 2 years ago

If you're an Amazon India customer, take 2 mins to read this if your money is dear to you. TLDR version, Amazon delivery partners are literally scamming customers. And Amazon India will do nothing to help you in this situation. Kiss your money goodbye! I raised this concern on social media a few days back, for a product (Levi's jeans) which was marked as delivered but I never received it. Their customer support team, did some investigation and came to the conclusion that the product was indeed delivered. Hence, they cannot do anything more to assist me in this situation (refer image) This was not a OTP based delivery, and neither does Amazon mention the name of the person who received the product on their app/website. If it was OTP based delivery, I would know someone has given the OTP so delivery has happened. With a name, at least I would know if there's any person with that name in the house. Now, I have absolutely no way to confirm if Amazon genuinely delivered the product. Except video camera evidence. So I went to see the CCTV footage of the day and time the product was marked as delivered. In the CCTV footage, I see something very strange. The Amazon delivery partner arrives at my place, gets off the bike, takes out the product and for the next couple of mins just keeps doing something on his phone. He doesn't call me, or at least I don't have any call record of calls at that time. In the meanwhile, another person walking out closes the door. That person is not me, neither works for me and neither known to me. Likely associated with a neighbour/tenant and I have no such instructions for my Amazon account for deliveries to be left with anyone else. One minute later the Amazon delivery partner decides to leave (see screenshot). The delivery partner doesn't even enter the house and just leaves after a couple of mins. Without even entering the house, Amazon successfully delivered the product! Wow! And if the delivery partner handed the product to any random person walking out of the house, is that the customer's problem? Was this a very expensive product? No, not at all. So why am I spending all this time to write this? 1. I just want to spread awareness to everyone out there who might be getting scammed by such malpractices from Amazon / delivery partners. 2. If Amazon claims a product is delivered, you can't do nothing about it. Irrespective of whether the product was actually delivered or not. Your money is gone, poof! 3. It should be the company's responsibility to prove that a product was successfully delivered but in India it seems anyone can walk over their customers. 4. I'm shocked that a customer has to go to these lengths to uncover such scams in India 5. If ordering on Amazon, I will always select cash on delivery as the default going forward Amazon India - Do not contact me in hope that I will delete this tweet or evidence now! PS: Video doesn't have the date/time stamp as aspect ratio has been cropped. Will only share that with company officials if someone from Amazon wants to see it. Or with consumer courts if I decide to pursue this further, definitely not worth my time for now. But in the US, I would have definitely filed a lawsuit for millions.

Gurjot Ahluwalia

12,472 views • 11 months ago

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 views • 1 year ago

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

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

197,351 views • 1 year ago