Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Such creativity, wow it’s so beautiful Ashawo| Man Utd| Old Trafford| Eiii| University Of Ghana| #Afronita | Kizz Daniel Oladips | "THE END IS NOW"| Smada | "South Africans" | Nasarawa | "Poco Lee" | Zino | Akute | SIWES | Kuda | "Don Jazzy" | Kuda | "Mr Ibu"

legendrizzsound's profile picture

legendrizz

2,890 subscribers

41,977 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

#Afronita
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

6 Kommentare

Profilbild von legendrizz
legendrizzvor 2 Jahren

Some more creativity Ashawo| Man Utd| Old Trafford| Eiii| University Of Ghana| #Afronita | Kizz Daniel Oladips | "THE END IS NOW"| Smada | "South Africans" | Nasarawa | "Poco Lee" | Zino | Akute | SIWES | Kuda | "Don Jazzy" | Kuda | "Mr Ibu"

Profilbild von Samuel Akinola
Samuel Akinolavor 2 Jahren

@legendrizz THE END IS NOW trending on X 🔥

Profilbild von J.A.A
J.A.Avor 2 Jahren

@legendrizz @allabout_design Beautiful creativity

Profilbild von Ogechukwu™️
Ogechukwu™️vor 2 Jahren

@legendrizz Man is living in his own world.

Profilbild von legendrizz
legendrizzvor 2 Jahren

I swear

Profilbild von henry igboin gabriel
henry igboin gabrielvor 2 Jahren

@legendrizz fOr his kind of person, his artwOrk is extremeLy beautiful. is he on twitter?

Ähnliche Videos

I agree with Trevor Noah’s analysis of the immigration debate in South Africa, and I also agree with Julius Malema’s noble desire for Africa to be one. From the outset, I must be clear that the biggest obstacle to African unity has been African leadership. Some of our countries have been independent for more than 60 years, yet we are still far from achieving the level of integration many Pan-Africanists envisioned. The failure to get there is fundamentally a leadership issue. I want to focus on what Julius Malema has said. He is one of the continent’s most outspoken Pan-Africanists, and his vision of a more united Africa is both admirable and inspiring. Unfortunately, because of the dysfunctionality of leadership across much of the continent, Pan-Africanism has, in some circles in South Africa, become a dirty word. That is a tragedy because the principle itself is not the problem. The problem is that many African leaders have failed to create the political, economic, and institutional conditions necessary to make that vision a reality. So let us look carefully at what Julius Malema is saying. I have great respect for Julius Malema when it comes to his Pan-African outlook, but I am afraid to say that the idea of an Africa with one passport, one currency, and a fully integrated political and economic system is unlikely to happen within our lifetime. It is good to dream and to idealise the kind of Africa we would like to see, but in its current political and economic format, the continent is nowhere near achieving that goal. I am 55 years old, so when I talk about a lifetime, I am talking about the next 25 years. If I live to 80, that would be wonderful, but I do not believe Africa will achieve that level of integration within that timeframe. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the European Union, countries do not simply join because they want to. They must first meet a long list of requirements and benchmarks. These include economic standards, institutional capacity, governance standards, judicial independence, and human rights protections. Even if we set aside the human rights question in Africa, because we know that remains a long journey, the economic question alone presents a major obstacle. A truly united continent can only emerge if its member states are led by competent, educated, and trustworthy leaders who build functioning economies capable of providing opportunities for their own citizens. The current xenophobic, Afrophobic, and anti-immigration discourse taking place in South Africa is often crude and sometimes ugly. However, stripped of the crudeness, there is an important point being raised that cannot simply be ignored. For Africans to unite successfully, they cannot first unite in one country. They must first unite across the continent by creating broadly comparable economic opportunities and living standards. For example, a Ghanaian should be able to travel to Zimbabwe visa-free. That is largely a political decision. But if that Ghanaian wants to relocate permanently to Zimbabwe, then the economies of Ghana and Zimbabwe should have a reasonable degree of parity. People should not be compelled to migrate primarily because one country is functioning while another is failing. The same applies across the continent. Someone should not feel forced to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa purely because of economic collapse at home. If integration is driven solely by economics, then the countries that are relatively well managed will inevitably carry the burden of those that are not. This is an intellectual discussion that Africa cannot avoid. Resource competition is often what inflames tensions. If someone moves from a poor community in Mozambique to a poor community in South Africa, both groups are competing for the same clinics, schools, housing, jobs, and social services. That is where tensions arise. Interestingly, illegal immigrants from Europe are rarely part of the immigration debate in South Africa. Many people immediately attribute this to race, but there is another factor that deserves consideration. Wealthy immigrants generally live in affluent communities where there is little or no competition for scarce public resources. Take Chatunga Mugabe, for example. He lived in Hyde Park, drove expensive cars, and socialised in Sandton. Nobody was concerned about his immigration status. Likewise, where I live in South Africa, there are immigrants from the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Kenya, and elsewhere. They are largely affluent people. The South Africans living there are often excited when newcomers arrive. When I moved from Zimbabwe and bought a house on my road, both black and white South Africans invited me into their homes for dinner and wine. There was no hostility because there was no competition for resources. That reality matters. If Africa is ever going to have one passport and one currency, we must first deal with the economic fundamentals. Most Africans do not realise that this is not primarily a political project. It is an economic one. Turkey, for example, has spent decades seeking membership of the European Union but has not been admitted because it has not met all the requirements. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania had to meet strict standards before joining. Their judicial systems, governance structures, healthcare systems, and institutions had to reach certain benchmarks. The same logic applies to Africa. If every African citizen were suddenly free to seek healthcare anywhere on the continent, countries with stronger healthcare systems such as South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia would immediately face enormous pressure from people seeking treatment, including specialised care for conditions such as cancer. That is why this discussion is important. We must have it honestly and without slogans. We must discuss it not only in universities and intellectual circles but also in townships, villages, and communities across Africa. The dream of one Africa is a noble one. I support it. But before we get there, we must first address the economic, institutional, and governance realities that stand in the way. Until those challenges are resolved, the vision Julius Malema speaks about will remain an aspiration rather than a practical reality. The tragedy we face today is that we are focusing on the sideshows created by tribalists and rogue political actors who are taking advantage of a genuine problem that exists in South Africa and, indeed, in other parts of Africa as well. We amplify their voices and focus on what they are saying instead of focusing on the real issue. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. Julius Malema is right about the ideal he is advocating, but why are we not getting to where he wants us to get? Once we ask that question honestly, we are forced to examine the root causes. There can be no economic harmony, political harmony, or any other form of harmony between countries that are operating at vastly different levels of development and functionality. Take Zimbabwe and South Africa as an example. Zimbabwe has not had a working radiotherapy machine in its public healthcare system for more than four years. The country’s largest hospital has only one maternity theatre, built in 1977. Then look at South Africa. Its public healthcare system has some problems and could be much better, but by African standards it remains among the most advanced on the continent. If those two countries stand side by side, as they physically do, how do you integrate them when one is dysfunctional and the other remains a functioning state? These are the root causes we need to confront. This discussion must be held in a comprehensive and honest manner, not in fragments. We can speak about the noble aspirations of Pan-Africanism, and we can also discuss the obstacles that stand in its way. Both conversations must be held together. Only then can we identify what needs to be done and begin serious scenario planning around how to get there. Instead, we often get beautiful speeches delivered at the African Union, one of the most ineffective continental organisations in the world. People make grand declarations, earn generous salaries, and then nothing happens. Great speeches have been delivered since the days of the Organisation of African Unity. One of those speeches was even immortalised by Bob Marley in his song War. Yet more than 60 years later, many of the same challenges remain unresolved. That is an indictment not only of African leaders but also of African elites. Too many are content to make money while ignoring the underlying governance failures that hold the continent back. Consider Aliko Dangote, the richest black man in the world and Africa’s most successful entrepreneur. He requires 34 visas to enter dozens of African countries. Yet if I hold a British passport, my movement across much of Africa can often be easier than his. How can Africa speak seriously about integration when one of its own leading business figures faces such barriers within the continent? Until influential African business leaders such as Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, Patrice Motsepe, and others begin speaking more forcefully about governance, corruption, economic mismanagement, and state dysfunction, progress will remain slow. As long as these issues are accommodated because money can still be made, Africa will continue to talk about unity without creating the conditions necessary to achieve it. So, back in the townships of South Africa, there is a crisis. I have always said that Zimbabwe is no longer a foreign policy issue. It is a domestic issue because the South African government must deal with its consequences in hospitals, social services, employment, housing, education, and many other facets of daily life. If the South African government does not have the courage to stand up to leaders such as Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mozambique’s President, Daniel Chapo, and say, “The way you are running your economies is creating problems for us,” then the situation will continue to deteriorate. The tragedy is that it is always the poor, the ordinary, and those living in abject poverty who end up fighting amongst themselves. Yet the root causes of these tensions are often created at the highest levels of political leadership. The people competing for jobs, housing, healthcare, and other scarce resources did not create the conditions that led to mass migration. Those conditions were created by policy failures, corruption, poor governance, and economic mismanagement. I would go even further and say that this is also an indictment of South African leadership. SADC already has protocols, principles, and governance frameworks that were specifically designed to prevent member states from becoming dysfunctional and destabilising their neighbours. The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the absence of enforcement. Those protocols exist on paper, but too often they are ignored in practice. When governance standards are violated, when economies collapse, when democratic institutions are weakened, and when corruption flourishes, there is rarely any meaningful consequence from the region. As a result, the effects spill across borders and eventually become someone else’s problem. That is why the immigration debate cannot be separated from the governance debate. They are two sides of the same coin. If African leaders are serious about reducing migration pressures, they must first address the political and economic failures that are pushing people to leave their countries in the first place. We all know why that conversation is avoided. So, coming back to Trevor Noah’s analogy, it is ultimately a human analogy. It reflects a reality that has existed throughout history and even in nature itself. If lions have abundant access to zebras and other prey, there is very little competition between lions, leopards, and other predators. But when food becomes scarce, competition intensifies. The struggle is no longer about identity. It becomes a struggle over limited resources. The same principle applies in human societies. When jobs are plentiful, when healthcare functions, when housing is available, and when opportunities are expanding, people are generally more tolerant and welcoming. But the moment resources become scarce, tensions rise. People begin competing for the same opportunities, and that competition often manifests itself through politics, nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or other forms of social conflict. This is not unique to South Africa. It is not unique to Africa. It is part of the human condition. In many ways, what we are witnessing is both a human story and an animal kingdom story. The underlying dynamic is remarkably similar. Scarcity creates competition. Competition creates tension. Tension creates conflict. That is why discussions about immigration cannot be separated from discussions about governance, economic growth, service delivery, and opportunity. If we focus only on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes, we will never solve the problem. The real challenge is not merely getting people to live together. The real challenge is creating societies and economies that produce enough opportunity for people to live together peacefully.
2:47

I agree with Trevor Noah’s analysis of the immigration debate in South Africa, and I also agree with Julius Malema’s noble desire for Africa to be one. From the outset, I must be clear that the biggest obstacle to African unity has been African leadership. Some of our countries have been independent for more than 60 years, yet we are still far from achieving the level of integration many Pan-Africanists envisioned. The failure to get there is fundamentally a leadership issue. I want to focus on what Julius Malema has said. He is one of the continent’s most outspoken Pan-Africanists, and his vision of a more united Africa is both admirable and inspiring. Unfortunately, because of the dysfunctionality of leadership across much of the continent, Pan-Africanism has, in some circles in South Africa, become a dirty word. That is a tragedy because the principle itself is not the problem. The problem is that many African leaders have failed to create the political, economic, and institutional conditions necessary to make that vision a reality. So let us look carefully at what Julius Malema is saying. I have great respect for Julius Malema when it comes to his Pan-African outlook, but I am afraid to say that the idea of an Africa with one passport, one currency, and a fully integrated political and economic system is unlikely to happen within our lifetime. It is good to dream and to idealise the kind of Africa we would like to see, but in its current political and economic format, the continent is nowhere near achieving that goal. I am 55 years old, so when I talk about a lifetime, I am talking about the next 25 years. If I live to 80, that would be wonderful, but I do not believe Africa will achieve that level of integration within that timeframe. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the European Union, countries do not simply join because they want to. They must first meet a long list of requirements and benchmarks. These include economic standards, institutional capacity, governance standards, judicial independence, and human rights protections. Even if we set aside the human rights question in Africa, because we know that remains a long journey, the economic question alone presents a major obstacle. A truly united continent can only emerge if its member states are led by competent, educated, and trustworthy leaders who build functioning economies capable of providing opportunities for their own citizens. The current xenophobic, Afrophobic, and anti-immigration discourse taking place in South Africa is often crude and sometimes ugly. However, stripped of the crudeness, there is an important point being raised that cannot simply be ignored. For Africans to unite successfully, they cannot first unite in one country. They must first unite across the continent by creating broadly comparable economic opportunities and living standards. For example, a Ghanaian should be able to travel to Zimbabwe visa-free. That is largely a political decision. But if that Ghanaian wants to relocate permanently to Zimbabwe, then the economies of Ghana and Zimbabwe should have a reasonable degree of parity. People should not be compelled to migrate primarily because one country is functioning while another is failing. The same applies across the continent. Someone should not feel forced to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa purely because of economic collapse at home. If integration is driven solely by economics, then the countries that are relatively well managed will inevitably carry the burden of those that are not. This is an intellectual discussion that Africa cannot avoid. Resource competition is often what inflames tensions. If someone moves from a poor community in Mozambique to a poor community in South Africa, both groups are competing for the same clinics, schools, housing, jobs, and social services. That is where tensions arise. Interestingly, illegal immigrants from Europe are rarely part of the immigration debate in South Africa. Many people immediately attribute this to race, but there is another factor that deserves consideration. Wealthy immigrants generally live in affluent communities where there is little or no competition for scarce public resources. Take Chatunga Mugabe, for example. He lived in Hyde Park, drove expensive cars, and socialised in Sandton. Nobody was concerned about his immigration status. Likewise, where I live in South Africa, there are immigrants from the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Kenya, and elsewhere. They are largely affluent people. The South Africans living there are often excited when newcomers arrive. When I moved from Zimbabwe and bought a house on my road, both black and white South Africans invited me into their homes for dinner and wine. There was no hostility because there was no competition for resources. That reality matters. If Africa is ever going to have one passport and one currency, we must first deal with the economic fundamentals. Most Africans do not realise that this is not primarily a political project. It is an economic one. Turkey, for example, has spent decades seeking membership of the European Union but has not been admitted because it has not met all the requirements. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania had to meet strict standards before joining. Their judicial systems, governance structures, healthcare systems, and institutions had to reach certain benchmarks. The same logic applies to Africa. If every African citizen were suddenly free to seek healthcare anywhere on the continent, countries with stronger healthcare systems such as South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia would immediately face enormous pressure from people seeking treatment, including specialised care for conditions such as cancer. That is why this discussion is important. We must have it honestly and without slogans. We must discuss it not only in universities and intellectual circles but also in townships, villages, and communities across Africa. The dream of one Africa is a noble one. I support it. But before we get there, we must first address the economic, institutional, and governance realities that stand in the way. Until those challenges are resolved, the vision Julius Malema speaks about will remain an aspiration rather than a practical reality. The tragedy we face today is that we are focusing on the sideshows created by tribalists and rogue political actors who are taking advantage of a genuine problem that exists in South Africa and, indeed, in other parts of Africa as well. We amplify their voices and focus on what they are saying instead of focusing on the real issue. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. Julius Malema is right about the ideal he is advocating, but why are we not getting to where he wants us to get? Once we ask that question honestly, we are forced to examine the root causes. There can be no economic harmony, political harmony, or any other form of harmony between countries that are operating at vastly different levels of development and functionality. Take Zimbabwe and South Africa as an example. Zimbabwe has not had a working radiotherapy machine in its public healthcare system for more than four years. The country’s largest hospital has only one maternity theatre, built in 1977. Then look at South Africa. Its public healthcare system has some problems and could be much better, but by African standards it remains among the most advanced on the continent. If those two countries stand side by side, as they physically do, how do you integrate them when one is dysfunctional and the other remains a functioning state? These are the root causes we need to confront. This discussion must be held in a comprehensive and honest manner, not in fragments. We can speak about the noble aspirations of Pan-Africanism, and we can also discuss the obstacles that stand in its way. Both conversations must be held together. Only then can we identify what needs to be done and begin serious scenario planning around how to get there. Instead, we often get beautiful speeches delivered at the African Union, one of the most ineffective continental organisations in the world. People make grand declarations, earn generous salaries, and then nothing happens. Great speeches have been delivered since the days of the Organisation of African Unity. One of those speeches was even immortalised by Bob Marley in his song War. Yet more than 60 years later, many of the same challenges remain unresolved. That is an indictment not only of African leaders but also of African elites. Too many are content to make money while ignoring the underlying governance failures that hold the continent back. Consider Aliko Dangote, the richest black man in the world and Africa’s most successful entrepreneur. He requires 34 visas to enter dozens of African countries. Yet if I hold a British passport, my movement across much of Africa can often be easier than his. How can Africa speak seriously about integration when one of its own leading business figures faces such barriers within the continent? Until influential African business leaders such as Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, Patrice Motsepe, and others begin speaking more forcefully about governance, corruption, economic mismanagement, and state dysfunction, progress will remain slow. As long as these issues are accommodated because money can still be made, Africa will continue to talk about unity without creating the conditions necessary to achieve it. So, back in the townships of South Africa, there is a crisis. I have always said that Zimbabwe is no longer a foreign policy issue. It is a domestic issue because the South African government must deal with its consequences in hospitals, social services, employment, housing, education, and many other facets of daily life. If the South African government does not have the courage to stand up to leaders such as Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mozambique’s President, Daniel Chapo, and say, “The way you are running your economies is creating problems for us,” then the situation will continue to deteriorate. The tragedy is that it is always the poor, the ordinary, and those living in abject poverty who end up fighting amongst themselves. Yet the root causes of these tensions are often created at the highest levels of political leadership. The people competing for jobs, housing, healthcare, and other scarce resources did not create the conditions that led to mass migration. Those conditions were created by policy failures, corruption, poor governance, and economic mismanagement. I would go even further and say that this is also an indictment of South African leadership. SADC already has protocols, principles, and governance frameworks that were specifically designed to prevent member states from becoming dysfunctional and destabilising their neighbours. The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the absence of enforcement. Those protocols exist on paper, but too often they are ignored in practice. When governance standards are violated, when economies collapse, when democratic institutions are weakened, and when corruption flourishes, there is rarely any meaningful consequence from the region. As a result, the effects spill across borders and eventually become someone else’s problem. That is why the immigration debate cannot be separated from the governance debate. They are two sides of the same coin. If African leaders are serious about reducing migration pressures, they must first address the political and economic failures that are pushing people to leave their countries in the first place. We all know why that conversation is avoided. So, coming back to Trevor Noah’s analogy, it is ultimately a human analogy. It reflects a reality that has existed throughout history and even in nature itself. If lions have abundant access to zebras and other prey, there is very little competition between lions, leopards, and other predators. But when food becomes scarce, competition intensifies. The struggle is no longer about identity. It becomes a struggle over limited resources. The same principle applies in human societies. When jobs are plentiful, when healthcare functions, when housing is available, and when opportunities are expanding, people are generally more tolerant and welcoming. But the moment resources become scarce, tensions rise. People begin competing for the same opportunities, and that competition often manifests itself through politics, nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or other forms of social conflict. This is not unique to South Africa. It is not unique to Africa. It is part of the human condition. In many ways, what we are witnessing is both a human story and an animal kingdom story. The underlying dynamic is remarkably similar. Scarcity creates competition. Competition creates tension. Tension creates conflict. That is why discussions about immigration cannot be separated from discussions about governance, economic growth, service delivery, and opportunity. If we focus only on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes, we will never solve the problem. The real challenge is not merely getting people to live together. The real challenge is creating societies and economies that produce enough opportunity for people to live together peacefully.

Hopewell Chin’ono

92,159 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

TOPIC #118: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO GCV AMBASSADORS AND SPECIAL ENVOYS Conclusion of the Pioneer’s Handbook ( updater version) 2025 marks an extraordinary and historic moment in our shared journey for Pi Network and Global GCV Movement. They finally "married " together. From this moment forward, we officially enter a new chapter that I proudly name: The GCV Economy Era With this milestone, the Pioneer’s Handbook reaches its conclusion. This is my 118th article. In Chinese culture, 118 symbolizes prosperity and good fortune—a perfect symbol for closing one historic chapter and opening another. These final words are dedicated to all pioneers, merchants, ambassadors, envoys, and warriors whose unity, discipline, and perseverance made the GCV dream a reality. --- 1. The Origin of GCV — A Seed Planted in China The GCV Movement began in China, nurtured by pioneers with vision, courage, and deep study. In February 2022, Mr. Rong Zhang Bao launched the Pi Network International Seminar, calling pioneers to study Pi deeply, understand its mission, and define its economic value. After months of collective research and surveys, Chinese pioneers established the foundational consensus value: $314,159. In May 2022, Mr. Bao Rong Zhang and I, together with Nigerian pioneer Mr. Woody, launched three international Twitter Space conferences. Mr. Woody's influence helped introduce GCV to tens of thousands of pioneers worldwide, marking the true beginning of GCV's international journey. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Rong Zhang Bao, former community leader in China, as the founder of GCV, Mr. Woody Lightyear, former community leader in Nigeria, as a key supporter of GCV at early stage Their contributions during the early stages of GCV in 2022 were essential. The early path, however, was not easy. GCV faced misunderstandings, attacks, misinformation, and division. My speeches were removed from groups. Leaders became confused or misled. Some pioneers, lacking education, turned toward black markets. At that point, I made a deliberate decision: I stepped back from global expansion and devoted one full year exclusively to the China community. During that year, Chinese merchants contributed nearly USD 10 million worth of products through GCV barter. However, because pioneers had no Pi available in their wallets, many transactions relied on contracts without Pi or fiat settlement. This created no usable GCV data, and eventually many merchants—unable to sustain operations—left the movement. From this experience, one truth became clear: > Sustainability is essential. Passion alone is not enough. We must be rational, prepared, and educated. To succeed, we must: Use partial Pi + partial fiat Build education before expansion Protect merchants as carefully as pioneers If pioneers only demand from merchants, the economy cannot survive. If merchants collapse, GCV collapses. This realization is why I began writing the Pioneer’s Handbook—to align pioneers and merchants under one sustainable economic vision. --- 2. Expanding Beyond Borders — The Global Rise of GCV By 2023, it became clear that China alone could not generate sufficient global GCV data. GCV had to rise worldwide. One by one, visionary leaders emerged: Ms. Lumari Ms. Nonny Mr. JoJo Mr. M. Rad Mr. Olivier Mr. Iyanda Mr. Patrick Mr. Jason …and many others. Strong movements followed across the Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, the Arab Region, Malaysia, Taiwan (China), Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, South Korea, and throughout Africa and the Middle East. Many pioneers who doubted GCV did so not out of malice—but from lack of study or misunderstanding of economic authority. Let it be clear: PCT manages technology Pioneers manage the economy GCV is our responsibility and our consensus authority Those who studied deeply developed 100% trust and confidence. --- 3. Deep Gratitude to the International GCV Leadership Although it is impossible to name everyone, the following leaders played defining roles in shaping global GCV success. International GCV Leadership • Ms. Lumari Industry Alliance Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director, Committee Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, Head of Philippines GCV Ambassadors The heart and engine of global operations. Her discipline, compassion, and execution transformed vision into daily action and became a pillar of global success. • Mr. JoJo Industry Alliance Vice Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director Assistant, Committee Chair Assistant, Global GCV Ambassador He completed the translation and editing of all 106 Pioneer’s Handbook articles across 41 languages, making global education possible. His strategic insights strengthened both the GCV system and the Industry Alliance framework. • Mr. Rad Vice Executive Director, GCV Symbol Designer, Global GCV Ambassador Working under extremely difficult conditions in Iran, he never stopped designing certificates, logos, and charter contributions that define GCV’s global identity. • Ms. Nonny Padja Eagle Woman Vice Chair of Global GCV CT Committee, Training Director, Head of Indonesia GCV Ambassadors My steadfast partner for over two years, leading education, data creation, and ecosystem growth across Indonesia. • Mr. Jason Wong Global GCV CT Education Director, Global GCV Ambassador A voice of wisdom whose articles on morality, mindset, and stability helped pioneers deeply understand GCV education. Additional Global GCV CT Contributors Inspector Mr. Soni Vaji (France) Mr. Samer Sioury (Arab Region Industry Alliance Chair) Mr. Yohanes Helebak (Group Administrator Director) Mr. Ramesh Shetty (Vice Education Director) Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola (Publicity Director) --- 4. Recognition of National and Regional GCV Leadership These individuals sacrifice time, energy, finances, and travel to educate pioneers and build local ecosystems. Their roles are essential. Highlighted GCV Heads, Ambassadors & Envoys AFRICA REGION ( I have another acknowledgement for Africa community based on more than 40 countries) Mr. Olivier Ndatimana — Chief Africa GCV Consultant, Africa Industry Alliance Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, former head of Africa GCV Ambassador, Africa GCV movement founder. Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola — Head of Africa GCV Ambassadors, Global GCV Ambassador, West Africa Head of GCV Ambassador East Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Ms. Herine Makosewe Central Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Tresor Kasereka former South Africa GCV Ambassador, Mr. Alexander Chigodo for their valuable efforts in advancing the Africa GCV movement. Mr. Letenou Gidrin — Cameroon Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Danniel NKALA- Botswana Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Toro Motiki- Botswana GCV Executive Director Mrs. Baikoketsi — Botswana Education Ambassador Mr. KOSSA INNOCENT OWOLABI - Ivory Coast Head of GCV Ambassador ( All other GCV Ambassadors name is on Appendix #2) ARAB RGION MOHAMMED ALADEMI, Head of Arab GCV Ambassadors ,Global GCV Ambassador, GCV Core Team Member, Industry Alliance GCV Yemen Special Envoy - Chair Arab Region GCV Ambassadors Active Team – Jordan & Yemen & Egypt 🔹 Name: Samah Mousa Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Head of Ambassadors And Deputy of the Arab GCV Ambassadors Team, Mr. Al-Ademi 🔹 Name: Laith Ayash Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nazek Al-Zubaidi Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nada Hussein Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Jihad Suleiman Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Fayz Al-Wabr Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Unannounced Ambassador (She prefers not to disclose her name to the public) Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Abdul moneim Hegazy Country: Egypt 🇪🇬 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador & Head of Ambassadors IRAN Mr. Kiavash Kamranian — Head of Iran GCV Ambassador, Global GCV Ambassador PHILIPPINES Anthony Balabat Nierra — Ecosystem Development Ambassador Marlon P. Domantay — Education Ambassador VIETNAM Mr. Dao Duc Viet — Head of Vietnam GCV Ambassador, Industry Alliance Envoy Chair, Global GCV Ambassador Ms. Nguyen Minh Nguyet — Vietnam Education GCV Ambassador Ms. Vo Thi Dien — Vietnam Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador CHINA Mr. Shi Long Yu — Head of China GCV Ambassadors Chong Kai Sun — China former Education GCV Ambassador Huo Long — China Ecosystem GCV Ambassador TAIWAN CHINA Mr. Mammon Huang- Head of GCV Ambassador THAILAND Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot — Head of Thailand GCV Ambassador Mr. Trinarich Thepprasit — Global GCV Ambassador (Thailand) Mr. Phupanthong Chaikhumphu — Thailand Ecosystem Development Ambassador Banjong Wrongnarong — Thailand Education Ambassador Wantana Intrachaeng — Thailand Chair Apiwit Noknakorn — Thailand Vice Chair MALAYSIA Mr. Patrick Chua — Head of Malaysia GCV Ambassador INDIA Mr. Raaj Sharma — Head of India GCV Ambassador Mr. Brijesh Maloo — India Education GCV Ambassador TURKEY Mr. Ali Yanık — Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador Mr. Cuneyt Eser — Turkey GCV CT Executive Director Mr. Seckin Dikici — Turkey Education GCV Ambassador Mr. Bulent Dikici — Turkey Ecosystem GCV Ambassador SOUTH KOREA JinTaek Jun — GCV Head Ambassador David Jeong-- GCV Industry Alliance Special Envoy Chair These are only a small portion of the hundreds of official Global GCV CT members, and the thousands of national, provincial, city, and county-level GCV Ambassadors and Envoys worldwide. (All other GCV Ambassadors and Special Envoys name on Appendix #3) Your certificates reflect your achievements, and your names remain permanently in our records. --- 5. Appreciation to GCV Warriors, Supporters & Even Critics Two outstanding warriors deserve recognition: Mr. Mario Roberto Bustamante ( Argentina) -Independent researcher/auditor Mr. Kim Chong (Malaysia) - Independent GCV Analyst Your unwavering effort strengthened the foundations of our movement. We also acknowledge that some GCV Ambassadors have resigned or had their certificates revoked due to violations of the GCV Ambassador Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct. And also we acknowledge GCV supporters previous contribution. Despite this, we sincerely appreciate their previous contributions to the GCV Movement during the time they served. Thank you very much for your contribution and participation. 👉 Mr . Mayass Ali -Former Head of Arab GCV Ambassador 👉 Eng Hossam El-Din, Former GCV ambassador EGYPT 👉 MR Adel El Kayaal - EGYPT, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Ahmed El Mayah-EGYPT Eagle company , Former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Sasaki manabu- Former Japan GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Mike STA Ana -Founder and CEO TPG Ecosystem Philippines, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Dao Anh Tuan -Financial Expertise ,Director of a Tourism business ,Vietnam 👉 Lois Bonafide -GCV Specialist USA , former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Danny toeh - Former Singapore GCV supporter 👉 Mr Yogesh Kumar - Former India GCV supporter 👉 Mr Pascual Dura - Former Spain GCV supporter 👉 David Gibson - Former USA GCV supporter 👉 Mr Quang Chung - Former Vietnam GCV supporter 👉 Ms Xie San Jie- former GCV Mall Representative China 👉 Lucrecia Monahan - Former Latin GCV Ambassador from Guatemala 👉 Ms Houda Badri -University profesor quantum Economy, former GCV Supporter France 👉 Mr Edier Alonso Ricon - Former Latin GCV Ambassador, Colombia 👉 Alex Nissen - Former Austria GCV supporter 👉 Mr Daniel Chan - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Liangshi - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms Hongxuaner- Former Education GCV Ambassador, China 👉 Mr ISSACK BESTER - Former Head of India GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms ebru Soylemez- Former Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr. Hasan Olgun- former Education GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉 Mr. Naim Ugur Kadifeci- former Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉Solo George - Former Head of Tanzania GCV Ambassador and Africa Head of GCV Ambassador assistant 👉Marcel Dango- Former Head of West Africa GCV Ambassador, Burkina Faso 👉Ado -Former Head of Niger GCV Ambassador Throughout the GCV journey, there have also been GCV influencers and supporters who contributed in the past or continue to contribute today. 👉 Mr Ahmed Garbi - Tunisia GCV supporter 👉 Winnie Law - Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 Christ Tang- Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 George Jiao- China GCV merchant 👉 Yohei Uchida- Japan GCV supporter I have a lot of names which I cannot list each of them, but I am grateful to all of them. Even when some have criticized or challenged us, we remain grateful—because every effort, dialogue, and action has played a role in strengthening and refining the movement such as Pi Man and other influencers. We hold deep gratitude for all pioneers who have supported GCV and contributed to its development— regardless of whether they later stepped away or chose a different path. Their contributions remain part of GCV’s history and growth. We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to: Our two GCV song producers, whose music inspired unity and spirit Producer Manifique, Pioneer and singer from Burundi AMB Kamel -Cameroon GCV Ambassador Our Video Team Director Diana Qian from Canada, whose visual work powerfully documented and amplified the GCV Movement Every contribution—large or small—has helped shape the foundation of the GCV Economy Era, and for that, we remain thankful. 6. Chairs & Vice Chairs — Global Recognition List CHAIRS Lumari (GLOBAL) JoJo (GLOBAL) Dao Duc Viet (VIETNAM) Hong Zhi Wu (CHINA) Samer Sioury (ARAB REGION) Osama Salem (JORDAN) Letenou Fongang Gidrin (CAMEROON) Jerwin Figueroa (PHILIPPINES) Wantana Intrachaeng (THAILAND) Simon Hayyarimana (BURUNDI) Asad Salim (PALESTINE) Olivier Ndatimana (AFRICA) Ganhoumeto Dossou Ange (BENIN) Syed Mehdi Agha (INDIA) Mohammed Najib Alademi (YEMEN) Senzo Dennis Mbetse (ESWATINI) Chegn Mohamed Elamine (ALGERIA) Bernard L Moalusi (BOTSWANA) Agnam Komlan P (TOGO) VICE CHAIRS Jian Ping Zhen(CHINA) Khader Ahmed Saleh (JORDAN) Zavier Fokou (CAMEROON) Apiwit Noknakorn (THAILAND) Abed Maher (ARAB REGION) Nguyen Minh Nguyet (VIETNAM) 7. Final Words — The Dawn of a New Era The GCV Movement did not succeed because of one person. It succeeded because thousands of pioneers united with discipline, humility, and vision. Today: 📷 GCV is coded 📷 GCV is recognized 📷 GCV data is global 📷 A new economic era has begun This is not the end— This is the beginning. Thank you, Global GCV Ambassadors. Thank you, Special Envoys. Thank you, merchants. Thank you, pioneers. Thank you, warriors. Thank you, critics who helped us grow. Today, we stand together at the opening of the GCV Economy Era. With immense gratitude and love, Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Author of 118 Articles – Pioneer’s Handbook Dec. 17th, 2025
3:56

TOPIC #118: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO GCV AMBASSADORS AND SPECIAL ENVOYS Conclusion of the Pioneer’s Handbook ( updater version) 2025 marks an extraordinary and historic moment in our shared journey for Pi Network and Global GCV Movement. They finally "married " together. From this moment forward, we officially enter a new chapter that I proudly name: The GCV Economy Era With this milestone, the Pioneer’s Handbook reaches its conclusion. This is my 118th article. In Chinese culture, 118 symbolizes prosperity and good fortune—a perfect symbol for closing one historic chapter and opening another. These final words are dedicated to all pioneers, merchants, ambassadors, envoys, and warriors whose unity, discipline, and perseverance made the GCV dream a reality. --- 1. The Origin of GCV — A Seed Planted in China The GCV Movement began in China, nurtured by pioneers with vision, courage, and deep study. In February 2022, Mr. Rong Zhang Bao launched the Pi Network International Seminar, calling pioneers to study Pi deeply, understand its mission, and define its economic value. After months of collective research and surveys, Chinese pioneers established the foundational consensus value: $314,159. In May 2022, Mr. Bao Rong Zhang and I, together with Nigerian pioneer Mr. Woody, launched three international Twitter Space conferences. Mr. Woody's influence helped introduce GCV to tens of thousands of pioneers worldwide, marking the true beginning of GCV's international journey. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Rong Zhang Bao, former community leader in China, as the founder of GCV, Mr. Woody Lightyear, former community leader in Nigeria, as a key supporter of GCV at early stage Their contributions during the early stages of GCV in 2022 were essential. The early path, however, was not easy. GCV faced misunderstandings, attacks, misinformation, and division. My speeches were removed from groups. Leaders became confused or misled. Some pioneers, lacking education, turned toward black markets. At that point, I made a deliberate decision: I stepped back from global expansion and devoted one full year exclusively to the China community. During that year, Chinese merchants contributed nearly USD 10 million worth of products through GCV barter. However, because pioneers had no Pi available in their wallets, many transactions relied on contracts without Pi or fiat settlement. This created no usable GCV data, and eventually many merchants—unable to sustain operations—left the movement. From this experience, one truth became clear: > Sustainability is essential. Passion alone is not enough. We must be rational, prepared, and educated. To succeed, we must: Use partial Pi + partial fiat Build education before expansion Protect merchants as carefully as pioneers If pioneers only demand from merchants, the economy cannot survive. If merchants collapse, GCV collapses. This realization is why I began writing the Pioneer’s Handbook—to align pioneers and merchants under one sustainable economic vision. --- 2. Expanding Beyond Borders — The Global Rise of GCV By 2023, it became clear that China alone could not generate sufficient global GCV data. GCV had to rise worldwide. One by one, visionary leaders emerged: Ms. Lumari Ms. Nonny Mr. JoJo Mr. M. Rad Mr. Olivier Mr. Iyanda Mr. Patrick Mr. Jason …and many others. Strong movements followed across the Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, the Arab Region, Malaysia, Taiwan (China), Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, South Korea, and throughout Africa and the Middle East. Many pioneers who doubted GCV did so not out of malice—but from lack of study or misunderstanding of economic authority. Let it be clear: PCT manages technology Pioneers manage the economy GCV is our responsibility and our consensus authority Those who studied deeply developed 100% trust and confidence. --- 3. Deep Gratitude to the International GCV Leadership Although it is impossible to name everyone, the following leaders played defining roles in shaping global GCV success. International GCV Leadership • Ms. Lumari Industry Alliance Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director, Committee Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, Head of Philippines GCV Ambassadors The heart and engine of global operations. Her discipline, compassion, and execution transformed vision into daily action and became a pillar of global success. • Mr. JoJo Industry Alliance Vice Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director Assistant, Committee Chair Assistant, Global GCV Ambassador He completed the translation and editing of all 106 Pioneer’s Handbook articles across 41 languages, making global education possible. His strategic insights strengthened both the GCV system and the Industry Alliance framework. • Mr. Rad Vice Executive Director, GCV Symbol Designer, Global GCV Ambassador Working under extremely difficult conditions in Iran, he never stopped designing certificates, logos, and charter contributions that define GCV’s global identity. • Ms. Nonny Padja Eagle Woman Vice Chair of Global GCV CT Committee, Training Director, Head of Indonesia GCV Ambassadors My steadfast partner for over two years, leading education, data creation, and ecosystem growth across Indonesia. • Mr. Jason Wong Global GCV CT Education Director, Global GCV Ambassador A voice of wisdom whose articles on morality, mindset, and stability helped pioneers deeply understand GCV education. Additional Global GCV CT Contributors Inspector Mr. Soni Vaji (France) Mr. Samer Sioury (Arab Region Industry Alliance Chair) Mr. Yohanes Helebak (Group Administrator Director) Mr. Ramesh Shetty (Vice Education Director) Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola (Publicity Director) --- 4. Recognition of National and Regional GCV Leadership These individuals sacrifice time, energy, finances, and travel to educate pioneers and build local ecosystems. Their roles are essential. Highlighted GCV Heads, Ambassadors & Envoys AFRICA REGION ( I have another acknowledgement for Africa community based on more than 40 countries) Mr. Olivier Ndatimana — Chief Africa GCV Consultant, Africa Industry Alliance Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, former head of Africa GCV Ambassador, Africa GCV movement founder. Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola — Head of Africa GCV Ambassadors, Global GCV Ambassador, West Africa Head of GCV Ambassador East Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Ms. Herine Makosewe Central Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Tresor Kasereka former South Africa GCV Ambassador, Mr. Alexander Chigodo for their valuable efforts in advancing the Africa GCV movement. Mr. Letenou Gidrin — Cameroon Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Danniel NKALA- Botswana Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Toro Motiki- Botswana GCV Executive Director Mrs. Baikoketsi — Botswana Education Ambassador Mr. KOSSA INNOCENT OWOLABI - Ivory Coast Head of GCV Ambassador ( All other GCV Ambassadors name is on Appendix #2) ARAB RGION MOHAMMED ALADEMI, Head of Arab GCV Ambassadors ,Global GCV Ambassador, GCV Core Team Member, Industry Alliance GCV Yemen Special Envoy - Chair Arab Region GCV Ambassadors Active Team – Jordan & Yemen & Egypt 🔹 Name: Samah Mousa Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Head of Ambassadors And Deputy of the Arab GCV Ambassadors Team, Mr. Al-Ademi 🔹 Name: Laith Ayash Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nazek Al-Zubaidi Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nada Hussein Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Jihad Suleiman Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Fayz Al-Wabr Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Unannounced Ambassador (She prefers not to disclose her name to the public) Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Abdul moneim Hegazy Country: Egypt 🇪🇬 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador & Head of Ambassadors IRAN Mr. Kiavash Kamranian — Head of Iran GCV Ambassador, Global GCV Ambassador PHILIPPINES Anthony Balabat Nierra — Ecosystem Development Ambassador Marlon P. Domantay — Education Ambassador VIETNAM Mr. Dao Duc Viet — Head of Vietnam GCV Ambassador, Industry Alliance Envoy Chair, Global GCV Ambassador Ms. Nguyen Minh Nguyet — Vietnam Education GCV Ambassador Ms. Vo Thi Dien — Vietnam Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador CHINA Mr. Shi Long Yu — Head of China GCV Ambassadors Chong Kai Sun — China former Education GCV Ambassador Huo Long — China Ecosystem GCV Ambassador TAIWAN CHINA Mr. Mammon Huang- Head of GCV Ambassador THAILAND Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot — Head of Thailand GCV Ambassador Mr. Trinarich Thepprasit — Global GCV Ambassador (Thailand) Mr. Phupanthong Chaikhumphu — Thailand Ecosystem Development Ambassador Banjong Wrongnarong — Thailand Education Ambassador Wantana Intrachaeng — Thailand Chair Apiwit Noknakorn — Thailand Vice Chair MALAYSIA Mr. Patrick Chua — Head of Malaysia GCV Ambassador INDIA Mr. Raaj Sharma — Head of India GCV Ambassador Mr. Brijesh Maloo — India Education GCV Ambassador TURKEY Mr. Ali Yanık — Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador Mr. Cuneyt Eser — Turkey GCV CT Executive Director Mr. Seckin Dikici — Turkey Education GCV Ambassador Mr. Bulent Dikici — Turkey Ecosystem GCV Ambassador SOUTH KOREA JinTaek Jun — GCV Head Ambassador David Jeong-- GCV Industry Alliance Special Envoy Chair These are only a small portion of the hundreds of official Global GCV CT members, and the thousands of national, provincial, city, and county-level GCV Ambassadors and Envoys worldwide. (All other GCV Ambassadors and Special Envoys name on Appendix #3) Your certificates reflect your achievements, and your names remain permanently in our records. --- 5. Appreciation to GCV Warriors, Supporters & Even Critics Two outstanding warriors deserve recognition: Mr. Mario Roberto Bustamante ( Argentina) -Independent researcher/auditor Mr. Kim Chong (Malaysia) - Independent GCV Analyst Your unwavering effort strengthened the foundations of our movement. We also acknowledge that some GCV Ambassadors have resigned or had their certificates revoked due to violations of the GCV Ambassador Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct. And also we acknowledge GCV supporters previous contribution. Despite this, we sincerely appreciate their previous contributions to the GCV Movement during the time they served. Thank you very much for your contribution and participation. 👉 Mr . Mayass Ali -Former Head of Arab GCV Ambassador 👉 Eng Hossam El-Din, Former GCV ambassador EGYPT 👉 MR Adel El Kayaal - EGYPT, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Ahmed El Mayah-EGYPT Eagle company , Former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Sasaki manabu- Former Japan GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Mike STA Ana -Founder and CEO TPG Ecosystem Philippines, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Dao Anh Tuan -Financial Expertise ,Director of a Tourism business ,Vietnam 👉 Lois Bonafide -GCV Specialist USA , former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Danny toeh - Former Singapore GCV supporter 👉 Mr Yogesh Kumar - Former India GCV supporter 👉 Mr Pascual Dura - Former Spain GCV supporter 👉 David Gibson - Former USA GCV supporter 👉 Mr Quang Chung - Former Vietnam GCV supporter 👉 Ms Xie San Jie- former GCV Mall Representative China 👉 Lucrecia Monahan - Former Latin GCV Ambassador from Guatemala 👉 Ms Houda Badri -University profesor quantum Economy, former GCV Supporter France 👉 Mr Edier Alonso Ricon - Former Latin GCV Ambassador, Colombia 👉 Alex Nissen - Former Austria GCV supporter 👉 Mr Daniel Chan - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Liangshi - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms Hongxuaner- Former Education GCV Ambassador, China 👉 Mr ISSACK BESTER - Former Head of India GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms ebru Soylemez- Former Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr. Hasan Olgun- former Education GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉 Mr. Naim Ugur Kadifeci- former Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉Solo George - Former Head of Tanzania GCV Ambassador and Africa Head of GCV Ambassador assistant 👉Marcel Dango- Former Head of West Africa GCV Ambassador, Burkina Faso 👉Ado -Former Head of Niger GCV Ambassador Throughout the GCV journey, there have also been GCV influencers and supporters who contributed in the past or continue to contribute today. 👉 Mr Ahmed Garbi - Tunisia GCV supporter 👉 Winnie Law - Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 Christ Tang- Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 George Jiao- China GCV merchant 👉 Yohei Uchida- Japan GCV supporter I have a lot of names which I cannot list each of them, but I am grateful to all of them. Even when some have criticized or challenged us, we remain grateful—because every effort, dialogue, and action has played a role in strengthening and refining the movement such as Pi Man and other influencers. We hold deep gratitude for all pioneers who have supported GCV and contributed to its development— regardless of whether they later stepped away or chose a different path. Their contributions remain part of GCV’s history and growth. We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to: Our two GCV song producers, whose music inspired unity and spirit Producer Manifique, Pioneer and singer from Burundi AMB Kamel -Cameroon GCV Ambassador Our Video Team Director Diana Qian from Canada, whose visual work powerfully documented and amplified the GCV Movement Every contribution—large or small—has helped shape the foundation of the GCV Economy Era, and for that, we remain thankful. 6. Chairs & Vice Chairs — Global Recognition List CHAIRS Lumari (GLOBAL) JoJo (GLOBAL) Dao Duc Viet (VIETNAM) Hong Zhi Wu (CHINA) Samer Sioury (ARAB REGION) Osama Salem (JORDAN) Letenou Fongang Gidrin (CAMEROON) Jerwin Figueroa (PHILIPPINES) Wantana Intrachaeng (THAILAND) Simon Hayyarimana (BURUNDI) Asad Salim (PALESTINE) Olivier Ndatimana (AFRICA) Ganhoumeto Dossou Ange (BENIN) Syed Mehdi Agha (INDIA) Mohammed Najib Alademi (YEMEN) Senzo Dennis Mbetse (ESWATINI) Chegn Mohamed Elamine (ALGERIA) Bernard L Moalusi (BOTSWANA) Agnam Komlan P (TOGO) VICE CHAIRS Jian Ping Zhen(CHINA) Khader Ahmed Saleh (JORDAN) Zavier Fokou (CAMEROON) Apiwit Noknakorn (THAILAND) Abed Maher (ARAB REGION) Nguyen Minh Nguyet (VIETNAM) 7. Final Words — The Dawn of a New Era The GCV Movement did not succeed because of one person. It succeeded because thousands of pioneers united with discipline, humility, and vision. Today: 📷 GCV is coded 📷 GCV is recognized 📷 GCV data is global 📷 A new economic era has begun This is not the end— This is the beginning. Thank you, Global GCV Ambassadors. Thank you, Special Envoys. Thank you, merchants. Thank you, pioneers. Thank you, warriors. Thank you, critics who helped us grow. Today, we stand together at the opening of the GCV Economy Era. With immense gratitude and love, Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Author of 118 Articles – Pioneer’s Handbook Dec. 17th, 2025

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

17,960 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Trouble is brewing for Tim Hortons as Dunkin' Donuts returns to Canada Great news! Tim Hortons is about to get some much-needed direct competition on the coffee and donuts front. After an eight-year hiatus, Dunkin’ Donuts is coming back to Canada. As reported in the Toronto Sun by the superb food professor Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Dunkin’ Donuts was once a formidable player in the Canadian coffee and donuts sector, especially in Quebec. Dr. Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, a co-host of The Food Professor Podcast, and a visiting scholar at McGill University. He knows his stuff when it comes to the food and foodservice sectors. And now comes word that Dunkin’ is back – and it means business, with as many as 700 locations opening in Canada beginning later this year. The player behind the return of Dunkin’ Donuts is Foodtastic. Foodtastic is a Montreal-based restaurant consolidator that has a reputation for aggressively acquiring and revitalizing brands across Canada. This includes such chains as Pita Pit, Second Cup, Freshii and Quesada. Dr. Charlebois notes that, unlike many foreign operators trying to enter Canada, Foodtastic actually understands the Canadian and Quebec markets intimately. And this understanding is crucial for success. So, the question arises: Why is Dunkin’ Donuts set to return now? Dr. Charlebois says the decision to revive this iconic U.S. brand in the Great White North is all about identifying weakness in our domestic market. He notes: “For years, Tim Hortons dominated Canada’s quick-service coffee market with extraordinary efficiency. It wasn’t just a coffee chain; it became part of Canada’s cultural identity. But dominance can create complacency, and the Canadian marketplace today is very different from the one Dunkin’ left behind. Consumer loyalty has weakened. Canadians are far more willing to switch brands than they were 20 years ago. Inflation has changed buying habits. Consumers are increasingly critical of value, quality, consistency and service. At the same time, the coffee market itself has evolved dramatically.” He is right on the money. What’s more, I think Dr. Charlebois is far too polite in his analysis of Tim’s reputational downfall. I mean, let’s be honest: most of the food Tim Hortons serves up these days is practically inedible. As for the chain’s decades-old slogan, “Always Fresh”, that’s an outright fallacy. Tim Hortons stores used to bake donuts and muffins from scratch. But about 20 years ago, they got rid of their bakers, a decision that was driven by reducing labour costs. Now the stores heat up par-baked items, which are nicknamed frozen pucks, in convection ovens. This is a task that’s easily done by those making minimum wage, and without any knowledge of baking. “Always Fresh” indeed… And maybe it’s just me, but why do so many Tim Hortons stores seem so shabby? And why are the washrooms so frequently filthy? It’s like nobody in charge seems to care anymore. Which is why Dr. Charlebois notes that, “Ironically, Dunkin’s return may say less about the strength of Dunkin’ and more about the reality that Tim Hortons is no longer viewed as invincible. That alone makes this story worth watching carefully.” And I would add that even though Tim Hortons wraps itself in the Maple Leaf, Tim’s is no longer a Canadian-owned chain but part of a multinational conglomerate. It’s Canadian in name only, and I’m sure the man it is named after is rolling in his grave right now. I'm going to give the CEO of Foodtastic eight figures worth of free consulting advice: If you want to really resonate with Canadian customers who are pissed off with Tim Hortons, stage a press conference in which you announce that your company plans to hire Canadians to staff Dunkin’ Donuts shops, and that you will not take advantage of the Temporary Foreign Worker program. In recent years, Tim Hortons has earned the dubious nickname of “Singh Hortons”. Sure, this company loves selling products to Canadians. But it is increasingly not hiring Canadians as staffers – even though Tim’s is a multibillion-dollar restaurant chain that certainly does not need government handouts. I am certain this would be a winning communications strategy for Foodtastic as it resurrects Dunkin’ Donuts in these parts. Talk about irony in this day and age of “elbows up”! Will an American-based coffee and donut chain actually end up being more Canadian than Tim Hortons? Can’t wait to see what transpires in the months ahead. REPORT by David Menzies:
6:56

Trouble is brewing for Tim Hortons as Dunkin' Donuts returns to Canada Great news! Tim Hortons is about to get some much-needed direct competition on the coffee and donuts front. After an eight-year hiatus, Dunkin’ Donuts is coming back to Canada. As reported in the Toronto Sun by the superb food professor Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Dunkin’ Donuts was once a formidable player in the Canadian coffee and donuts sector, especially in Quebec. Dr. Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, a co-host of The Food Professor Podcast, and a visiting scholar at McGill University. He knows his stuff when it comes to the food and foodservice sectors. And now comes word that Dunkin’ is back – and it means business, with as many as 700 locations opening in Canada beginning later this year. The player behind the return of Dunkin’ Donuts is Foodtastic. Foodtastic is a Montreal-based restaurant consolidator that has a reputation for aggressively acquiring and revitalizing brands across Canada. This includes such chains as Pita Pit, Second Cup, Freshii and Quesada. Dr. Charlebois notes that, unlike many foreign operators trying to enter Canada, Foodtastic actually understands the Canadian and Quebec markets intimately. And this understanding is crucial for success. So, the question arises: Why is Dunkin’ Donuts set to return now? Dr. Charlebois says the decision to revive this iconic U.S. brand in the Great White North is all about identifying weakness in our domestic market. He notes: “For years, Tim Hortons dominated Canada’s quick-service coffee market with extraordinary efficiency. It wasn’t just a coffee chain; it became part of Canada’s cultural identity. But dominance can create complacency, and the Canadian marketplace today is very different from the one Dunkin’ left behind. Consumer loyalty has weakened. Canadians are far more willing to switch brands than they were 20 years ago. Inflation has changed buying habits. Consumers are increasingly critical of value, quality, consistency and service. At the same time, the coffee market itself has evolved dramatically.” He is right on the money. What’s more, I think Dr. Charlebois is far too polite in his analysis of Tim’s reputational downfall. I mean, let’s be honest: most of the food Tim Hortons serves up these days is practically inedible. As for the chain’s decades-old slogan, “Always Fresh”, that’s an outright fallacy. Tim Hortons stores used to bake donuts and muffins from scratch. But about 20 years ago, they got rid of their bakers, a decision that was driven by reducing labour costs. Now the stores heat up par-baked items, which are nicknamed frozen pucks, in convection ovens. This is a task that’s easily done by those making minimum wage, and without any knowledge of baking. “Always Fresh” indeed… And maybe it’s just me, but why do so many Tim Hortons stores seem so shabby? And why are the washrooms so frequently filthy? It’s like nobody in charge seems to care anymore. Which is why Dr. Charlebois notes that, “Ironically, Dunkin’s return may say less about the strength of Dunkin’ and more about the reality that Tim Hortons is no longer viewed as invincible. That alone makes this story worth watching carefully.” And I would add that even though Tim Hortons wraps itself in the Maple Leaf, Tim’s is no longer a Canadian-owned chain but part of a multinational conglomerate. It’s Canadian in name only, and I’m sure the man it is named after is rolling in his grave right now. I'm going to give the CEO of Foodtastic eight figures worth of free consulting advice: If you want to really resonate with Canadian customers who are pissed off with Tim Hortons, stage a press conference in which you announce that your company plans to hire Canadians to staff Dunkin’ Donuts shops, and that you will not take advantage of the Temporary Foreign Worker program. In recent years, Tim Hortons has earned the dubious nickname of “Singh Hortons”. Sure, this company loves selling products to Canadians. But it is increasingly not hiring Canadians as staffers – even though Tim’s is a multibillion-dollar restaurant chain that certainly does not need government handouts. I am certain this would be a winning communications strategy for Foodtastic as it resurrects Dunkin’ Donuts in these parts. Talk about irony in this day and age of “elbows up”! Will an American-based coffee and donut chain actually end up being more Canadian than Tim Hortons? Can’t wait to see what transpires in the months ahead. REPORT by David Menzies:

Rebel News

17,881 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

WATCH: Here was how President Trump concluded his eulogy of Lindsey Graham... “I always cherish the memories of our golf games, and only because of his really — and I will say this memorial service — it’s so hard to say a memorial service for Lindsey. It’s hard to say, but I’ll admit that one time Lindsey Graham and Annika Sorenstam actually beat me and Gary Player together. Can you believe that? Annika played very well that day, actually. But right to the end, Lindsey carried in his golf bag the putter that once belonged to his dad and he carried it with him, with class and with a ring that was so beautiful of his mother. And they were laying right at his bedside the night he died. They were there. He had them with him at all times.” “From that pool hall where his parents raised him to the halls of the United States Senate, where he was respected and loved, the son of South Carolina became one of the most important men in the most important country on Earth. In a city where politicians often become jaded and cynical, Lindsey Graham never lost the old-fashioned American idealism that brought him to the highest levels of government and life. He took his duty seriously without taking himself too seriously. He was unwavering in his principles, but always willing to listen. He always wanted to listen, and one thing about Lindsey that we all know, he never quit. You wanted him to quit. You waited for him to quit, but he would never quit.” “Above all, Lindsey Graham loved America and he believed in the American people. If you shared that view, you had a friend in Lindsey. If you didn’t share it, there was no fiercer or more constant opponent. Our nation needs more men and women like that great person sitting, laying wherever he may be. I think I know where he is and I think he’s up there. I think he’s watching us. I’m pretty sure of it.” “Scripture tells us that blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life. For 71 years, Lindsey Graham was strong and steadfast as a brother, a senator, a warrior, and a patriot. He withstood every last test, every single test that you can go through and every trial, and now he wears the crown of life in Heaven, reunited with his parents and reunited with His Lord. I end by saying something very, very special. Lindsey, we love you. God bless you. We will always be with you. And you were very, very special.”
3:05

WATCH: Here was how President Trump concluded his eulogy of Lindsey Graham... “I always cherish the memories of our golf games, and only because of his really — and I will say this memorial service — it’s so hard to say a memorial service for Lindsey. It’s hard to say, but I’ll admit that one time Lindsey Graham and Annika Sorenstam actually beat me and Gary Player together. Can you believe that? Annika played very well that day, actually. But right to the end, Lindsey carried in his golf bag the putter that once belonged to his dad and he carried it with him, with class and with a ring that was so beautiful of his mother. And they were laying right at his bedside the night he died. They were there. He had them with him at all times.” “From that pool hall where his parents raised him to the halls of the United States Senate, where he was respected and loved, the son of South Carolina became one of the most important men in the most important country on Earth. In a city where politicians often become jaded and cynical, Lindsey Graham never lost the old-fashioned American idealism that brought him to the highest levels of government and life. He took his duty seriously without taking himself too seriously. He was unwavering in his principles, but always willing to listen. He always wanted to listen, and one thing about Lindsey that we all know, he never quit. You wanted him to quit. You waited for him to quit, but he would never quit.” “Above all, Lindsey Graham loved America and he believed in the American people. If you shared that view, you had a friend in Lindsey. If you didn’t share it, there was no fiercer or more constant opponent. Our nation needs more men and women like that great person sitting, laying wherever he may be. I think I know where he is and I think he’s up there. I think he’s watching us. I’m pretty sure of it.” “Scripture tells us that blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life. For 71 years, Lindsey Graham was strong and steadfast as a brother, a senator, a warrior, and a patriot. He withstood every last test, every single test that you can go through and every trial, and now he wears the crown of life in Heaven, reunited with his parents and reunited with His Lord. I end by saying something very, very special. Lindsey, we love you. God bless you. We will always be with you. And you were very, very special.”

Curtis Houck

679,859 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
24:35

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Hillel Neuer

68,720 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The proposed indefinite stay-away by Zimbabwe’s war veterans’ leader Blessed “Bombshell” Geza has failed to take off. Zimbabweans, particularly in Bulawayo and Harare and other small towns, chose to go to work today. I see on social media that some citizens in the diaspora are angry with fellow compatriots back home for going to work, but we should remember that Zimbabwe has 95% unemployment, so if people do not go out to hustle, they will starve, so goes the argument. The idea that people would get food from retailers or wholesalers was Alice in Wonderland stuff, it was never going to work or happen in a country where most businesses are owned by the corrupt cabal that the action intended to remove or loosen its grip on power. Secondly, Zimbabweans want to be liberated from corrupt rule by a particular type of political group and politician, so without the traditional opposition throwing its weight behind Geza's call, his efforts were always going to be in vain even though they are noble and progressive. The failure of this stay-away ends any immediate hope that citizens will participate in any liberation efforts unless mobilised by the traditional opposition, which does not exist, or by the military. I will be blunt. Short of a military intervention to stop Emmerson Mnangagwa’s corrupt rule, he will now get everything he wants, including term extensions. He is relentless. Zimbabweans will now be stuck with Mnangagwa until the day he dies and possibly will have to accept that his kids will rule them too with the assistance of his crooked cronies and clansmen. Zimbabweans should forget about the 2028 election and as a local doctor mentioned on social media, begin working through the five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. It is pointless putting your hopes in a process that you know too well will be rigged. For him to fail to achieve what he wants, Mnangagwa would have to make a catastrophic mistake, like killing loads of people which will attract international scrutiny or firing his Vice President, General Constantino Chiwenga which might finally trigger a decisive response. There is now nobody with the capacity to stop him, short of a military intervention or death. Geza has tried, but there is no tangible citizen support that was forthcoming. Geza managed to force Mnangagwa’s team to stop chanting the 2030 slogan and pushed them into another plan of bribing MPs with illegally parcelled land. But after today, the dictator knows that Geza is now all alone, unless the military intervenes, which, as I have said before, is now looking highly unlikely unless they are provoked by the continued conspicuous consumption of looted public funds. So, Zimbabweans must now accept the reality that their failure to sacrifice for their liberation by simply staying at home will mean more unemployment, more looting of public funds, more dilapidated hospitals and public infrastructure, and more economic pain all around. Those are the grim political and socio-economic realities of Zimbabwe going forward, nothing less, nothing more. Journalists will continue writing about corruption scandals, but only for historical records and as part of our job, and for many readers, it would be for entertainment value sadly. Some will just switch to issues that have positive mental health outcomes. If you are young, have a passport, and have somewhere to go, my advice is to leave, otherwise, you will just become another tragic statistic of poverty, unemployment, and possibly death in a derelict hospital. Ordinarily, Africans do not care about who is in power if they have the basic necessities of life. But sadly, in Zimbabwe, those necessities will remain out of reach for as long as Mnangagwa and his corrupt cabal are in power. As for the opposition, it is dead. There will be no pushback for reasons you all know. You will remember that last year in May, I mentioned that three key countries to Zimbabwe's politics privately mentioned through their diplomats that, as far as they were concerned, 2028 was gone, and they were now looking at perhaps 2033 or even beyond to envisage any possibility of a change of government. But as long as Zimbabweans remain fixated on the main actor syndrome and not an opposition movement, they must also accept being stuck in the current political ditch for a long time to come. What does this mean? It means more looting. For the diaspora, it means continuing to send money back home for the foreseeable future. The tragedy is that Zimbabwean citizens continue to look for a hero figure rather than building a durable, collective movement that outlasts individual egos. Until that changes, power will remain concentrated in the hands of whoever seizes the moment, no matter how corrupt or undemocratic they are like Mnangagwa. For foreign diplomats, it simply means accepting that they now must work with the government of the day no matter how corrupt it is, with no hope of any change unless there is a dramatic intervention that puts an end to the current political rot. For General Constantino Chiwenga, it means kissing goodbye to his dream of becoming president. He must now tighten his security and pray that Mnangagwa does not make the un-strategic mistake of firing him because he might not be able to fight back. If he still has an appetite for this job, he has to fight for it by coming out of the shadows, otherwise he will meet the same fate that destroyed Joice Mujuru’s career. Without her husband, she became a nobody, and without the military, Chiwenga will be just another brick in the wall. For 74-year-old war veterans’ leader, former intelligence officer, and former Member of Parliament Blessed “Bombshell” Geza, keep your head up high old man. You did what you could, and history will be kind to you for trying, at great personal cost. Your beautiful home in Sanyati was burnt, your wife harassed, and now you are living in hiding. One would have to be a fool of monumental proportions not to acknowledge your efforts and say thank you for trying. You have contributed to people’s consciousness about how bad corruption has become, and hopefully you will live to see the change that Zimbabwe so desperately needs. Every struggle needs leadership; people cannot lead themselves. The idea that the Arab Spring was leaderless is rooted in ignorance and a lack of understanding of what happened. Without leaders to provide direction and inspiration, citizens cannot move forward on their own. Citizens were given direction and inspiration by Geza, but quite evidently, they felt it was not enough to compel them to make sacrifices, such as simply staying away from work and enduring a little hardship for the greater good and a better future. The dysfunctionality of national leadership in Zimbabwe has been fuelled by money changing hands, shameless ethnic alignments, corruption, and the absence of a shared national vision and values. Put simply, Zimbabweans are not united against the common enemy, corrupt rule. The oversized egos that prioritise individualism over a collective agenda are self-evident, and they are among the key ingredients of today’s failed politics. Sadly, it is the ordinary people and the lumpen who cheer that individualism that will continue to suffer. As Dr Solomon Guramatunhu has always said in my favourite saying of his, politicians are a mirror of who we are as a society. Every society has a leadership it deserves. When the society fundamentally changes, it will change its leadership too. When citizens hero-worship politicians regardless of the mistakes they make, it means such a people deserve those leaders. When citizens demand more, the leaders will also change. For now, Zimbabweans are stuck with Mnangagwa and an elusive opposition that only exists in name and not indeed. I conclude by saying that only something very dramatic will change Zimbabwe’s state of affairs. It could be a military intervention that removes the current corrupt political leadership of Mnangagwa, but ultimately it will also serve the interests of the elites if the citizens are just by-standers, or a dramatic fall from grace for the corrupt if a few of them are arrested beyond the president’s control, leading to the public shedding its fear. At this moment, any change will do, because the country was removed from the gutter in 2017 into the sewer. The question is who has the capacity to bring the required change? Only time will tell.
2:25

The proposed indefinite stay-away by Zimbabwe’s war veterans’ leader Blessed “Bombshell” Geza has failed to take off. Zimbabweans, particularly in Bulawayo and Harare and other small towns, chose to go to work today. I see on social media that some citizens in the diaspora are angry with fellow compatriots back home for going to work, but we should remember that Zimbabwe has 95% unemployment, so if people do not go out to hustle, they will starve, so goes the argument. The idea that people would get food from retailers or wholesalers was Alice in Wonderland stuff, it was never going to work or happen in a country where most businesses are owned by the corrupt cabal that the action intended to remove or loosen its grip on power. Secondly, Zimbabweans want to be liberated from corrupt rule by a particular type of political group and politician, so without the traditional opposition throwing its weight behind Geza's call, his efforts were always going to be in vain even though they are noble and progressive. The failure of this stay-away ends any immediate hope that citizens will participate in any liberation efforts unless mobilised by the traditional opposition, which does not exist, or by the military. I will be blunt. Short of a military intervention to stop Emmerson Mnangagwa’s corrupt rule, he will now get everything he wants, including term extensions. He is relentless. Zimbabweans will now be stuck with Mnangagwa until the day he dies and possibly will have to accept that his kids will rule them too with the assistance of his crooked cronies and clansmen. Zimbabweans should forget about the 2028 election and as a local doctor mentioned on social media, begin working through the five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. It is pointless putting your hopes in a process that you know too well will be rigged. For him to fail to achieve what he wants, Mnangagwa would have to make a catastrophic mistake, like killing loads of people which will attract international scrutiny or firing his Vice President, General Constantino Chiwenga which might finally trigger a decisive response. There is now nobody with the capacity to stop him, short of a military intervention or death. Geza has tried, but there is no tangible citizen support that was forthcoming. Geza managed to force Mnangagwa’s team to stop chanting the 2030 slogan and pushed them into another plan of bribing MPs with illegally parcelled land. But after today, the dictator knows that Geza is now all alone, unless the military intervenes, which, as I have said before, is now looking highly unlikely unless they are provoked by the continued conspicuous consumption of looted public funds. So, Zimbabweans must now accept the reality that their failure to sacrifice for their liberation by simply staying at home will mean more unemployment, more looting of public funds, more dilapidated hospitals and public infrastructure, and more economic pain all around. Those are the grim political and socio-economic realities of Zimbabwe going forward, nothing less, nothing more. Journalists will continue writing about corruption scandals, but only for historical records and as part of our job, and for many readers, it would be for entertainment value sadly. Some will just switch to issues that have positive mental health outcomes. If you are young, have a passport, and have somewhere to go, my advice is to leave, otherwise, you will just become another tragic statistic of poverty, unemployment, and possibly death in a derelict hospital. Ordinarily, Africans do not care about who is in power if they have the basic necessities of life. But sadly, in Zimbabwe, those necessities will remain out of reach for as long as Mnangagwa and his corrupt cabal are in power. As for the opposition, it is dead. There will be no pushback for reasons you all know. You will remember that last year in May, I mentioned that three key countries to Zimbabwe's politics privately mentioned through their diplomats that, as far as they were concerned, 2028 was gone, and they were now looking at perhaps 2033 or even beyond to envisage any possibility of a change of government. But as long as Zimbabweans remain fixated on the main actor syndrome and not an opposition movement, they must also accept being stuck in the current political ditch for a long time to come. What does this mean? It means more looting. For the diaspora, it means continuing to send money back home for the foreseeable future. The tragedy is that Zimbabwean citizens continue to look for a hero figure rather than building a durable, collective movement that outlasts individual egos. Until that changes, power will remain concentrated in the hands of whoever seizes the moment, no matter how corrupt or undemocratic they are like Mnangagwa. For foreign diplomats, it simply means accepting that they now must work with the government of the day no matter how corrupt it is, with no hope of any change unless there is a dramatic intervention that puts an end to the current political rot. For General Constantino Chiwenga, it means kissing goodbye to his dream of becoming president. He must now tighten his security and pray that Mnangagwa does not make the un-strategic mistake of firing him because he might not be able to fight back. If he still has an appetite for this job, he has to fight for it by coming out of the shadows, otherwise he will meet the same fate that destroyed Joice Mujuru’s career. Without her husband, she became a nobody, and without the military, Chiwenga will be just another brick in the wall. For 74-year-old war veterans’ leader, former intelligence officer, and former Member of Parliament Blessed “Bombshell” Geza, keep your head up high old man. You did what you could, and history will be kind to you for trying, at great personal cost. Your beautiful home in Sanyati was burnt, your wife harassed, and now you are living in hiding. One would have to be a fool of monumental proportions not to acknowledge your efforts and say thank you for trying. You have contributed to people’s consciousness about how bad corruption has become, and hopefully you will live to see the change that Zimbabwe so desperately needs. Every struggle needs leadership; people cannot lead themselves. The idea that the Arab Spring was leaderless is rooted in ignorance and a lack of understanding of what happened. Without leaders to provide direction and inspiration, citizens cannot move forward on their own. Citizens were given direction and inspiration by Geza, but quite evidently, they felt it was not enough to compel them to make sacrifices, such as simply staying away from work and enduring a little hardship for the greater good and a better future. The dysfunctionality of national leadership in Zimbabwe has been fuelled by money changing hands, shameless ethnic alignments, corruption, and the absence of a shared national vision and values. Put simply, Zimbabweans are not united against the common enemy, corrupt rule. The oversized egos that prioritise individualism over a collective agenda are self-evident, and they are among the key ingredients of today’s failed politics. Sadly, it is the ordinary people and the lumpen who cheer that individualism that will continue to suffer. As Dr Solomon Guramatunhu has always said in my favourite saying of his, politicians are a mirror of who we are as a society. Every society has a leadership it deserves. When the society fundamentally changes, it will change its leadership too. When citizens hero-worship politicians regardless of the mistakes they make, it means such a people deserve those leaders. When citizens demand more, the leaders will also change. For now, Zimbabweans are stuck with Mnangagwa and an elusive opposition that only exists in name and not indeed. I conclude by saying that only something very dramatic will change Zimbabwe’s state of affairs. It could be a military intervention that removes the current corrupt political leadership of Mnangagwa, but ultimately it will also serve the interests of the elites if the citizens are just by-standers, or a dramatic fall from grace for the corrupt if a few of them are arrested beyond the president’s control, leading to the public shedding its fear. At this moment, any change will do, because the country was removed from the gutter in 2017 into the sewer. The question is who has the capacity to bring the required change? Only time will tell.

Hopewell Chin’ono

121,223 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

WORLDWIDE OUTRAGE! It’s a picture you might never to be able to get out of your head. 42-year-old Cody Roberts of Daniel, Wyoming, all smiles, beer in one hand, and holding, what hunters call, his trophy. The wolf's mouth taped shut. Roberts is all proud of his trophy after he reportedly ran it over with the snowmobile and then instead of taking it to get help or putting this deer out of the misery he created, he went home and then brought it to the bar to show off. This proud hunter looks like he just won the lottery. Sadly, the story doesn’t end there. After parading the poor injured and tired wolf all around the bar, witnesses say he dragged or carried the wolf behind the bar where he allegedly tortured it and then shot the poor wolf dead. Here’s the thing. It is legal to kill wolves in the part of Sublette County but by keeping the animal alive and tormenting it, he was violating hunting ethics. He was cited for violating Chapter 10, which in Wyoming means, violating the importation and possession of live warm-blooded wildlife. Something you might not know. Nearly 85% of Wyoming is a predators zone for wolves meaning hunters like Roberts can kill the wild animals at any time with no bag limit or hunting days required. In fact, parts of Wyoming close to the national parks are reportedly a trophy hunting zone meaning the wolves are trophies and they can be hunted, but only by hunters with tags during designated seasons and within predetermined quotas. There is a. You can’t do that in Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park, where wolves are under federal protection and are not allowed to be tortured. What might be his punishment? A $250 ticket for possession of wildlife. Many now wonder, with such a small fine like that, will others fall in Roberts's path? Is he encouraging people to do this? Was he encouraged to do this? Is this something you just do in that part of the country and it’s okay? It is legal to kill wolves in the area of Sublette County. But here’s the thing. Cody allegedly kept the animal alive and tormented it so he violated hunting ethics. Wyoming Game and Fish Department confirmed a man had been fined but wouldn’t say who although circuit court records show he was cited for wildlife violation from an incident on February 29. People can only be charged with cruelty for cases involving pets and domestic animals, not predators like wolves. And now, a group of organizations with ties to Wyoming and the northern Rockies are appealing to the Sublette County Attorney's Office and seeking additional animal cruelty charges against Roberts in this letter. Now Cody Roberts isn’t the only one feeling the heat. People are outraged at the $250 citation handed down by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. They say that they’re in the delicate position since the statutes related to cases like this make releasing information very difficult. Director Brian Nesvik told the local paper that there has been a perception that the agency was too lenient and has deliberately withheld information. He claims that’s not the case, that they’re trying to navigate legal territory. By the way, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department verified that somebody did this but would not name the individual. He also says that people need to be aware that there’s a statute that protects the identity of people who legally kill wolves. That was passed by the Wyoming legislature when wolves were listed federal protection several years ago in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. So why the $250 fine? That’s because Roberts, they say, captured and kept a live wolf and that’s a misdemeanor. What about penalties in this case? The head of the Wyoming Game says it wouldn’t happen because it doesn’t work that way when you’re talking about a predatory animal and Fish she says doesn’t enforce animal cruelty. So what about next time? The Sublette County Attorney told the paper, he couldn’t comment about the investigations in the county or whether an investigation took place or will or will not take place. Mr. Clayton Melinkovich Sublette County Attorney clayton.melinkovich@sublettecountywy.gov Sublette County Sheriff K.C. Lehr kclehr@sublettecountywy.gov PETITION: Andrew Weprin MM  Moishe's Mom Anita Julie🌻🐾 Catalina Roller Nasrene MacDonald 🌹 🌻Samson Cat🐱 Kimberley USA11❌❌ Good Ness Gracious Ⓥ 🌾🕊️🌱✝️🐏🐖🐄🐇🐕🐈🐢🐟🐞 @katpic57 TheBoykinLady Nasrene MacDonald 🌹 Sandra, RN🇺🇸🇳🇴🇸🇪🐶😻⚾️ Tania H.-A Voice for the Voiceless @SandraK93322487 Dennis Christopher Pet mom 💙💙💙 Maple 🐕 🎹 🎸 💙 Raluca Florea Samantha CinemaOfDreams Julie Dutto Brenda W. - Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! 🍃🏵️🌿Poison Ivy🌿🏵️🍃 Aurora Krasnov Ⓥ
3:34

WORLDWIDE OUTRAGE! It’s a picture you might never to be able to get out of your head. 42-year-old Cody Roberts of Daniel, Wyoming, all smiles, beer in one hand, and holding, what hunters call, his trophy. The wolf's mouth taped shut. Roberts is all proud of his trophy after he reportedly ran it over with the snowmobile and then instead of taking it to get help or putting this deer out of the misery he created, he went home and then brought it to the bar to show off. This proud hunter looks like he just won the lottery. Sadly, the story doesn’t end there. After parading the poor injured and tired wolf all around the bar, witnesses say he dragged or carried the wolf behind the bar where he allegedly tortured it and then shot the poor wolf dead. Here’s the thing. It is legal to kill wolves in the part of Sublette County but by keeping the animal alive and tormenting it, he was violating hunting ethics. He was cited for violating Chapter 10, which in Wyoming means, violating the importation and possession of live warm-blooded wildlife. Something you might not know. Nearly 85% of Wyoming is a predators zone for wolves meaning hunters like Roberts can kill the wild animals at any time with no bag limit or hunting days required. In fact, parts of Wyoming close to the national parks are reportedly a trophy hunting zone meaning the wolves are trophies and they can be hunted, but only by hunters with tags during designated seasons and within predetermined quotas. There is a. You can’t do that in Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park, where wolves are under federal protection and are not allowed to be tortured. What might be his punishment? A $250 ticket for possession of wildlife. Many now wonder, with such a small fine like that, will others fall in Roberts's path? Is he encouraging people to do this? Was he encouraged to do this? Is this something you just do in that part of the country and it’s okay? It is legal to kill wolves in the area of Sublette County. But here’s the thing. Cody allegedly kept the animal alive and tormented it so he violated hunting ethics. Wyoming Game and Fish Department confirmed a man had been fined but wouldn’t say who although circuit court records show he was cited for wildlife violation from an incident on February 29. People can only be charged with cruelty for cases involving pets and domestic animals, not predators like wolves. And now, a group of organizations with ties to Wyoming and the northern Rockies are appealing to the Sublette County Attorney's Office and seeking additional animal cruelty charges against Roberts in this letter. Now Cody Roberts isn’t the only one feeling the heat. People are outraged at the $250 citation handed down by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. They say that they’re in the delicate position since the statutes related to cases like this make releasing information very difficult. Director Brian Nesvik told the local paper that there has been a perception that the agency was too lenient and has deliberately withheld information. He claims that’s not the case, that they’re trying to navigate legal territory. By the way, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department verified that somebody did this but would not name the individual. He also says that people need to be aware that there’s a statute that protects the identity of people who legally kill wolves. That was passed by the Wyoming legislature when wolves were listed federal protection several years ago in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. So why the $250 fine? That’s because Roberts, they say, captured and kept a live wolf and that’s a misdemeanor. What about penalties in this case? The head of the Wyoming Game says it wouldn’t happen because it doesn’t work that way when you’re talking about a predatory animal and Fish she says doesn’t enforce animal cruelty. So what about next time? The Sublette County Attorney told the paper, he couldn’t comment about the investigations in the county or whether an investigation took place or will or will not take place. Mr. Clayton Melinkovich Sublette County Attorney [email protected] Sublette County Sheriff K.C. Lehr [email protected] PETITION: Andrew Weprin MM  Moishe's Mom Anita Julie🌻🐾 Catalina Roller Nasrene MacDonald 🌹 🌻Samson Cat🐱 Kimberley USA11❌❌ Good Ness Gracious Ⓥ 🌾🕊️🌱✝️🐏🐖🐄🐇🐕🐈🐢🐟🐞 @katpic57 TheBoykinLady Nasrene MacDonald 🌹 Sandra, RN🇺🇸🇳🇴🇸🇪🐶😻⚾️ Tania H.-A Voice for the Voiceless @SandraK93322487 Dennis Christopher Pet mom 💙💙💙 Maple 🐕 🎹 🎸 💙 Raluca Florea Samantha CinemaOfDreams Julie Dutto Brenda W. - Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! 🍃🏵️🌿Poison Ivy🌿🏵️🍃 Aurora Krasnov Ⓥ

Paul Mueller

22,314 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

CLAIM: Kamala HQ says Donald Trump called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.” REALITY: This claim has been debunked by left-wing Snopes and rated “false.” See Trump’s full quote below: “You had some very bad people in that group [the Neo-Nazi group], but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” In his statement Donald Trump goes on to disavow and condemn the Neo-Nazi group and any other group inciting violence in Charlottesville. For full context, consider reading those quotes and Trump’s remarks in the full transcript below: Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?" Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long." Reporter: "Forty-eight hours." Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement. "So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to -- Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?" Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it." Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?" Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --" *inaudible* Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. "Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said. "And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?" Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters -- Reporter: "Nazis were there." Reporter: "David Duke was there." Trump: "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts. "It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts." Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?" Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?" Trump: "Well, we’ll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly." Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville." Trump: "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead." Reporter: "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --" Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me." Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --" Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? "Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day -- " I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent." Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?" Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?" Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. "So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? "But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead." Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?" Trump: "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located." Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?" Trump: "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations. "We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be. "And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important." Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?" Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is. Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --" Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say." Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --" Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying." Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. "But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. "Does anybody have a final -- Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn’t get health care -- Trump: "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure." Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?" Trump: "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out." Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?" Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it. "Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you." -- END OF TRANSCRIPT --
4:04

CLAIM: Kamala HQ says Donald Trump called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.” REALITY: This claim has been debunked by left-wing Snopes and rated “false.” See Trump’s full quote below: “You had some very bad people in that group [the Neo-Nazi group], but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” In his statement Donald Trump goes on to disavow and condemn the Neo-Nazi group and any other group inciting violence in Charlottesville. For full context, consider reading those quotes and Trump’s remarks in the full transcript below: Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?" Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long." Reporter: "Forty-eight hours." Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement. "So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to -- Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?" Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it." Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?" Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --" *inaudible* Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. "Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said. "And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?" Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters -- Reporter: "Nazis were there." Reporter: "David Duke was there." Trump: "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts. "It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts." Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?" Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?" Trump: "Well, we’ll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly." Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville." Trump: "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead." Reporter: "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --" Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me." Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --" Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? "Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day -- " I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent." Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?" Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?" Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. "So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? "But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead." Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?" Trump: "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located." Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?" Trump: "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations. "We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be. "And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important." Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?" Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is. Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --" Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say." Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --" Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying." Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. "But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. "Does anybody have a final -- Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn’t get health care -- Trump: "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure." Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?" Trump: "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out." Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?" Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it. "Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you." -- END OF TRANSCRIPT --

Media Lies

500,736 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

When Judge Napolitano asked me on his show how Syria ended up with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as its “president,” I could almost hear the cognitive dissonance on the other side of the screen. How does a man who was once the emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, a co-founder of ISIS by any reasonable historical reading of his trajectory, become Washington’s chosen man in Damascus? For me, the answer is not a mystery. It is the logical end of a dirty war that began not with Syrian protesters in 2011, but in an American-run prison camp in Iraq years earlier. And if anyone still suspected this was “just a conspiracy theory,” a former CIA officer – John Kiriakou, who went to prison for exposing CIA torture – has now said publicly what many of us have long argued: Jolani is, in all likelihood, a CIA asset. Let’s start with the timeline, because the timeline alone already screams “intelligence operation.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani was in a CIA-run prison in Iraq – Camp Bucca – alongside another familiar name: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both men were released in early 2011. “Coincidentally,” that is exactly when the regime-change war in Syria begins. Within weeks, Baghdadi goes on to lead what becomes ISIS, and Jolani crosses into Syria to found Jabhat al-Nusra – officially al-Qaeda’s franchise in my country. Washington designates Nusra a terrorist organization. The UN follows suit. On paper, Jolani is the enemy. The State Department even slaps a $10 million bounty on his head. But bounties are cheap. Cruise missiles are expensive. And for over a decade, while the US flattened cities in Iraq and Syria allegedly to fight “terrorism,” it somehow never found the time, or the coordinates, to seriously target Jolani or his core command structure, even though he controlled large swaths of Syrian territory from Aleppo countryside all the way to Idlib. Because Jolani and his men were fighting the one government Washington had already decided must go: the Syrian state under Bashar al-Assad. This is where Operation Timber Sycamore comes in: a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert program that funneled weapons, money, and training to so-called “rebels” in Syria. They were sold to Western audiences as “moderate opposition.” On the ground, those moderates were a disappearing species. What existed in reality were hardline Salafi-jihadist factions, with Nusra at the top of the food chain. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was the mask, the logo on the paperwork, the brand name you could sell to Congress and CNN. The real muscle on the ground was Jolani’s men and other takfiri groups, who did the actual fighting, took the actual territory, and imposed their version of rule. Weapons went “to the moderates.” The moderates magically handed them to al-Qaeda. Everyone in Washington pretended to be surprised. No one stopped the pipeline. Over the years, the mask slipped. US officials themselves began to speak of Jolani as something more than just a former enemy. James Jeffrey, Washington’s former envoy to Syria, openly called Jolani “an asset” for US strategy – not my word, his. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, has publicly admitted that he personally worked with Jolani to “take him out of the world of terrorism” and polish him into a politician. Think about what that means: the same US that claims to be fighting an endless war against al-Qaeda quietly devotes diplomatic energy to rehabilitating the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda into a partner, a useful strongman, a future head of state. I said on the show, and I repeat it here: I believe Jolani was recruited in Camp Bucca. The timeline makes no sense otherwise. You don’t walk out of an American-run prison and, weeks later, magically have the networks, the money, the arms, and the logistical capacity to found al-Qaeda in Syria, right at the moment when Washington and its allies need a battering ram against Damascus. Recently, former CIA director David Petraeus even sat with Jolani and told him, “Your success is our success.” What more do people need? A signed employment contract? But let’s assume, for a moment, that you still think this is a stretch. Enter John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is not a YouTuber chasing clicks. He is a former CIA officer who went to prison because he exposed the torture program and named the torturers. His loyalty is clearly not to the Agency’s PR department. Recently, on Unfettered Speech, he described the Jolani situation bluntly. Here is the essence of what he said, which Judge Napolitano played on air: -The “new president” of Syria is a former al-Qaeda member and a co-founder of ISIS. -This same man is welcomed at the White House. -Senior US officials, including the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, travel to meet him. -President Trump suddenly lifts sanctions on Syria as Jolani consolidates power, prompting Syrians – desperate and exhausted – to dance in the streets. The only thing that makes sense is that Jolani is a CIA asset, per Kiriakou’s. When a former CIA officer who has already sacrificed his career and freedom to tell the truth looks at the pattern and says, “This is our guy,” it is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, you may ask, why would the United States and its allies back such a man? The answer lies in what Syria used to be, and what it has now been turned into. Before this war, Syria, for all its flaws, was a horizontally integrated state. People identified themselves as Syrian first and then Armenian, Druze, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, and so on. The state’s foreign policy aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, supported Palestinian factions, and kept a real deterrent posture toward Israel. For Washington and Tel Aviv, this was unacceptable. The goal was not “democracy”; that word is just wrapping paper. The real objective was to remove a government allied with Iran and replace it with a fragmented landscape: a weak central authority in Damascus, surrounded by sectarian cantons and warlord enclaves, all dependent on foreign patrons. Jolani is perfect for this role. For Israel, he brings vertical division. A man with a long al-Qaeda pedigree ruling Syria is a nightmare for minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shi’a, many Kurds, and other smaller communities. They will not accept al-Qaeda rule. So they retreat into their own militias, their own cantons, their own de facto mini-states, exactly in line with old Israeli strategic doctrines like the Yinon Plan, which openly advocated fragmenting neighboring states along sectarian lines. On the ground, we already see it: -Druze militias running their own affairs in the south with quiet Israeli backing. -Kurdish forces in the northeast under US protection, managing their own autonomous zone. -Alawites discussing an autonomous coastal enclave. -Christians living in silence and fear. You don’t need formal borders on a map to balkanize a country. When I, as a Syrian of Armenian origin, stop thinking of myself as Syrian first and start thinking purely as Armenian, when I instinctively fear my neighbor because he is from another sect, the balkanization has already happened in the mind. For Washington, Jolani is equally “useful.” He has promised to normalize relations with Israel, to open Syria’s markets to Western capital, and to hand over the country’s resources from the hydrocarbons east of the Euphrates to the gas fields under the Mediterranean to American and allied companies. A 24-million-person country reduced to a reconstruction market: $300 billion worth of contracts, infrastructure projects, and “investments.” But for investors to feel safe, they need a strongman in Damascus who can project the illusion of stability while remaining utterly dependent on foreign protection. That strongman, in their design, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. But Jolani is not acting alone. Around him is a constellation of Western intelligence veterans and “conflict resolution” NGOs acting as intermediaries. British MI6 circles, under figures like Jonathan Powell – former chief of staff to Tony Blair – are central in managing this process. Powell runs an organization called Inter Mediate, which specializes in “talking to armed groups.” Behind the humanitarian language lies political engineering. One of Inter Mediate’s operatives, a woman named Clare Haigh, is now said to have an office inside the Syrian presidential palace, advising Jolani on how to talk, how to dress, how to handle journalists, how to sell himself as a reformed jihadist turned statesman. And then there is Qatar. Ahmed Zaidan – once Osama bin Laden’s favorite journalist, photographed sipping tea with him and broadcasting his tapes on Al Jazeera – is now a personal adviser to Jolani. Make it make sense. An al-Qaeda emir, handled by US and British intelligence veterans, advised by bin Laden’s favorite media man, massaged by Western PR consultants, welcomed in Washington, and crowned in Damascus as “president.” If you wrote this as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on the nose. Since Jolani took power through an international and regional deal that pushed Assad aside, over 11,000 people have been killed. Many of them are from the very minorities the West loves to mention in speeches but abandons in practice. Videos circulate of his fighters asking terrified villagers at gunpoint, “Are you Muslim or not?” and executing those who give the “wrong” answer, including Druze and Alawites who are not recognized as “true Muslims” by their extremist ideology. Christians, who had already suffered massive emigration between 2011 and 2024, are being squeezed further. They have no organized armed force, no foreign sponsor. They are expected either to live under the mercy of an al-Qaeda-bred regime or to leave the land of their ancestors. This is what Washington’s “asset management” looks like in human terms. If you are an American reading this, you might be tempted to say: “This cannot be. My government would never knowingly empower al-Qaeda.” But it already has, repeatedly. From Afghanistan in the 1980s, when US intelligence backed the Mujahideen (and, indirectly, their Arab foreign fighter allies), to Libya and Syria in the last decade, where jihadist factions were instrumentalized against secular or nationalist governments, the pattern is clear. The names and acronyms change. The logic does not. The same establishment that lectures the world on “democracy” and “human rights” is perfectly willing to install a man like Jolani as the ruler of one of the oldest civilizations on earth, as long as he delivers strategic gains: -breaking the Iran–Syria–Hezbollah axis; -fragmenting Syria into weak, controllable pieces; -opening its resources and markets to Western and Gulf capital; -and giving Israel unprecedented strategic depth and security. Everything else – the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the collapse of national identity, the destruction of ancient communities – is treated as collateral damage. I am often asked what Syria will look like in five or ten years. I wish I could answer with optimism. Right now, the forces pushing to turn my country into a permanent vassal state – ruled by a former al-Qaeda emir, policed by foreign intelligence, exploited by foreign capital – are incredibly strong. But nothing in this region is permanent. People who come to power by cutting off other people’s heads often lose their own. If there are still sane voices left in Western politics – people like Tulsi Gabbard 🌺, whom I mentioned on air – they must at least recognize this insanity: backing an al-Qaeda emir as “our man in Damascus” is not just immoral; it is ultimately self-destructive. Syria does not need Jolani. The West does not need Jolani. There are Syrians who can have friendly relations with the United States without being former al-Qaeda commanders, without murdering their own people, without turning an ancient nation into a laboratory for extremist social engineering. The question is not whether such alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether Washington and its allies want a sovereign, stable Syria, or whether they prefer a shattered, cantonized carcass kept alive just enough for the next “asset” to feed on.
22:55

When Judge Napolitano asked me on his show how Syria ended up with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as its “president,” I could almost hear the cognitive dissonance on the other side of the screen. How does a man who was once the emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, a co-founder of ISIS by any reasonable historical reading of his trajectory, become Washington’s chosen man in Damascus? For me, the answer is not a mystery. It is the logical end of a dirty war that began not with Syrian protesters in 2011, but in an American-run prison camp in Iraq years earlier. And if anyone still suspected this was “just a conspiracy theory,” a former CIA officer – John Kiriakou, who went to prison for exposing CIA torture – has now said publicly what many of us have long argued: Jolani is, in all likelihood, a CIA asset. Let’s start with the timeline, because the timeline alone already screams “intelligence operation.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani was in a CIA-run prison in Iraq – Camp Bucca – alongside another familiar name: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both men were released in early 2011. “Coincidentally,” that is exactly when the regime-change war in Syria begins. Within weeks, Baghdadi goes on to lead what becomes ISIS, and Jolani crosses into Syria to found Jabhat al-Nusra – officially al-Qaeda’s franchise in my country. Washington designates Nusra a terrorist organization. The UN follows suit. On paper, Jolani is the enemy. The State Department even slaps a $10 million bounty on his head. But bounties are cheap. Cruise missiles are expensive. And for over a decade, while the US flattened cities in Iraq and Syria allegedly to fight “terrorism,” it somehow never found the time, or the coordinates, to seriously target Jolani or his core command structure, even though he controlled large swaths of Syrian territory from Aleppo countryside all the way to Idlib. Because Jolani and his men were fighting the one government Washington had already decided must go: the Syrian state under Bashar al-Assad. This is where Operation Timber Sycamore comes in: a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert program that funneled weapons, money, and training to so-called “rebels” in Syria. They were sold to Western audiences as “moderate opposition.” On the ground, those moderates were a disappearing species. What existed in reality were hardline Salafi-jihadist factions, with Nusra at the top of the food chain. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was the mask, the logo on the paperwork, the brand name you could sell to Congress and CNN. The real muscle on the ground was Jolani’s men and other takfiri groups, who did the actual fighting, took the actual territory, and imposed their version of rule. Weapons went “to the moderates.” The moderates magically handed them to al-Qaeda. Everyone in Washington pretended to be surprised. No one stopped the pipeline. Over the years, the mask slipped. US officials themselves began to speak of Jolani as something more than just a former enemy. James Jeffrey, Washington’s former envoy to Syria, openly called Jolani “an asset” for US strategy – not my word, his. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, has publicly admitted that he personally worked with Jolani to “take him out of the world of terrorism” and polish him into a politician. Think about what that means: the same US that claims to be fighting an endless war against al-Qaeda quietly devotes diplomatic energy to rehabilitating the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda into a partner, a useful strongman, a future head of state. I said on the show, and I repeat it here: I believe Jolani was recruited in Camp Bucca. The timeline makes no sense otherwise. You don’t walk out of an American-run prison and, weeks later, magically have the networks, the money, the arms, and the logistical capacity to found al-Qaeda in Syria, right at the moment when Washington and its allies need a battering ram against Damascus. Recently, former CIA director David Petraeus even sat with Jolani and told him, “Your success is our success.” What more do people need? A signed employment contract? But let’s assume, for a moment, that you still think this is a stretch. Enter John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is not a YouTuber chasing clicks. He is a former CIA officer who went to prison because he exposed the torture program and named the torturers. His loyalty is clearly not to the Agency’s PR department. Recently, on Unfettered Speech, he described the Jolani situation bluntly. Here is the essence of what he said, which Judge Napolitano played on air: -The “new president” of Syria is a former al-Qaeda member and a co-founder of ISIS. -This same man is welcomed at the White House. -Senior US officials, including the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, travel to meet him. -President Trump suddenly lifts sanctions on Syria as Jolani consolidates power, prompting Syrians – desperate and exhausted – to dance in the streets. The only thing that makes sense is that Jolani is a CIA asset, per Kiriakou’s. When a former CIA officer who has already sacrificed his career and freedom to tell the truth looks at the pattern and says, “This is our guy,” it is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, you may ask, why would the United States and its allies back such a man? The answer lies in what Syria used to be, and what it has now been turned into. Before this war, Syria, for all its flaws, was a horizontally integrated state. People identified themselves as Syrian first and then Armenian, Druze, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, and so on. The state’s foreign policy aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, supported Palestinian factions, and kept a real deterrent posture toward Israel. For Washington and Tel Aviv, this was unacceptable. The goal was not “democracy”; that word is just wrapping paper. The real objective was to remove a government allied with Iran and replace it with a fragmented landscape: a weak central authority in Damascus, surrounded by sectarian cantons and warlord enclaves, all dependent on foreign patrons. Jolani is perfect for this role. For Israel, he brings vertical division. A man with a long al-Qaeda pedigree ruling Syria is a nightmare for minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shi’a, many Kurds, and other smaller communities. They will not accept al-Qaeda rule. So they retreat into their own militias, their own cantons, their own de facto mini-states, exactly in line with old Israeli strategic doctrines like the Yinon Plan, which openly advocated fragmenting neighboring states along sectarian lines. On the ground, we already see it: -Druze militias running their own affairs in the south with quiet Israeli backing. -Kurdish forces in the northeast under US protection, managing their own autonomous zone. -Alawites discussing an autonomous coastal enclave. -Christians living in silence and fear. You don’t need formal borders on a map to balkanize a country. When I, as a Syrian of Armenian origin, stop thinking of myself as Syrian first and start thinking purely as Armenian, when I instinctively fear my neighbor because he is from another sect, the balkanization has already happened in the mind. For Washington, Jolani is equally “useful.” He has promised to normalize relations with Israel, to open Syria’s markets to Western capital, and to hand over the country’s resources from the hydrocarbons east of the Euphrates to the gas fields under the Mediterranean to American and allied companies. A 24-million-person country reduced to a reconstruction market: $300 billion worth of contracts, infrastructure projects, and “investments.” But for investors to feel safe, they need a strongman in Damascus who can project the illusion of stability while remaining utterly dependent on foreign protection. That strongman, in their design, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. But Jolani is not acting alone. Around him is a constellation of Western intelligence veterans and “conflict resolution” NGOs acting as intermediaries. British MI6 circles, under figures like Jonathan Powell – former chief of staff to Tony Blair – are central in managing this process. Powell runs an organization called Inter Mediate, which specializes in “talking to armed groups.” Behind the humanitarian language lies political engineering. One of Inter Mediate’s operatives, a woman named Clare Haigh, is now said to have an office inside the Syrian presidential palace, advising Jolani on how to talk, how to dress, how to handle journalists, how to sell himself as a reformed jihadist turned statesman. And then there is Qatar. Ahmed Zaidan – once Osama bin Laden’s favorite journalist, photographed sipping tea with him and broadcasting his tapes on Al Jazeera – is now a personal adviser to Jolani. Make it make sense. An al-Qaeda emir, handled by US and British intelligence veterans, advised by bin Laden’s favorite media man, massaged by Western PR consultants, welcomed in Washington, and crowned in Damascus as “president.” If you wrote this as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on the nose. Since Jolani took power through an international and regional deal that pushed Assad aside, over 11,000 people have been killed. Many of them are from the very minorities the West loves to mention in speeches but abandons in practice. Videos circulate of his fighters asking terrified villagers at gunpoint, “Are you Muslim or not?” and executing those who give the “wrong” answer, including Druze and Alawites who are not recognized as “true Muslims” by their extremist ideology. Christians, who had already suffered massive emigration between 2011 and 2024, are being squeezed further. They have no organized armed force, no foreign sponsor. They are expected either to live under the mercy of an al-Qaeda-bred regime or to leave the land of their ancestors. This is what Washington’s “asset management” looks like in human terms. If you are an American reading this, you might be tempted to say: “This cannot be. My government would never knowingly empower al-Qaeda.” But it already has, repeatedly. From Afghanistan in the 1980s, when US intelligence backed the Mujahideen (and, indirectly, their Arab foreign fighter allies), to Libya and Syria in the last decade, where jihadist factions were instrumentalized against secular or nationalist governments, the pattern is clear. The names and acronyms change. The logic does not. The same establishment that lectures the world on “democracy” and “human rights” is perfectly willing to install a man like Jolani as the ruler of one of the oldest civilizations on earth, as long as he delivers strategic gains: -breaking the Iran–Syria–Hezbollah axis; -fragmenting Syria into weak, controllable pieces; -opening its resources and markets to Western and Gulf capital; -and giving Israel unprecedented strategic depth and security. Everything else – the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the collapse of national identity, the destruction of ancient communities – is treated as collateral damage. I am often asked what Syria will look like in five or ten years. I wish I could answer with optimism. Right now, the forces pushing to turn my country into a permanent vassal state – ruled by a former al-Qaeda emir, policed by foreign intelligence, exploited by foreign capital – are incredibly strong. But nothing in this region is permanent. People who come to power by cutting off other people’s heads often lose their own. If there are still sane voices left in Western politics – people like Tulsi Gabbard 🌺, whom I mentioned on air – they must at least recognize this insanity: backing an al-Qaeda emir as “our man in Damascus” is not just immoral; it is ultimately self-destructive. Syria does not need Jolani. The West does not need Jolani. There are Syrians who can have friendly relations with the United States without being former al-Qaeda commanders, without murdering their own people, without turning an ancient nation into a laboratory for extremist social engineering. The question is not whether such alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether Washington and its allies want a sovereign, stable Syria, or whether they prefer a shattered, cantonized carcass kept alive just enough for the next “asset” to feed on.

Kevork Almassian

177,007 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

---------------------------------------- Educational Purposes Disclaimer This content is shared strictly for educational and historical purposes. It is based on documented facts, verified sources, and established historical records. The material may include sensitive or uncomfortable topics that some viewers might find disturbing or offensive. The intention is solely to inform and provide context, not to insult, demean, or promote hatred toward any individual, group, or culture. Truthful discussion of history sometimes requires addressing difficult realities. Viewer discretion is advised. If you have concerns or additional verified information, feel free to share them respectfully in the comments. ---------------------------------------- Dr. William Luther Pierce - The Truth of Democracy "Did you ever wonder why the ǰews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the J*ws are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote. Why is that? Why can’t the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can’t the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can’t the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer’s Disease vote? Well, let’s not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is; that is, the more Alzheimer’s sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote; the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process. Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they’ll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That’s why it’s important to have lots of them. And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It’s a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king’s bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus; or Monica and Bill. Believe me, one day soon the Jeŵs on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy. You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Prőtocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocőls from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jeŵ in Paris about 15 years earlier. The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewįsh community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zioń really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocołs makes one’s flesh crawl. We should remember that when The Protocolš began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewisħ Bolshevism, but that wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the ǰews. The Jeŵs were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus’ publication of The Pŕotocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jȇwish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protočols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however. Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world. The Jȇws have been claiming hysterically since The Proţocols first appeared that the text is “a forgery.” I guess that’s their way of saying that it’s not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Proţocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews’ claims that The Protočols was “a forgery,” Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Pŕotocols first appeared in print. Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jȇws’ success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe’s long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills; in particular, to the further spread of communism. Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it’s easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Proţocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jeŵs outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described. I’ll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protőcols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protočols doesn’t ring true. It’s too straightforward, too open. It doesn’t use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jeŵs customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jȇwish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don’t use straightforward expressions such as “encouraging miscegenation” and “leading the goyim to the slaughter.” They use weasel-expressions, such as “building tolerance,” “increasing diversity,” and “eliminating inequality.” In the second place, it’s difficult for me to imagine the head Jȇws laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they’re up to. It’s just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews’ intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears. I wouldn’t call The Protočols “a forgery,” as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I’m inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jeŵs and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jȇws were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the ǰews’ plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the ǰȇŵš actually were doing. And the reason that The Protőcőls ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening. Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago; and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Ƥrotocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn might read something like this: "Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zioń! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jeŵish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us. Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long; where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people; in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Ziőn, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth. And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders; their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers; so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally. His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us. When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a “privatization” scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories; and especially their television broadcasting facilities; are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes. In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies. America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America’s State Department, America’s Defense Department, America’s Federal Reserve System, and America’s Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as “anti-Semites.” We have gained nearly complete control of America’s educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us “reparations,” because not enough was done for us during the war. We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America’s art and music and literature. We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a “work of art” which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Nȇgress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are “literature.” Their children listen to Negrőid rhythms and chant Nȇgroid “rap” ditties, because we control the popular music industry. Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country. Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people. In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry. After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be “hate” material. There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact “hate speech” legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zioń, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter. Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Ȥion!" "
17:28

---------------------------------------- Educational Purposes Disclaimer This content is shared strictly for educational and historical purposes. It is based on documented facts, verified sources, and established historical records. The material may include sensitive or uncomfortable topics that some viewers might find disturbing or offensive. The intention is solely to inform and provide context, not to insult, demean, or promote hatred toward any individual, group, or culture. Truthful discussion of history sometimes requires addressing difficult realities. Viewer discretion is advised. If you have concerns or additional verified information, feel free to share them respectfully in the comments. ---------------------------------------- Dr. William Luther Pierce - The Truth of Democracy "Did you ever wonder why the ǰews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the J*ws are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote. Why is that? Why can’t the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can’t the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can’t the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer’s Disease vote? Well, let’s not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is; that is, the more Alzheimer’s sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote; the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process. Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they’ll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That’s why it’s important to have lots of them. And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It’s a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king’s bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus; or Monica and Bill. Believe me, one day soon the Jeŵs on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy. You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Prőtocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocőls from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jeŵ in Paris about 15 years earlier. The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewįsh community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zioń really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocołs makes one’s flesh crawl. We should remember that when The Protocolš began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewisħ Bolshevism, but that wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the ǰews. The Jeŵs were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus’ publication of The Pŕotocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jȇwish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protočols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however. Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world. The Jȇws have been claiming hysterically since The Proţocols first appeared that the text is “a forgery.” I guess that’s their way of saying that it’s not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Proţocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews’ claims that The Protočols was “a forgery,” Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Pŕotocols first appeared in print. Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jȇws’ success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe’s long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills; in particular, to the further spread of communism. Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it’s easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Proţocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jeŵs outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described. I’ll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protőcols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protočols doesn’t ring true. It’s too straightforward, too open. It doesn’t use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jeŵs customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jȇwish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don’t use straightforward expressions such as “encouraging miscegenation” and “leading the goyim to the slaughter.” They use weasel-expressions, such as “building tolerance,” “increasing diversity,” and “eliminating inequality.” In the second place, it’s difficult for me to imagine the head Jȇws laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they’re up to. It’s just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews’ intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears. I wouldn’t call The Protočols “a forgery,” as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I’m inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jeŵs and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jȇws were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the ǰews’ plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the ǰȇŵš actually were doing. And the reason that The Protőcőls ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening. Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago; and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Ƥrotocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn might read something like this: "Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zioń! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jeŵish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us. Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long; where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people; in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Ziőn, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth. And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders; their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers; so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally. His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us. When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a “privatization” scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories; and especially their television broadcasting facilities; are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes. In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies. America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America’s State Department, America’s Defense Department, America’s Federal Reserve System, and America’s Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as “anti-Semites.” We have gained nearly complete control of America’s educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us “reparations,” because not enough was done for us during the war. We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America’s art and music and literature. We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a “work of art” which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Nȇgress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are “literature.” Their children listen to Negrőid rhythms and chant Nȇgroid “rap” ditties, because we control the popular music industry. Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country. Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people. In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry. After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be “hate” material. There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact “hate speech” legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zioń, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter. Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Ȥion!" "

Mofobian

24,562 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Dear David Coltart, WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT QUINTUPLE C: COLTART, CHAMISA AND CCC My attention has been drawn to your fraudulent and disgusting tweet you posted on my Twitter TL yesterday David, in which you quoted a tweet I posted four years ago on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father. I reproduce below both tweets for ease of reference: “I have always genuinely sympathized with you Jonathan - the loss of your father in such circumstances must be devastating. I just don’t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.” – Tweet by David Coltart, 30 July 2023; commenting on my tweet below I posted four years ago: “1/5 On 22 January 1983 my father, Melusi Job Mlevu, was callously murdered in Tsholotsho by gukurahundi soldiers & the CIO. They tortured him upon his arrest & in front of his family; got him to dig a shallow grave, tortured him again; pumped bullets into his body & buried him!” – Jonathan Moyo tweet posted on 22 January 2019. Now David, are you really serious that you “have always genuinely sympathised with me”, because of “the loss of [my] father in such circumstances”? And since there’s no strategic ambiguity about the meaning of “always”, as it means exactly what it says, how have you “always genuinely” expressed your sympathy over all the years, since knowing about the circumstances under which I lost my father? The fact that your tweet yesterday is a response to a tweet I posted a long four years ago on 22 January 2019 – in memory of my father who was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in Tsholotsho on 22 January 1983 – shows and proves that you’re a fraud and a charlatan with neither sensitivity towards me and my family nor respect for us as Africans and human beings. All told, and typically of Zimbabweans of British colonial extraction and in particular of soul-free Rhodies, you’re contemptuous of our culture as a family and as Africans. You see David, it is fraudulent and utterly disgusting of you to claim that you have ever sympathised with me over my father’s loss. It’s actually patronising and very insulting in the extreme. Your fraud is clear even to yourself, that’s why you did not express your so-called sympathy when I first posted my tweet on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was murdered on 22 January 1983. In fact, until your fraudulent tweet yesterday, you had never before expressed any genuine or even non genuine sympathy for me and my family regarding the loss of my father on 22 January 1983. Even fools will immediately see that the key sentence in your tweet yesterday is not about your cruel declaration of fraudulent sympathy for me and my family over the circumstances of my father’s loss, a loss my family commemorated this year not yesterday but seven months ago on 22 January 2023, with no tweet of sympathy from you. The sentence in your tweet yesterday that captures what you really foolishly communicating to me is this: “I just don’t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.” David: what I say, believe and do is without exception based on and an existential product of what I know, what I think and what I have experienced or lived. I never say, believe or do anything that I don’t know, don’t, I have not thought of or which I don’t believe. Now David, you pretend to be a democrat who believes in the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution, so, what business of yours is my choice of what side to support or to not support in politics? Are my freedom of conscience and my right to make political choices freely now subject to your understanding, or are they my constitutional rights, as they are for every Zimbabwean, in terms of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe? Are you aware David and do you understand that the Constitution in 67(1)(b) says every Zimbabwean citizen has the right “to make political choices freely”? And, David, are you aware that section 60 of the Constitution says every person, not just every Zimbabwean but every person, has the right to freedom of conscience which includes “freedom of thought, opinion, religion or belief”, and “freedom to practice and propagate and give expression to their thought, opinion, religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with others”. The fact that you quoted and abused my personal tweet I posted on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was brutally murdered by the Fifth Brigade on 22 January 1983 to say you “don’t understand why you [me] continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your [my] family, and which still brings so much suffering”; shows that you are either ignorant of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and proves that you are a fraud and a charlatan with no constitutional values. Why do you want to police my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely? Just why do you and your lot in CCC, think that you can interfere with my freedom of conscience and my right to my political choices that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of Zimbabwe? If you and your lot were genuine democratic change champions, as you claim and purport to be, you would be the first to understand and to propagate freedom of conscience and the right to make political choices freely as sacrosanct constitutional values and principles that must be respected for every Zimbabwean at all times. But this has not been possible because you are frauds and charlatans. Now, your attitude towards me, the one captured in the disgusting tweet you posted yesterday, leads me to conclude without any fear of being contradicted that you are a frivolous and stupid person, David. Otherwise, if you care to know, there are three months that are cruel to me. October in which I lost my daughter Zanele in 2015, November because of what happened to me, my family and some colleagues during the 2017 military coup – it was also on 11 November 1965 that Rhodesia under which you blossomed, unilaterally declared independence – and 22 January the dark day on which my father was murdered. These are traumatic days for me in the calendar year. You see, I was a student in California in the US when my father was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in cold blood on 22 January 1983, having gone to the US before independence in 1977. When this awful tragedy happened, I did not know who my father was. I was born when my mother was barely 16 years old, and I was raised by my maternal grandparents who, like my mother, did not want me to know who my father was for reasons best known to them. Although, as I grew up, I understood their position from our cultural perspective as Africans, it nevertheless profoundly pained me. Truth be told, I was most grateful and I still am to this day, that my grandfather was a great father and my grandmother a great mother to me in ways that made me who I am today. I got to know who my father was well after I had graduated with my doctorate in 1988 and long after his gruesome murder, about which I was first told only 10 years ago. Since then, while it's been a profound rebirth for me to connect with my father through the loving Mlevu clan at large, I owe my dear sister Simiso an existential debt of gratitude. Through her, my kids have a hand-holder gateway through which to know about their grandfather. I really thank God and the spirit of the Mlevu clan for Simiso. The fact that I was born on 12 January, and that my father was brutally murdered on 22 January, makes the month of January an unbearable time of anguish for me, more so given that my father and I never met in life. When four years ago on 22 January 2019 I posted the tweet that you abused yesterday with reckless abandon, as you exposed your disconnection from the African experience, I was existentially troubled by the worst that could have happened to me and to my family on 15 November 2017, which got me thinking about what happened to my father, and even more troubling against the backdrop of the events of November 2017, I was devastated by the fact that I never met my father, and I spent the better part of 22 January 2019 wondering what life could have been for me had I known him in life and grown up under his parental care and guidance. You see David, maybe this is not true of people of European ancestry like you but, for many Africans it is very common for kids to be raised by their grandparents, like I was. As things turned out, I grew up knowing many such kids as my peers, the majority of whom never got to know who fathered them, some of whom are leading very successful lives in society as you read this. Unlike them, I was fortunate to end up knowing who my father was, but I was unfortunate not to have met him, and even more unfortunate to have known of him long after his death, made worse by the tragic circumstances of that death. I do not have a fly by night connection with Zanu PF. When I finished my high school in California, I proceeded to university there for my undergraduate education on a scholarship I got through Zanu PF. While an undergraduate, I was the political commissar of the Zanu PF branch in Los Angeles. I did my masters and doctoral degrees with academic scholarships endorsed by Zanu PF and underwritten by the Government of Zimbabwe through a staff development programme at the University of Zimbabwe. Having gone through Mgagao run by Zanu PF, and having gotten university education to the highest level under the auspices of Zanu PF, I have a long history and experience with Zanu PF, and with Zanu PF people whose complexities define who I am as an adult Zimbabwean, for better or for worse. It's my history, I'm proud of it and I own it. It’s an inescapable truth that each individual, and each therefore each person has a unique existential history best known to himself or herself, family and to a small cohort that has been intimate parts of that personal history. It's hopelessly foolish for someone to hope to prescribe a history on anyone. Every human being is who they are. And it's a fact not exclusive to me that my association with Zanu PF has not always been rosy. Life is a personal struggle between the person or the individual and the social formations through which life goes on. It’s common cause, that the military coup was a traumatic experience for me and my family and that it was profoundly painful and life changing in untold ways. It’s also common cause and not surprising to any normal human being that I blamed Zanu PF for that traumatic experience. Anyone else in my situation would have done the same at point or another. Yet the bigger story is that I, my family and my colleagues survived that 2017 ordeal with the very direct, active and truly genuine assistance and support from Zanu PF people. Working with other African Angeles, and I emphasize African Angeles, it was Zanu PF people who made sure that we were able to be safe and to get out of the country to be where I am today, all of them at great risk to their lives or livelihoods. In 2017 I was saved to be alive today by Zanu PF people. During the life threatening 2017 ordeal that my family and I went through, there was not even one person associated with the opposition as it was then, or as it is today, who reached out to find out where I was or how I was doing. It is common cause, some of it is documented, that many in the opposition then and who are still in opposition today, actually wanted me dead, all because of my political differences with them. You David Coltart, who now wants to pretend that you “have always genuinely sympathised with me”, never inquired after me. That’s why I think you are a monumental fraud and a charlatan. I repeat, I was helped out of the traumatic ordeal in 2017 by Zanu PF people, not by anyone from your lot David, not even one. Of course, at some point and largely because of the 2018 general election I found myself connected with some of your lot, especially Nelson Chamisa and others who were close to him or working with him i the election campaign, as the MDC-A presidential election candidate. I will not rehash that story here, as it has been told very well by many others. From my experience, and the lessons I have extrapolated from the late Vice President Joshua Nkomo, such as on the attached video clip, I have come to better appreciate that it is a mistake and wrong to a understand and define a political party with a deep-seated background and history like Zanu PF in terms of its leadership; rather, a grounded political party with a long history is necessarily defined by its founding values, constitution and membership, not least because the membership is permanent while the leadership comes and goes. By the same token, I have come to better appreciate that the mistakes or excesses of the leadership of grounded political parties with an entrenched history should not automatically or reflexively be ascribed or attributed to or blamed on the membership. On 15 November 2022, Patrick Zhuwao and I wrote an open letter to Zanu PF members to precisely make this point. I am attaching herewith a link to that letter, lest you missed it. It’s a self-explanatory letter which contextualises and explains everything that I did and said between 15 November 2017 and 14 November 2022. It also explains why do not support Nelson Chamisa and your CCC. I stand by the contents of that letter. In this connection, I draw your attention and that of your lot to an interview done by the late VP Joshua Nkomo in 1983 – which is attached herewith as already mentioned – in which Nkomo explains why the Fifth Brigade was not a Shona issue. Although Nkomo made it clear that gukurahundi was a political and not a tribal issue, I have come to understand and appreciate that it was a political issue not in the sense of Zanu PF as a political party in membership terms but, rather, in the sense of the political leadership and, more particularly, of individuals within that leadership. However, given your utter contempt for sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, I do not expect you to understand the dangers of painting a tribe or a political party with one brush, or to understand the misguided consequences of conflating the leadership of a political party with the party’s membership or even of treating the leadership of a political party as a monolithic formation that always acts in concert. Basically David, and just like Nelson Chamisa’s trolls, it's clear you believe that you can abuse my personal and tragic circumstances to blackmail me for your doomed political purposes in two ways. First, you think you can abuse the circumstances of my father’s brutal death to somehow generate cheap and outrageous propaganda for yourself, Nelson Chamisa and CCC that I support Zanu PF which killed my father, and you do this under your self-indulgent presumption that everyone who is in Zanu PF as a political party is murderous by definition. Second, and based on this falsification, you’re abusing my tragic personal circumstances regarding my father’s loss to blackmail me into supporting you in particular, given my attack on your imposition as CCC's Ward 4 councillor candidate in Bulawayo; Nelson Chamisa and CCC . Your outrageous position is that if I cannot support you, I must keep quiet about you, under the ridiculous presumption that you’re all by definition virtuous, competent, capable, the only and best democratic alternative for everyone in Zimbabwe. On the back of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and drawing from my knowledge, thoughts, experiences and received wisdom from the late VP Joshua Nkomo, I have dealt with your self-indulgent presumption that Zanu PF is a monolithic formation with undifferentiated leadership and membership structures, in which you take everyone in it to be murderous by definition. In light of the fact that you invited this intervention by your disgusting and intrusive tweet you posted yesterday, and because we are age mates, I conclude my rejoinder to your offensive tweet by telling you what I think about you, about Nelson Chamisa and about CCC. David, as a former member of the Rhodesian security services which were murderous and which committed unspeakable atrocities across Zimbabwe and beyond its borders into Zambia and Mozambique, you have no moral authority to pontificate about human rights or anything of the sort. You David Coltart operated in Matabeleland where you did dastardly things, some of which you narrate in your autobiography and many of which you will take to your grave untold, because you never faced a commission of inquiry to be grilled under oath about your service in the Rhodesian security services. The fact that a person like you has remained active in Zimbabwean public affairs for 43 years since independence is a huge credit to our national politics because, with your background in the Rhodesian security services, you would not have survived this long in public life elsewhere. It’s mind boggling that Chamisa has imposed you to run for Ward 4 councillor in Bulawayo, after you were resoundingly defeated in your party’s Ward 4 community candidate selection caucus in which you were clobbered and you came a distant last among the contestants. Thanks to your being power hungry, you have made it possible for everyone to see that you’re a fake democrat and a charlatan who believes in the imposition of candidates. Your criticism of what you say is Zanu PF's undemocratic practices is hollow and hypocritical. Furthermore, it’s shocking is that Chamisa is bent on imposing you from Harare as Bulawayo mayor. You don’t qualify for that position not least because you do not speak the language of the local community in Bulawayo despite having been born there 66 years ago. Unlike Members of Parliament or Senators, whose chambers conduct their business mainly in English, Councillors and Mayors work in the local languages of their local communities. For the above reasons, and as an expression of my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely, I do not and cannot support you at all David. As for Chamisa, having worked closely with him between 2018 and 2021, I came to the settled conclusion in November 2021 that he is a dictator with a very dangerous God complex, in that he sees himself as having been chosen by God to lead Zimbabwe, and more ominously, he claims to have direct communication with God who has the last word on what he should do or say in public. In politics, that’s an unworkable Jim Jones proposition. Because of his God complex, Chamisa is visible only when there are elections as he was in the 2018 harmonised general election, March 2022 by-elections and now for the 23 August harmonised general election. After he ditched his supporters in August 2018 when he called them "ma stupids" [stupid people], in January 2019 and in July 2020, his unavailability to provide leadership when his supporters needed it triggered a viral political joke that: ‘in Zimbabwe there are three things that are unavailable when you need them the most, the UN, a condom and Nelson Chamisa’. But even more telling aboutChamisa is the shocking way in which he has used CCC since its formation in January 2022, and particularly in the party’s candidate selection for the forthcoming elections, to ruthlessly purge the opposition. It's been scary and it explains why the opposition in Zimbabwe today is the most clueless and the weakest since independence in 1980. How can a democratic change champion insist on running a political party with no constitution, no structures, no bank account and no accountability? I cannot support a leader like that. There’s nothing more dangerous in politics than, a young 'popular' dictator with a God complex. My conscience and freedom to political choices freely do not allow me to support a leader like that. As for CCC, it has no ideology, no values, no constitution, no structures, no bank account, no policies and no other visible office bearers besides Chamisa, Gift Siziva, Fadzayi Mahere and Amos Chibaya; and it has not been launched to boot. There’s just no way anywhere on earth that a political formation like that can be supported by rational people with rational expectations. That’s why I cannot side with you David or with Chamisa or with CCC. You’re not “the alternative”, you’re just a worse and more dangerous alternative which can only be supported by polticidal people who do not mind moving from the frying pan into the fire! Jonathan Moyo 31 July 2023
9:51

Dear David Coltart, WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT QUINTUPLE C: COLTART, CHAMISA AND CCC My attention has been drawn to your fraudulent and disgusting tweet you posted on my Twitter TL yesterday David, in which you quoted a tweet I posted four years ago on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father. I reproduce below both tweets for ease of reference: “I have always genuinely sympathized with you Jonathan - the loss of your father in such circumstances must be devastating. I just don’t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.” – Tweet by David Coltart, 30 July 2023; commenting on my tweet below I posted four years ago: “1/5 On 22 January 1983 my father, Melusi Job Mlevu, was callously murdered in Tsholotsho by gukurahundi soldiers & the CIO. They tortured him upon his arrest & in front of his family; got him to dig a shallow grave, tortured him again; pumped bullets into his body & buried him!” – Jonathan Moyo tweet posted on 22 January 2019. Now David, are you really serious that you “have always genuinely sympathised with me”, because of “the loss of [my] father in such circumstances”? And since there’s no strategic ambiguity about the meaning of “always”, as it means exactly what it says, how have you “always genuinely” expressed your sympathy over all the years, since knowing about the circumstances under which I lost my father? The fact that your tweet yesterday is a response to a tweet I posted a long four years ago on 22 January 2019 – in memory of my father who was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in Tsholotsho on 22 January 1983 – shows and proves that you’re a fraud and a charlatan with neither sensitivity towards me and my family nor respect for us as Africans and human beings. All told, and typically of Zimbabweans of British colonial extraction and in particular of soul-free Rhodies, you’re contemptuous of our culture as a family and as Africans. You see David, it is fraudulent and utterly disgusting of you to claim that you have ever sympathised with me over my father’s loss. It’s actually patronising and very insulting in the extreme. Your fraud is clear even to yourself, that’s why you did not express your so-called sympathy when I first posted my tweet on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was murdered on 22 January 1983. In fact, until your fraudulent tweet yesterday, you had never before expressed any genuine or even non genuine sympathy for me and my family regarding the loss of my father on 22 January 1983. Even fools will immediately see that the key sentence in your tweet yesterday is not about your cruel declaration of fraudulent sympathy for me and my family over the circumstances of my father’s loss, a loss my family commemorated this year not yesterday but seven months ago on 22 January 2023, with no tweet of sympathy from you. The sentence in your tweet yesterday that captures what you really foolishly communicating to me is this: “I just don’t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.” David: what I say, believe and do is without exception based on and an existential product of what I know, what I think and what I have experienced or lived. I never say, believe or do anything that I don’t know, don’t, I have not thought of or which I don’t believe. Now David, you pretend to be a democrat who believes in the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution, so, what business of yours is my choice of what side to support or to not support in politics? Are my freedom of conscience and my right to make political choices freely now subject to your understanding, or are they my constitutional rights, as they are for every Zimbabwean, in terms of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe? Are you aware David and do you understand that the Constitution in 67(1)(b) says every Zimbabwean citizen has the right “to make political choices freely”? And, David, are you aware that section 60 of the Constitution says every person, not just every Zimbabwean but every person, has the right to freedom of conscience which includes “freedom of thought, opinion, religion or belief”, and “freedom to practice and propagate and give expression to their thought, opinion, religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with others”. The fact that you quoted and abused my personal tweet I posted on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was brutally murdered by the Fifth Brigade on 22 January 1983 to say you “don’t understand why you [me] continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your [my] family, and which still brings so much suffering”; shows that you are either ignorant of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and proves that you are a fraud and a charlatan with no constitutional values. Why do you want to police my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely? Just why do you and your lot in CCC, think that you can interfere with my freedom of conscience and my right to my political choices that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of Zimbabwe? If you and your lot were genuine democratic change champions, as you claim and purport to be, you would be the first to understand and to propagate freedom of conscience and the right to make political choices freely as sacrosanct constitutional values and principles that must be respected for every Zimbabwean at all times. But this has not been possible because you are frauds and charlatans. Now, your attitude towards me, the one captured in the disgusting tweet you posted yesterday, leads me to conclude without any fear of being contradicted that you are a frivolous and stupid person, David. Otherwise, if you care to know, there are three months that are cruel to me. October in which I lost my daughter Zanele in 2015, November because of what happened to me, my family and some colleagues during the 2017 military coup – it was also on 11 November 1965 that Rhodesia under which you blossomed, unilaterally declared independence – and 22 January the dark day on which my father was murdered. These are traumatic days for me in the calendar year. You see, I was a student in California in the US when my father was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in cold blood on 22 January 1983, having gone to the US before independence in 1977. When this awful tragedy happened, I did not know who my father was. I was born when my mother was barely 16 years old, and I was raised by my maternal grandparents who, like my mother, did not want me to know who my father was for reasons best known to them. Although, as I grew up, I understood their position from our cultural perspective as Africans, it nevertheless profoundly pained me. Truth be told, I was most grateful and I still am to this day, that my grandfather was a great father and my grandmother a great mother to me in ways that made me who I am today. I got to know who my father was well after I had graduated with my doctorate in 1988 and long after his gruesome murder, about which I was first told only 10 years ago. Since then, while it's been a profound rebirth for me to connect with my father through the loving Mlevu clan at large, I owe my dear sister Simiso an existential debt of gratitude. Through her, my kids have a hand-holder gateway through which to know about their grandfather. I really thank God and the spirit of the Mlevu clan for Simiso. The fact that I was born on 12 January, and that my father was brutally murdered on 22 January, makes the month of January an unbearable time of anguish for me, more so given that my father and I never met in life. When four years ago on 22 January 2019 I posted the tweet that you abused yesterday with reckless abandon, as you exposed your disconnection from the African experience, I was existentially troubled by the worst that could have happened to me and to my family on 15 November 2017, which got me thinking about what happened to my father, and even more troubling against the backdrop of the events of November 2017, I was devastated by the fact that I never met my father, and I spent the better part of 22 January 2019 wondering what life could have been for me had I known him in life and grown up under his parental care and guidance. You see David, maybe this is not true of people of European ancestry like you but, for many Africans it is very common for kids to be raised by their grandparents, like I was. As things turned out, I grew up knowing many such kids as my peers, the majority of whom never got to know who fathered them, some of whom are leading very successful lives in society as you read this. Unlike them, I was fortunate to end up knowing who my father was, but I was unfortunate not to have met him, and even more unfortunate to have known of him long after his death, made worse by the tragic circumstances of that death. I do not have a fly by night connection with Zanu PF. When I finished my high school in California, I proceeded to university there for my undergraduate education on a scholarship I got through Zanu PF. While an undergraduate, I was the political commissar of the Zanu PF branch in Los Angeles. I did my masters and doctoral degrees with academic scholarships endorsed by Zanu PF and underwritten by the Government of Zimbabwe through a staff development programme at the University of Zimbabwe. Having gone through Mgagao run by Zanu PF, and having gotten university education to the highest level under the auspices of Zanu PF, I have a long history and experience with Zanu PF, and with Zanu PF people whose complexities define who I am as an adult Zimbabwean, for better or for worse. It's my history, I'm proud of it and I own it. It’s an inescapable truth that each individual, and each therefore each person has a unique existential history best known to himself or herself, family and to a small cohort that has been intimate parts of that personal history. It's hopelessly foolish for someone to hope to prescribe a history on anyone. Every human being is who they are. And it's a fact not exclusive to me that my association with Zanu PF has not always been rosy. Life is a personal struggle between the person or the individual and the social formations through which life goes on. It’s common cause, that the military coup was a traumatic experience for me and my family and that it was profoundly painful and life changing in untold ways. It’s also common cause and not surprising to any normal human being that I blamed Zanu PF for that traumatic experience. Anyone else in my situation would have done the same at point or another. Yet the bigger story is that I, my family and my colleagues survived that 2017 ordeal with the very direct, active and truly genuine assistance and support from Zanu PF people. Working with other African Angeles, and I emphasize African Angeles, it was Zanu PF people who made sure that we were able to be safe and to get out of the country to be where I am today, all of them at great risk to their lives or livelihoods. In 2017 I was saved to be alive today by Zanu PF people. During the life threatening 2017 ordeal that my family and I went through, there was not even one person associated with the opposition as it was then, or as it is today, who reached out to find out where I was or how I was doing. It is common cause, some of it is documented, that many in the opposition then and who are still in opposition today, actually wanted me dead, all because of my political differences with them. You David Coltart, who now wants to pretend that you “have always genuinely sympathised with me”, never inquired after me. That’s why I think you are a monumental fraud and a charlatan. I repeat, I was helped out of the traumatic ordeal in 2017 by Zanu PF people, not by anyone from your lot David, not even one. Of course, at some point and largely because of the 2018 general election I found myself connected with some of your lot, especially Nelson Chamisa and others who were close to him or working with him i the election campaign, as the MDC-A presidential election candidate. I will not rehash that story here, as it has been told very well by many others. From my experience, and the lessons I have extrapolated from the late Vice President Joshua Nkomo, such as on the attached video clip, I have come to better appreciate that it is a mistake and wrong to a understand and define a political party with a deep-seated background and history like Zanu PF in terms of its leadership; rather, a grounded political party with a long history is necessarily defined by its founding values, constitution and membership, not least because the membership is permanent while the leadership comes and goes. By the same token, I have come to better appreciate that the mistakes or excesses of the leadership of grounded political parties with an entrenched history should not automatically or reflexively be ascribed or attributed to or blamed on the membership. On 15 November 2022, Patrick Zhuwao and I wrote an open letter to Zanu PF members to precisely make this point. I am attaching herewith a link to that letter, lest you missed it. It’s a self-explanatory letter which contextualises and explains everything that I did and said between 15 November 2017 and 14 November 2022. It also explains why do not support Nelson Chamisa and your CCC. I stand by the contents of that letter. In this connection, I draw your attention and that of your lot to an interview done by the late VP Joshua Nkomo in 1983 – which is attached herewith as already mentioned – in which Nkomo explains why the Fifth Brigade was not a Shona issue. Although Nkomo made it clear that gukurahundi was a political and not a tribal issue, I have come to understand and appreciate that it was a political issue not in the sense of Zanu PF as a political party in membership terms but, rather, in the sense of the political leadership and, more particularly, of individuals within that leadership. However, given your utter contempt for sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, I do not expect you to understand the dangers of painting a tribe or a political party with one brush, or to understand the misguided consequences of conflating the leadership of a political party with the party’s membership or even of treating the leadership of a political party as a monolithic formation that always acts in concert. Basically David, and just like Nelson Chamisa’s trolls, it's clear you believe that you can abuse my personal and tragic circumstances to blackmail me for your doomed political purposes in two ways. First, you think you can abuse the circumstances of my father’s brutal death to somehow generate cheap and outrageous propaganda for yourself, Nelson Chamisa and CCC that I support Zanu PF which killed my father, and you do this under your self-indulgent presumption that everyone who is in Zanu PF as a political party is murderous by definition. Second, and based on this falsification, you’re abusing my tragic personal circumstances regarding my father’s loss to blackmail me into supporting you in particular, given my attack on your imposition as CCC's Ward 4 councillor candidate in Bulawayo; Nelson Chamisa and CCC . Your outrageous position is that if I cannot support you, I must keep quiet about you, under the ridiculous presumption that you’re all by definition virtuous, competent, capable, the only and best democratic alternative for everyone in Zimbabwe. On the back of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and drawing from my knowledge, thoughts, experiences and received wisdom from the late VP Joshua Nkomo, I have dealt with your self-indulgent presumption that Zanu PF is a monolithic formation with undifferentiated leadership and membership structures, in which you take everyone in it to be murderous by definition. In light of the fact that you invited this intervention by your disgusting and intrusive tweet you posted yesterday, and because we are age mates, I conclude my rejoinder to your offensive tweet by telling you what I think about you, about Nelson Chamisa and about CCC. David, as a former member of the Rhodesian security services which were murderous and which committed unspeakable atrocities across Zimbabwe and beyond its borders into Zambia and Mozambique, you have no moral authority to pontificate about human rights or anything of the sort. You David Coltart operated in Matabeleland where you did dastardly things, some of which you narrate in your autobiography and many of which you will take to your grave untold, because you never faced a commission of inquiry to be grilled under oath about your service in the Rhodesian security services. The fact that a person like you has remained active in Zimbabwean public affairs for 43 years since independence is a huge credit to our national politics because, with your background in the Rhodesian security services, you would not have survived this long in public life elsewhere. It’s mind boggling that Chamisa has imposed you to run for Ward 4 councillor in Bulawayo, after you were resoundingly defeated in your party’s Ward 4 community candidate selection caucus in which you were clobbered and you came a distant last among the contestants. Thanks to your being power hungry, you have made it possible for everyone to see that you’re a fake democrat and a charlatan who believes in the imposition of candidates. Your criticism of what you say is Zanu PF's undemocratic practices is hollow and hypocritical. Furthermore, it’s shocking is that Chamisa is bent on imposing you from Harare as Bulawayo mayor. You don’t qualify for that position not least because you do not speak the language of the local community in Bulawayo despite having been born there 66 years ago. Unlike Members of Parliament or Senators, whose chambers conduct their business mainly in English, Councillors and Mayors work in the local languages of their local communities. For the above reasons, and as an expression of my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely, I do not and cannot support you at all David. As for Chamisa, having worked closely with him between 2018 and 2021, I came to the settled conclusion in November 2021 that he is a dictator with a very dangerous God complex, in that he sees himself as having been chosen by God to lead Zimbabwe, and more ominously, he claims to have direct communication with God who has the last word on what he should do or say in public. In politics, that’s an unworkable Jim Jones proposition. Because of his God complex, Chamisa is visible only when there are elections as he was in the 2018 harmonised general election, March 2022 by-elections and now for the 23 August harmonised general election. After he ditched his supporters in August 2018 when he called them "ma stupids" [stupid people], in January 2019 and in July 2020, his unavailability to provide leadership when his supporters needed it triggered a viral political joke that: ‘in Zimbabwe there are three things that are unavailable when you need them the most, the UN, a condom and Nelson Chamisa’. But even more telling aboutChamisa is the shocking way in which he has used CCC since its formation in January 2022, and particularly in the party’s candidate selection for the forthcoming elections, to ruthlessly purge the opposition. It's been scary and it explains why the opposition in Zimbabwe today is the most clueless and the weakest since independence in 1980. How can a democratic change champion insist on running a political party with no constitution, no structures, no bank account and no accountability? I cannot support a leader like that. There’s nothing more dangerous in politics than, a young 'popular' dictator with a God complex. My conscience and freedom to political choices freely do not allow me to support a leader like that. As for CCC, it has no ideology, no values, no constitution, no structures, no bank account, no policies and no other visible office bearers besides Chamisa, Gift Siziva, Fadzayi Mahere and Amos Chibaya; and it has not been launched to boot. There’s just no way anywhere on earth that a political formation like that can be supported by rational people with rational expectations. That’s why I cannot side with you David or with Chamisa or with CCC. You’re not “the alternative”, you’re just a worse and more dangerous alternative which can only be supported by polticidal people who do not mind moving from the frying pan into the fire! Jonathan Moyo 31 July 2023

Prof Jonathan Moyo

181,756 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

"We had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy. We didn't know that...it's gonna stay with you for maybe...years and years or the rest of your life." ~Mr. B. A Whole Lot of Not Rosy Robert Bigelow: "And so, it (survival of consciousness research) does have this aspect of things to be concerned about. And you know, I've told you that since we formed this institute (Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS)) in June (of 2020), all of a sudden, we had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy, okay?” (I really hope he give details in a future interview because I think it's important to know what happened. Just the formation of an institute that planned on studying consciousness caused phenomena to start taking place and some of it was negative in nature. To me, that's problematic. Did anybody get injured or sick, or were they just scared?) Bigelow: "So, I mean, this is family members, myself, my staff. And none of this we expected, we hadn't asked for anything, positioned anything, decided to do anything in this kind of research. Our whole intention to begin with was simply trying to get ourselves up to speed in the literature, after being away from this for so many years, focusing on [the] space world, right? That's been mainly what I've been doing - except for the Skinwalker Ranch thing for 20 years - is the space world...has been huge in my life to pursue. The legitimate, parochial kind of, you know, using fire engines, rockets to get you there (smiles). "So we didn't expect anything like this to happen." (Again, this is various phenomena that allegedly started happening once they formed BICS with the intention of studying consciousness (including life after death), and apparently, some of it was not good. Again, did anybody get hurt? Exactly how bad was it? Details are sorely needed.) Bigelow: "And so, this Holy Grail is different than the second Holy Grail. If the second one being the ET, is a little bit lower. And this first one: Is there any part of your consciousness that survives your bodily death? That's a big deal, that's a huge story, that's gigantic." (I'd push back and suggest that both Holy Grails may be connected or related and the 2nd one may not be ET at all. This other intelligence (which John Keel labelled, "Ultraterrestrials") may reside in, or be able to enter, the same realms we enter when we die. There’s strong evidence that psychic mediums can acquire information they had no way of knowing about via their five senses. But are they talking to the dead, or is something else going on?) ~~~Excerpt from Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel~~~ In 1866, a New Englander named William Denton declared himself to be the first modern contactee. He claimed to be in telepathic contact with beings from another planet, and he and his whole family later purportedly visited Venus and Mars. Denton wrote a series of books describing saucer-shaped vehicles in detail, which he thought were made of aluminum. (A commercial process for manufacturing aluminum was not invented until 1886.) He also told his audiences (he lectured widely) that the folks who rode around in aluminum airships looked very much like us. His narratives were, in many respects, identical to those of the modern contactees. Trance Mediums and Possession Trance mediums were nothing new in 1850. In the Bible’s First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28 describes how Saul consulted a medium (“… a woman that hath-a familiar spirit”). Mediums acted as oracles in ancient times, and people with this peculiar gift appeared in each new generation. Such persons seem to serve as instruments through which the ultraterrestrials can speak to us directly, and they often come up with amazingly accurate prophecies of the future and precise details of events that could seemingly be known only to the dead relatives of the people who consulted them. Of course, when spiritualism became a national fad, a goodly number of charlatans and hucksters moved in. But most of the genuine mediums exercised their talents carefully and for free. They did not indulge in fancy hocus-pocus and did not need paraphernalia, such as spirit cabinets. They were—and are—people who can apparently summon up unseen entities or alien intelligences and extract information from them. I am not a spiritualist myself, although I have attended a few séances over the years, usually in the role of a scoffer and disbeliever. As a longtime amateur magician, I have been able to see through the frauds, but I have also been genuinely perplexed by some of the manifestations I have personally witnessed. (I recommend everybody read about The Scole Experiment or watch the documentary on YT about it. And...read the book, "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Related links here: ) ~ Back to OTH... Essentially, a trance medium lapses into an unconscious state, and while in this condition, his or her body is taken over by some outside influence. This influence is usually a self-styled “Indian guide” from “the other side.” Many mediums have been simple, uneducated people, but when in a trance state they have been able to talk foreign languages fluently. Scientists and clergymen have put countless mediums through severe tests over the years. At one group of séances in the 1920s, sitters, who were all versed in different languages, grilled mediums in everything from ancient Chinese to Swahili, and the controlling entities not only conversed in those languages but corrected the sitters’ grammar! The daughter of Judge Edmunds, president of the Senate in the 1850s, gave incredible performances while in a trance, speaking fluently in Greek, Spanish, Polish, Latin, Portuguese, Hungarian, and several Indian languages. Because the sitters—and the mediums—assume that they are dealing with residents of heaven, they ask mostly spiritual questions. Customarily, the “control” will announce that Mr. Blank is standing next to him and wishes to speak to Mrs. Blank, who is attending the séance. Mrs. Blank excitedly begins to question her dead husband, Mr. Blank. How is life on the other side? Just fine, the control replies, a little bored, everyone lives in vine-covered cottages, and all is sweetness and light. Where did Mr. Blank hide his valuable gold watch before he died? It’s wrapped in an old sock and buried under some papers in the bottom drawer of the old rolltop desk, the control answers. Sure enough, when Mrs. Blank gets home, she finds the watch exactly where the medium’s alter ego said it would be. Try to convince Mrs. Blank that she didn’t talk with her dead husband! In many cases, the medium even begins to talk in a voice that sounds exactly like the dead Mr. Blank, uses his pet expressions, and even refers to things known only to Mrs. Blank, indulges in their private jokes, and so on. Occasionally, a deceased celebrity will “break through.” Recently the late George Bernard Shaw made a tape recording in England that is now circulating in occult circles. Those who knew Shaw claim that it sounds exactly like him, uses his phraseology and vocal mannerisms, and displays his brilliant and distinctive wit. The trance phenomenon deserves extensive study because so many aspects of it are directly related to the contactee phenomenon. The contactees have been told a hundred different stories of what life is like on other planets. If you review the descriptions of heaven produced at the thousands of possibly genuine séances, you will find the same contradictions. The entities will lie transparently at one point in the séance, and a few moments later will come up with astounding information that could not be based upon simple trickery. The mediums themselves have always been aware of their controls’ mischievous sense of humor. They speak of false shades and malevolent spirits who perform outrageous hoaxes. So the mediums and the professional investigators are always wary. The fact that a control can imitate George Bernard Shaw does not necessarily mean that GBS is doing the speaking from the spirit world. The fact that a control knows where Mr. Blank hid his gold watch does not necessarily prove that Mr. Blank is standing at his side “on the other plane.” The medium generally remains completely inert while in the trance or “occupied” state but in some instances can become quite animated and make gestures appropriate to whatever is being said. In a very real sense, the medium’s mind has been blanked out, and his or her body has been completely taken over by the control. The medium has become a zombie of sorts, possessed by an alien entity, an entity who lacks a physical form of his own. Contactees often find themselves suddenly miles from home without knowing how they got there. They either have induced amnesia, wiping out all memory of the trip, or they were taken over by some means and made the trip in a blacked-out state. Should they encounter a friend on the way, the friend would probably note that their eyes seemed glassy and their behavior seemed peculiar. But if the friend spoke to them, he might receive a curt reply. In the language of the silent contactees this process is called being used. A used person can suddenly lose a day or a week out of his life. I have known silent contactees to disappear from their homes for long periods, and when they returned, they had little or no recollection of where they had been. One girl sent me a postcard from the Bahama Islands—which surprised me because I knew she was very poor. When she returned, she told me that she had only one memory of the trip. She said she remembered getting off a jet at an airport—she couldn’t recall getting on the jet or making the trip—and there “Indians” met her and took her baggage. She remembered nothing further after that. The next thing she knew she was back home again. It seems likely the same methods are applied to both mediums and contactees. In the case of the mediums, the mind control serves a useful purpose. It enables the entities to establish direct vocal communication with us and, in many instances, pass along worthwhile information. This process can also be destructive. A young man from Ithaca, New York, called me some time ago at the urging of William Donovan, president of Aerial Investigation and Research (AIR), to tell me of his close brush with death. One evening in the fall of 1967, he said, he left his home to drive to a meeting. For some reason he couldn’t explain, he got out of his car, went back into his house, and carried out several aimless actions such as picking up a book from a table and putting it on the shelf. “Finally, I said to myself, Okay, it’s time,” he told me. He remembers leaving the house and again heading for his parked car. The next thing he knew he was in a hospital bed. He had apparently driven about four miles to a railroad crossing just in time to meet an oncoming train. His car was demolished, but he escaped rather miraculously with only a few minor injuries. If he had not gone back into the house and carried out those meaningless, time-killing chores, he would have avoided the train altogether. It is possible, of course, that the shock of the accident blotted out his memory of that four-mile drive—but he couldn’t even remember putting the key in the ignition. This man had been active in investigating the UFO flap that took place around the radio telescope installations near Ithaca in 1967-68. In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. “In the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,” Dr. Vallee states. “He was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a ‘voice from space’ had given her orders to kill that particular man—orders she could not resist. Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.” So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. When the good guys worked through mediums, they needed some excuse that we would accept. The answer seemed to be “communication with the dead.” These communicative efforts led to the foundation of spiritualism, and the entities played the role to the hilt, using their complete knowledge of us and our individual lives to provide us with “proof” of the existence of a spirit world. This is the same precise methodology being employed with the UFOs to build up support for the extraterrestrial thesis. We humans need acceptable explanations for unnatural phenomena, so “they” happily—and often humorously—supply us with all the explanations we can handle. At the same time, they give us tiny fragments of the real truth, hoping no doubt that we will be able to digest them slowly. Ever so slowly. In earlier times it seems as if they made a complicated attempt to convey the truth to us through mediums and psychics, but we chose to misinterpret these efforts and placed them within the context of our primitive religious beliefs. We are still doing this, and they are going along with it because even misinterpreted communication is better than no communication at all. Religion may not be truth but may merely be a step on the long path of the real truth. Do the ultraterrestrials really care about us? There is much disturbing evidence that they don’t. They care only to the extent that we can fulfill our enigmatic use to them. The Reverend Arthur Ford is one of America’s best-known trance mediums. For most of his life he has served as an instrument for an entity who calls himself Fletcher. In 1928, Fletcher announced that Harry Houdini (who had died in 1926) was on hand and had a message which he wanted conveyed to his widow, Beatrice. The message was in a code once used by the Houdinis in a mind-reading act. This code was known only to the couple and had never been published or revealed to anyone. Fletcher, through Ford, was able to give precise details of this secret code, and Mrs. Houdini later confirmed that the message had to come from her husband. This was only one of Ford’s many coups. In the fall of 1967, Ford went into a trance on Canadian television and produced a message for Bishop James Pike from his deceased son. Bishop Pike, who was present at this televised séance, avowed that the message seemed authentic and seemed to come from the familiar personality of his son. This well-publicized séance launched a major revival of spiritualism in the United States. Reverend Ford travels in high circles but has never made any material gain from his peculiar gift. He gives freely of his time—and Fletcher’s advice from the other side—at séances all over the country. Mrs. Ruth Montgomery, the well-known author and Washington reporter, tells of the time that Reverend Ford visited her in Washington and lapsed into a trance so she could ask Fletcher for some advice on his behalf. Reverend Ford was then in the process of moving and wanted to know what he should do with some of his things. Fletcher seemed totally disinterested in Ford’s problems, Mrs. Montgomery reported, and when she asked if Ford should visit a clinic for a checkup, Fletcher snapped, “He’d better do something. If he doesn’t, I can’t work through him much longer.” Although Reverend Ford had voluntarily submitted his person to Fletcher’s use for nearly half a century, the entity was apparently completely disinterested in his problems and welfare. This is, alas, rather typical. Even the most helpful entities seem more dedicated to the job of communicating than to any kind of involvement with those to whom (or through whom) they are communicating. The bizarre history of psychic phenomena is filled with Fletchers. Mrs. Montgomery, incidentally, indulges in automatic writing herself and has received constant messages for the past few years, many of which have been valid prophecies and stern advice meant to govern her future actions. There have been innumerable psychic hoaxes for the past 150 years, and many of these parallel the UFO hoaxes. In 1855, the Fox sisters confessed that their spirit rappings were a hoax. They said they produced the sounds by “snapping their toes.” Think about that for a moment. Snapping your toes so that it sounded like a rap on a wall or table would be a most remarkable talent—perhaps even more remarkable than the ability to communicate with the spirit world. I don’t believe I would pay ten cents to hear someone talk to a rapping spirit—but I would happily pay five dollars to examine someone who could duplicate the rapping sound by snapping his toes. Later the two sisters said the confession was false, and they had been bribed to make it. "Mrs. Houdini was genuinely astonished and impressed by Reverend Ford’s messages from her husband, and she made numerous public statements to that effect, as well as signing various affidavits. But later, in the 1930s, she chose to deny it all for a time. Then, shortly before her death, she reversed her denials. In ufology we have to contend with teenagers’ hot-air balloons, and in psychic phenomena we have to worry about youngsters firing rocks at houses with slingshots and phony mediums levitating “spirit trumpets” with black thread. But there are many more UFO sightings than there are plastic balloons, and there are more poltergeists dumping rocks in living rooms than there are wild-eyed youngsters with slingshots. There are also more ultraterrestrial entities than either the occultists or the UFO enthusiasts dream of." ~~~Edit of the Bigelow Interview~~~ Bigelow: "I also, I was...I got very disturbed toward the end (of AAWSAP) about something that happened to some of the government people, and I realized uhh...holy crap." (Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." I think it's one of the most important UFO books in recent memory.) George Knapp: "Hitchhikers." Bigelow: "Umm... Well, yeah. You know. So, hitchhikers being that you take things home with you. Everybody took things home with them. I took things to my house. Things happened to my wife, and to me. Different things. So, everybody took things home. We all, you know, we did. But we didn't know that, gee, it was like, gonna be kind of permanent. You know, we didn't know that, you know? That it's gonna stay with you for maybe...for years and years or the rest of your life, who knows? "But the ones that bothered me a lot where anybody got hurt or really disturbed... Not that it happened on the ranch, it was when they left the ranch. As you say, hitchhikers. And these were government people and it affected them." Knapp: "In very dramatic ways, though." Bigelow: "Very dramatic ways. Very dramatic ways. You know, and there's a cousin to that that we're facing, but it's abated, at least for now. And this other survival topic, right? The very dramatic kind of things that we wanted to have reduced or stopped." (The "cousin" to the hitchhiker phenomenon features the not-so-rosy things he referred to early on in this clip. But at least it had abated at the time of this interview. Has it started up again?) Bigelow: "But going back to the government people, the buyer (Brandon Fugal) came along at the right time, I had decided I wanted to tone down..." Knapp: "Take this off your plate." Bigelow: "Yeah, take it off my plate, tone it down, and if necessary, just lock it up and forget about it. And next thing I know, you know, [Fugal] comes along and, you know, the rest is history." Knapp: "Before we leave this, though, the incidents that happened to you, to your wife, to Colm (Kelleher), to me, the, you know, you bring it home. How does everybody handle that? I mean, is it spooky at the time, and do you draw the connection that it's ranch related?" Bigelow: "Yes and no. If the events hadn't happened very often prior to the ranch, then it's not ranch connected. But they did happen." (I think he meant to say, if the events hadn't happened prior to him buying the ranch in 1996 and did happen once he made the purchase, then it would seem to be connected just to the ranch. But he says these anomalous events did happen before he bought it. Maybe some events were connected to the ranch and others were not? Or, this precognitive sentient phenomenon, as John Alexander labelled it, was able to know that Bigelow was going to purchase the ranch in the future and began interacting with him and his wife before he bought it?) Bigelow: "And [these anomalous events] did [happen], where we lived with my wife and I. We had a poltergeist event one time that was really fun and very different, and that was before I ever acquired the ranch. My wife was a very strong - and probably still is, in spirit - person. And so she took them in stride. She had a full manifestation of an apparition, a human-form apparition in the bedroom, and looking at her. "And this was a holy cow. And she happened to tell me, kind of like, 'Oh, well, while you were gone, this is what happened here, a manifestation of this.' I've heard this kind of thing many times through other people, and recently. And she felt the bed depress as there was a curiosity going on because the facial features were distinctive enough to be able to...as though, 'Who are you and what are you doing here?' Coming from the manifestation from the apparition, looking at her, right? "And torso up was kind of what was manifested. And being able to see and feel the mattress being depressed as it's looking at you, wondering, 'Who are you?' That kind of look on the face. 'What are you doing here?' You know, usually you think it would be the opposite direction. 'Who the hell are you?'" (Fully-formed apparitions have been reported over the last 150 years or so but many times only partial bodies are seen. In this case, Mrs. Bigelow only saw the apparition from the torso up. When Leslie Kean sat with physical medium, Stewart Alexander, she said she only saw a hand form. The alleged spirits will say that, many times, it takes too much energy to form a full body. Learn more about the Kean encounter here: ) ~ Knapp: "Was [Mrs. Bigelow] freaked out?" Bigelow: "No. No, she wasn't. There was a bar of light - so this was not normal in the survival research, but maybe in the ET - that was between her pillows. A bar of light. It wasn't coming in from shutters or blinds or anything from the room or any kind of other light source. You could cover, put the pillows down, and the bar would not be reflected on the surface of the object above it, on the second pillow. It only happened when you did this. And she did that and said, 'Oh, well.' I said, 'Well, what did you do?' "'Well, I went to sleep.' Went to sleep, so..." ~~~ (In January of 2012, NYT journalist, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article about Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). He ended it with this: ) "One personal footnote. Don’t ask me what happened on Jan. 4 at 5:45 a.m. as I lay sleepless, wrestling with this story. A tremendous bang jolted me and my wife and the dog upright. We found the glass door to our 12th-floor terrace completely spiderwebbed with cracks as if struck with tremendous force, but there was no sign of any projectile. Invisible moisture between the double panes? Or something else? There are things I don’t mind talking about and things I do mind talking about." (Was this prosaic or just more of the not-so-rosy phenomena Bigelow referenced? We need to know!)
6:56

"We had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy. We didn't know that...it's gonna stay with you for maybe...years and years or the rest of your life." ~Mr. B. A Whole Lot of Not Rosy Robert Bigelow: "And so, it (survival of consciousness research) does have this aspect of things to be concerned about. And you know, I've told you that since we formed this institute (Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS)) in June (of 2020), all of a sudden, we had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy, okay?” (I really hope he give details in a future interview because I think it's important to know what happened. Just the formation of an institute that planned on studying consciousness caused phenomena to start taking place and some of it was negative in nature. To me, that's problematic. Did anybody get injured or sick, or were they just scared?) Bigelow: "So, I mean, this is family members, myself, my staff. And none of this we expected, we hadn't asked for anything, positioned anything, decided to do anything in this kind of research. Our whole intention to begin with was simply trying to get ourselves up to speed in the literature, after being away from this for so many years, focusing on [the] space world, right? That's been mainly what I've been doing - except for the Skinwalker Ranch thing for 20 years - is the space world...has been huge in my life to pursue. The legitimate, parochial kind of, you know, using fire engines, rockets to get you there (smiles). "So we didn't expect anything like this to happen." (Again, this is various phenomena that allegedly started happening once they formed BICS with the intention of studying consciousness (including life after death), and apparently, some of it was not good. Again, did anybody get hurt? Exactly how bad was it? Details are sorely needed.) Bigelow: "And so, this Holy Grail is different than the second Holy Grail. If the second one being the ET, is a little bit lower. And this first one: Is there any part of your consciousness that survives your bodily death? That's a big deal, that's a huge story, that's gigantic." (I'd push back and suggest that both Holy Grails may be connected or related and the 2nd one may not be ET at all. This other intelligence (which John Keel labelled, "Ultraterrestrials") may reside in, or be able to enter, the same realms we enter when we die. There’s strong evidence that psychic mediums can acquire information they had no way of knowing about via their five senses. But are they talking to the dead, or is something else going on?) ~~~Excerpt from Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel~~~ In 1866, a New Englander named William Denton declared himself to be the first modern contactee. He claimed to be in telepathic contact with beings from another planet, and he and his whole family later purportedly visited Venus and Mars. Denton wrote a series of books describing saucer-shaped vehicles in detail, which he thought were made of aluminum. (A commercial process for manufacturing aluminum was not invented until 1886.) He also told his audiences (he lectured widely) that the folks who rode around in aluminum airships looked very much like us. His narratives were, in many respects, identical to those of the modern contactees. Trance Mediums and Possession Trance mediums were nothing new in 1850. In the Bible’s First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28 describes how Saul consulted a medium (“… a woman that hath-a familiar spirit”). Mediums acted as oracles in ancient times, and people with this peculiar gift appeared in each new generation. Such persons seem to serve as instruments through which the ultraterrestrials can speak to us directly, and they often come up with amazingly accurate prophecies of the future and precise details of events that could seemingly be known only to the dead relatives of the people who consulted them. Of course, when spiritualism became a national fad, a goodly number of charlatans and hucksters moved in. But most of the genuine mediums exercised their talents carefully and for free. They did not indulge in fancy hocus-pocus and did not need paraphernalia, such as spirit cabinets. They were—and are—people who can apparently summon up unseen entities or alien intelligences and extract information from them. I am not a spiritualist myself, although I have attended a few séances over the years, usually in the role of a scoffer and disbeliever. As a longtime amateur magician, I have been able to see through the frauds, but I have also been genuinely perplexed by some of the manifestations I have personally witnessed. (I recommend everybody read about The Scole Experiment or watch the documentary on YT about it. And...read the book, "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Related links here: ) ~ Back to OTH... Essentially, a trance medium lapses into an unconscious state, and while in this condition, his or her body is taken over by some outside influence. This influence is usually a self-styled “Indian guide” from “the other side.” Many mediums have been simple, uneducated people, but when in a trance state they have been able to talk foreign languages fluently. Scientists and clergymen have put countless mediums through severe tests over the years. At one group of séances in the 1920s, sitters, who were all versed in different languages, grilled mediums in everything from ancient Chinese to Swahili, and the controlling entities not only conversed in those languages but corrected the sitters’ grammar! The daughter of Judge Edmunds, president of the Senate in the 1850s, gave incredible performances while in a trance, speaking fluently in Greek, Spanish, Polish, Latin, Portuguese, Hungarian, and several Indian languages. Because the sitters—and the mediums—assume that they are dealing with residents of heaven, they ask mostly spiritual questions. Customarily, the “control” will announce that Mr. Blank is standing next to him and wishes to speak to Mrs. Blank, who is attending the séance. Mrs. Blank excitedly begins to question her dead husband, Mr. Blank. How is life on the other side? Just fine, the control replies, a little bored, everyone lives in vine-covered cottages, and all is sweetness and light. Where did Mr. Blank hide his valuable gold watch before he died? It’s wrapped in an old sock and buried under some papers in the bottom drawer of the old rolltop desk, the control answers. Sure enough, when Mrs. Blank gets home, she finds the watch exactly where the medium’s alter ego said it would be. Try to convince Mrs. Blank that she didn’t talk with her dead husband! In many cases, the medium even begins to talk in a voice that sounds exactly like the dead Mr. Blank, uses his pet expressions, and even refers to things known only to Mrs. Blank, indulges in their private jokes, and so on. Occasionally, a deceased celebrity will “break through.” Recently the late George Bernard Shaw made a tape recording in England that is now circulating in occult circles. Those who knew Shaw claim that it sounds exactly like him, uses his phraseology and vocal mannerisms, and displays his brilliant and distinctive wit. The trance phenomenon deserves extensive study because so many aspects of it are directly related to the contactee phenomenon. The contactees have been told a hundred different stories of what life is like on other planets. If you review the descriptions of heaven produced at the thousands of possibly genuine séances, you will find the same contradictions. The entities will lie transparently at one point in the séance, and a few moments later will come up with astounding information that could not be based upon simple trickery. The mediums themselves have always been aware of their controls’ mischievous sense of humor. They speak of false shades and malevolent spirits who perform outrageous hoaxes. So the mediums and the professional investigators are always wary. The fact that a control can imitate George Bernard Shaw does not necessarily mean that GBS is doing the speaking from the spirit world. The fact that a control knows where Mr. Blank hid his gold watch does not necessarily prove that Mr. Blank is standing at his side “on the other plane.” The medium generally remains completely inert while in the trance or “occupied” state but in some instances can become quite animated and make gestures appropriate to whatever is being said. In a very real sense, the medium’s mind has been blanked out, and his or her body has been completely taken over by the control. The medium has become a zombie of sorts, possessed by an alien entity, an entity who lacks a physical form of his own. Contactees often find themselves suddenly miles from home without knowing how they got there. They either have induced amnesia, wiping out all memory of the trip, or they were taken over by some means and made the trip in a blacked-out state. Should they encounter a friend on the way, the friend would probably note that their eyes seemed glassy and their behavior seemed peculiar. But if the friend spoke to them, he might receive a curt reply. In the language of the silent contactees this process is called being used. A used person can suddenly lose a day or a week out of his life. I have known silent contactees to disappear from their homes for long periods, and when they returned, they had little or no recollection of where they had been. One girl sent me a postcard from the Bahama Islands—which surprised me because I knew she was very poor. When she returned, she told me that she had only one memory of the trip. She said she remembered getting off a jet at an airport—she couldn’t recall getting on the jet or making the trip—and there “Indians” met her and took her baggage. She remembered nothing further after that. The next thing she knew she was back home again. It seems likely the same methods are applied to both mediums and contactees. In the case of the mediums, the mind control serves a useful purpose. It enables the entities to establish direct vocal communication with us and, in many instances, pass along worthwhile information. This process can also be destructive. A young man from Ithaca, New York, called me some time ago at the urging of William Donovan, president of Aerial Investigation and Research (AIR), to tell me of his close brush with death. One evening in the fall of 1967, he said, he left his home to drive to a meeting. For some reason he couldn’t explain, he got out of his car, went back into his house, and carried out several aimless actions such as picking up a book from a table and putting it on the shelf. “Finally, I said to myself, Okay, it’s time,” he told me. He remembers leaving the house and again heading for his parked car. The next thing he knew he was in a hospital bed. He had apparently driven about four miles to a railroad crossing just in time to meet an oncoming train. His car was demolished, but he escaped rather miraculously with only a few minor injuries. If he had not gone back into the house and carried out those meaningless, time-killing chores, he would have avoided the train altogether. It is possible, of course, that the shock of the accident blotted out his memory of that four-mile drive—but he couldn’t even remember putting the key in the ignition. This man had been active in investigating the UFO flap that took place around the radio telescope installations near Ithaca in 1967-68. In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. “In the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,” Dr. Vallee states. “He was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a ‘voice from space’ had given her orders to kill that particular man—orders she could not resist. Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.” So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. When the good guys worked through mediums, they needed some excuse that we would accept. The answer seemed to be “communication with the dead.” These communicative efforts led to the foundation of spiritualism, and the entities played the role to the hilt, using their complete knowledge of us and our individual lives to provide us with “proof” of the existence of a spirit world. This is the same precise methodology being employed with the UFOs to build up support for the extraterrestrial thesis. We humans need acceptable explanations for unnatural phenomena, so “they” happily—and often humorously—supply us with all the explanations we can handle. At the same time, they give us tiny fragments of the real truth, hoping no doubt that we will be able to digest them slowly. Ever so slowly. In earlier times it seems as if they made a complicated attempt to convey the truth to us through mediums and psychics, but we chose to misinterpret these efforts and placed them within the context of our primitive religious beliefs. We are still doing this, and they are going along with it because even misinterpreted communication is better than no communication at all. Religion may not be truth but may merely be a step on the long path of the real truth. Do the ultraterrestrials really care about us? There is much disturbing evidence that they don’t. They care only to the extent that we can fulfill our enigmatic use to them. The Reverend Arthur Ford is one of America’s best-known trance mediums. For most of his life he has served as an instrument for an entity who calls himself Fletcher. In 1928, Fletcher announced that Harry Houdini (who had died in 1926) was on hand and had a message which he wanted conveyed to his widow, Beatrice. The message was in a code once used by the Houdinis in a mind-reading act. This code was known only to the couple and had never been published or revealed to anyone. Fletcher, through Ford, was able to give precise details of this secret code, and Mrs. Houdini later confirmed that the message had to come from her husband. This was only one of Ford’s many coups. In the fall of 1967, Ford went into a trance on Canadian television and produced a message for Bishop James Pike from his deceased son. Bishop Pike, who was present at this televised séance, avowed that the message seemed authentic and seemed to come from the familiar personality of his son. This well-publicized séance launched a major revival of spiritualism in the United States. Reverend Ford travels in high circles but has never made any material gain from his peculiar gift. He gives freely of his time—and Fletcher’s advice from the other side—at séances all over the country. Mrs. Ruth Montgomery, the well-known author and Washington reporter, tells of the time that Reverend Ford visited her in Washington and lapsed into a trance so she could ask Fletcher for some advice on his behalf. Reverend Ford was then in the process of moving and wanted to know what he should do with some of his things. Fletcher seemed totally disinterested in Ford’s problems, Mrs. Montgomery reported, and when she asked if Ford should visit a clinic for a checkup, Fletcher snapped, “He’d better do something. If he doesn’t, I can’t work through him much longer.” Although Reverend Ford had voluntarily submitted his person to Fletcher’s use for nearly half a century, the entity was apparently completely disinterested in his problems and welfare. This is, alas, rather typical. Even the most helpful entities seem more dedicated to the job of communicating than to any kind of involvement with those to whom (or through whom) they are communicating. The bizarre history of psychic phenomena is filled with Fletchers. Mrs. Montgomery, incidentally, indulges in automatic writing herself and has received constant messages for the past few years, many of which have been valid prophecies and stern advice meant to govern her future actions. There have been innumerable psychic hoaxes for the past 150 years, and many of these parallel the UFO hoaxes. In 1855, the Fox sisters confessed that their spirit rappings were a hoax. They said they produced the sounds by “snapping their toes.” Think about that for a moment. Snapping your toes so that it sounded like a rap on a wall or table would be a most remarkable talent—perhaps even more remarkable than the ability to communicate with the spirit world. I don’t believe I would pay ten cents to hear someone talk to a rapping spirit—but I would happily pay five dollars to examine someone who could duplicate the rapping sound by snapping his toes. Later the two sisters said the confession was false, and they had been bribed to make it. "Mrs. Houdini was genuinely astonished and impressed by Reverend Ford’s messages from her husband, and she made numerous public statements to that effect, as well as signing various affidavits. But later, in the 1930s, she chose to deny it all for a time. Then, shortly before her death, she reversed her denials. In ufology we have to contend with teenagers’ hot-air balloons, and in psychic phenomena we have to worry about youngsters firing rocks at houses with slingshots and phony mediums levitating “spirit trumpets” with black thread. But there are many more UFO sightings than there are plastic balloons, and there are more poltergeists dumping rocks in living rooms than there are wild-eyed youngsters with slingshots. There are also more ultraterrestrial entities than either the occultists or the UFO enthusiasts dream of." ~~~Edit of the Bigelow Interview~~~ Bigelow: "I also, I was...I got very disturbed toward the end (of AAWSAP) about something that happened to some of the government people, and I realized uhh...holy crap." (Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." I think it's one of the most important UFO books in recent memory.) George Knapp: "Hitchhikers." Bigelow: "Umm... Well, yeah. You know. So, hitchhikers being that you take things home with you. Everybody took things home with them. I took things to my house. Things happened to my wife, and to me. Different things. So, everybody took things home. We all, you know, we did. But we didn't know that, gee, it was like, gonna be kind of permanent. You know, we didn't know that, you know? That it's gonna stay with you for maybe...for years and years or the rest of your life, who knows? "But the ones that bothered me a lot where anybody got hurt or really disturbed... Not that it happened on the ranch, it was when they left the ranch. As you say, hitchhikers. And these were government people and it affected them." Knapp: "In very dramatic ways, though." Bigelow: "Very dramatic ways. Very dramatic ways. You know, and there's a cousin to that that we're facing, but it's abated, at least for now. And this other survival topic, right? The very dramatic kind of things that we wanted to have reduced or stopped." (The "cousin" to the hitchhiker phenomenon features the not-so-rosy things he referred to early on in this clip. But at least it had abated at the time of this interview. Has it started up again?) Bigelow: "But going back to the government people, the buyer (Brandon Fugal) came along at the right time, I had decided I wanted to tone down..." Knapp: "Take this off your plate." Bigelow: "Yeah, take it off my plate, tone it down, and if necessary, just lock it up and forget about it. And next thing I know, you know, [Fugal] comes along and, you know, the rest is history." Knapp: "Before we leave this, though, the incidents that happened to you, to your wife, to Colm (Kelleher), to me, the, you know, you bring it home. How does everybody handle that? I mean, is it spooky at the time, and do you draw the connection that it's ranch related?" Bigelow: "Yes and no. If the events hadn't happened very often prior to the ranch, then it's not ranch connected. But they did happen." (I think he meant to say, if the events hadn't happened prior to him buying the ranch in 1996 and did happen once he made the purchase, then it would seem to be connected just to the ranch. But he says these anomalous events did happen before he bought it. Maybe some events were connected to the ranch and others were not? Or, this precognitive sentient phenomenon, as John Alexander labelled it, was able to know that Bigelow was going to purchase the ranch in the future and began interacting with him and his wife before he bought it?) Bigelow: "And [these anomalous events] did [happen], where we lived with my wife and I. We had a poltergeist event one time that was really fun and very different, and that was before I ever acquired the ranch. My wife was a very strong - and probably still is, in spirit - person. And so she took them in stride. She had a full manifestation of an apparition, a human-form apparition in the bedroom, and looking at her. "And this was a holy cow. And she happened to tell me, kind of like, 'Oh, well, while you were gone, this is what happened here, a manifestation of this.' I've heard this kind of thing many times through other people, and recently. And she felt the bed depress as there was a curiosity going on because the facial features were distinctive enough to be able to...as though, 'Who are you and what are you doing here?' Coming from the manifestation from the apparition, looking at her, right? "And torso up was kind of what was manifested. And being able to see and feel the mattress being depressed as it's looking at you, wondering, 'Who are you?' That kind of look on the face. 'What are you doing here?' You know, usually you think it would be the opposite direction. 'Who the hell are you?'" (Fully-formed apparitions have been reported over the last 150 years or so but many times only partial bodies are seen. In this case, Mrs. Bigelow only saw the apparition from the torso up. When Leslie Kean sat with physical medium, Stewart Alexander, she said she only saw a hand form. The alleged spirits will say that, many times, it takes too much energy to form a full body. Learn more about the Kean encounter here: ) ~ Knapp: "Was [Mrs. Bigelow] freaked out?" Bigelow: "No. No, she wasn't. There was a bar of light - so this was not normal in the survival research, but maybe in the ET - that was between her pillows. A bar of light. It wasn't coming in from shutters or blinds or anything from the room or any kind of other light source. You could cover, put the pillows down, and the bar would not be reflected on the surface of the object above it, on the second pillow. It only happened when you did this. And she did that and said, 'Oh, well.' I said, 'Well, what did you do?' "'Well, I went to sleep.' Went to sleep, so..." ~~~ (In January of 2012, NYT journalist, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article about Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). He ended it with this: ) "One personal footnote. Don’t ask me what happened on Jan. 4 at 5:45 a.m. as I lay sleepless, wrestling with this story. A tremendous bang jolted me and my wife and the dog upright. We found the glass door to our 12th-floor terrace completely spiderwebbed with cracks as if struck with tremendous force, but there was no sign of any projectile. Invisible moisture between the double panes? Or something else? There are things I don’t mind talking about and things I do mind talking about." (Was this prosaic or just more of the not-so-rosy phenomena Bigelow referenced? We need to know!)

Joe Murgia

106,462 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree." ~Jan Mac The Predator Case of Lima, Ohio "If you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too." ~Bruce Mac (In the replies, I'd love to discuss... If this thing is the same thing that Jay Stratton and Travis S Taylor (and others?) say they saw, what the hell is it and what the hell is it doing? Is it just a peak into a shadow biome that our senses usually can't perceive but every now and then, shows itself? Just a Predator-like being doing its thing? "Hi everybody, I'm just collecting acorns!" ~Pedator Fella As you watch or read, you'll ask yourself: Is what Jan Mac saw, connected to that light that showed up over the high school, and did it originate from elsewhere? Or, is it native to this planet and just trying to misdirect (by having that light pop up at the same time) and make us think it's from somewhere else? ICYMI, here's my post about the alleged Stratton/Taylor Predator experience... ) ~ David Paulides Voiceover: "The last case I want to investigate is even a little deeper down the rabbit hole. It's not about a missing hunter, but instead about a strange experience one hunter faced in Lima, Ohio. It's important to note that this isn't a connection to The Missing, it's simply an odd event that's worth looking into. And it's associated with one of the smartest people I've ever met." The Late Bruce Maccabee - Ph.D., Optical Physicist: "There's a difference, I guess, between being freaked out by things that you imagine and being freaked out by things that you actually see." ~ Jan Maccabee - Bruce's Wife: "This, I have to say, was the most (sighs) terrifying experience. But yeah, I don't know why I didn't react to it, and that bothers me. "The hunting in Ohio is awesome. We have some great, big trophy deer in Ohio, and we happen to have some of the biggest right here on our own property. "It was the most beautiful night to deer hunt. It was the second day of season, I wanted to get my, you know, rear end in the woods to hunt. I was really excited about it. "There was a band over at the high school. By the time I got to my deer stand, I could hear 'em. I was all settled in, I didn't see nothing coming down the paths. Trails, the birds, crickets, everything were normal woods sounds. When you're hunting, you have two of your most keenest senses, is your hearing and your eyesight. "All of a sudden the woods went to this dead quiet. If I had dropped a pin out of that deer stand... It cut off. No birds, no crickets, no nothing." ~~~ Others have told similar stories featuring that detail of complete silence engulfing them. Brandon Fugal: "And as I was walking around to the back of the old homesteads, it was like I entered an anechoic chamber, a soundproof room. And there was an auditory sensation. It was almost like my ears were boxed. And all of the ambient noise, to a degree, was completely muted. "And one thing that we’ve seen that is consistent is the electromagnetic. The cell phone anomalies…Erik Bard has conducted quite a bit of research into what type of acute medical episodes can accompany extreme electromagnetic, interference or events, even the auditory phenomena that I experienced. I related to you my experience of walking around the back of the old homestead and having this auditory sensation where all the ambient noise was essentially muted. And it truly felt like I stepped into a soundproof chamber of sorts. And it’s interesting. Electromagnetic phenomena at times, and that kind of interference can actually create those kind of reactions biologically." Source: ~ And this excerpt from "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." (Like with Fugal's experience, this took place at Skinwalker Ranch) "Suddenly a cone of silence descended on Kelleher and Witt; the crickets seemed to go silent and even the faint rustling of the breeze in the trees ceased. Turning around, they saw a creature ambling towards them from the south. It was the size of a 150-pound pig and should have been making considerable noise as it walked. Yet, the cone of silence dominated the moonlit scene as the creature glided past within 30 feet of Kelleher and about 50 feet from Witt. To Kelleher, it appeared the animal had a series of dinosaur-like spines on its back and also sported a very large, flattened beaver-like tail. It noiselessly coasted past the pair and disappeared around the southwestern corner of the building, still not making a sound. Even Kelleher, who had spent hundreds of days and nights on Skinwalker Ranch and had already been exposed to his fair share of bizarre anomalies on the property, felt a distinct chill as he watched the surreal animal shuffle silently away." Longer excerpt: ~~~Back to Jan Mac and The Predator~~~ Jan: "The sun's still up. We were not calling for bad weather that night. It was a great night to hunt. Also, I felt like I had like a mote in my eye. I even took my finger and wiped my eye, like, when you get that fogginess over your eye, like it's just... I look and I'm thinking, 'What is this thing in the trees?' "It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It's the only way I can describe it. But this thing was very wide. So I'm up fourteen foot, and it hung quite a ways down. And I'm thinking, 'What is this thing?' It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree. It reached over about twelve to fourteen foot, and then it all, like a blob, like, sucked into it. And it went to the whole other tree. "I had this very euphoric feeling like, something ain't right here. Normally at that time, I'd have probably got down and stopped hunting, but for some reason I didn't." Paulides: "So, as you're sitting in your blind and you're looking across, where did the blob come from?" Jan: "I have no idea, it just appeared in the one tree. As it was moving through the woods, it went from like, tree to tree, and then it just...it disappeared. It didn't continue on. So, where it went, I don't know. It's like it just, poof, right before my eyes, vanished. "And I don't remember taking the picture, but being married to who I'm married to, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, he always said, 'If you see anything weird, get a picture.' "I don't recall, actually, when, either, that the sounds had returned. Because it's like, I don't remember. That's not me to this day. Normally, I would probably crawl down, come running in the house and say, 'You ain't gonna believe what's back there in them woods.'" Paulides: "How much longer you think you stayed in the stand?" Jan: "Umm, about half hour till sundown, when it's time to come out." ~ Bruce: "The sequence of this is: Jan goes out to hunt, we have guests show up, we're having dinner. She comes back from the hunt and says nothing about what happened. It was strange. The guests are about ready to leave. Later on, Matthew sends me an email: There was a sighting by a number of students and the faculty at the high school band practice just before dark." ~ Jan: "I'm like, 'Holy crap! Maybe it has something to do with what I saw in the woods?' And Bruce goes, 'What?' And I said, 'I forgot to tell you about what happened in those woods to me tonight!' And I'm reading this from Matthew, and then I started really getting, I get goosebumps. He said, 'This light appeared above the big stadium lights of the football field.' Had Matthew not sent that email, I'm not sure if I would have remembered even that night to say anything." ~ Paulides: "How many kids were on the field?" Matthew Pheneger - Shawnee High School, Class of 2013: "At least thirty. Thirty to forty, I would say." Paulides: "And was that the high school band?" Matthew: "Yes." Paulides: "And so, this was just before you guys went back to school?" Matthew: "Yes, band camp, late August." Paulides: "Late August. So, what time of night do you think that was?" Matthew: "Uhh, between six and seven. We were rehearsing, normally, out here about six, seven o'clock, doing our normal routine, when all of a sudden there was this bright light in the sky that just came out of nowhere. And we all just kind of stopped and looked at it as one." Paulides: "Where was the light?" Matthew: "So, the light was anywhere...it was above the tree line, for sure, just kind of hovering in the skyline. Close enough that it could catch your attention. Like it shouldn't have been there, I guess. If it was some man-made thing, it was too low to be there." Paulides: "Okay. What was the weather like that night?" Matthew: "Clear and hot. Typical, August Ohio weather." Paulides: "Okay. What color was it?" Matthew: "Candle orange. As far as I could tell, the thing had no definable edges to it. There were no like, dimensions. It was just kind of waxing and waning till it just zapped out. You know, our band director, who never stops for anything, he stopped and turned around and looked at us, and he goes, you know, 'What the hell was that?' Before I had time to even like, think about what I was seeing, it was gone. And then it was just kind of like an imprint in your mind, like I've seen something strange.” ~ Paulides: “So in your gut, are the two issues related?” Jan: “I often wonder now. All I can say is it happened within the same time frame, basically, as my experience here. Probably a half a mile over there, as the crow would fly.” ~ Bruce: “This is a Blackberry. On the back, you have the lens. It's not like the modern ones that have a camera on the front as well as a camera on the back. So I'd be taking your picture right now, but I would not be taking my picture. Something happened to that camera, I don't know what, but there's hard evidence of some weird thing that happened. She took a couple of pictures of herself before the event, which provide a fixed point of investigation, you might say. And she took another picture afterwards, So you have the camera phone doing its normal thing before and after, but right in the middle with this one photo, that something bizarre happened. “The picture she took, the resolution somehow changed for that one picture. You could manually change the cell phone to 1600 by 1200, 1024, by 760, or something like that, and 640 by 480. But it got changed to 500 by 400 or something. Numbers that don't exist. I don't know how to make it do that resolution. You'd have to get in there and rewire it somehow, or change the software. But even changing the software doesn't change the number of pixels along the edge of the sensor. I don't know how to explain this filamentary stuff. I can't imagine what this, what looks like it is well focused. I don't know what that is.” ~ Paulides: “I’ve had people write to me and say, ‘Well, what that is is Jan took a picture of her own hair.’” Jan: “My hair was back through the back of the ball cap, where it adjusts. it was tied back.” Paulides: “So there was no part of you that could have been in that frame?” Jan: “No way, no way.” ~ Bruce: “It would be possible for her to take a picture of her hair. She put her hand back there. But that wouldn't change the resolution of the camera or the byte size of the picture.” ~ Paulides: “So Jan, let me ask you, since that has happened, has it changed your life?” Jan: “Yeah, I've never been back in that woods to hunt that. I actually ended up buying a redneck deer blind. I mean, I want something surrounding me.” ~ Bruce: “You can imagine if you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too.”
9:48

"It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree." ~Jan Mac The Predator Case of Lima, Ohio "If you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too." ~Bruce Mac (In the replies, I'd love to discuss... If this thing is the same thing that Jay Stratton and Travis S Taylor (and others?) say they saw, what the hell is it and what the hell is it doing? Is it just a peak into a shadow biome that our senses usually can't perceive but every now and then, shows itself? Just a Predator-like being doing its thing? "Hi everybody, I'm just collecting acorns!" ~Pedator Fella As you watch or read, you'll ask yourself: Is what Jan Mac saw, connected to that light that showed up over the high school, and did it originate from elsewhere? Or, is it native to this planet and just trying to misdirect (by having that light pop up at the same time) and make us think it's from somewhere else? ICYMI, here's my post about the alleged Stratton/Taylor Predator experience... ) ~ David Paulides Voiceover: "The last case I want to investigate is even a little deeper down the rabbit hole. It's not about a missing hunter, but instead about a strange experience one hunter faced in Lima, Ohio. It's important to note that this isn't a connection to The Missing, it's simply an odd event that's worth looking into. And it's associated with one of the smartest people I've ever met." The Late Bruce Maccabee - Ph.D., Optical Physicist: "There's a difference, I guess, between being freaked out by things that you imagine and being freaked out by things that you actually see." ~ Jan Maccabee - Bruce's Wife: "This, I have to say, was the most (sighs) terrifying experience. But yeah, I don't know why I didn't react to it, and that bothers me. "The hunting in Ohio is awesome. We have some great, big trophy deer in Ohio, and we happen to have some of the biggest right here on our own property. "It was the most beautiful night to deer hunt. It was the second day of season, I wanted to get my, you know, rear end in the woods to hunt. I was really excited about it. "There was a band over at the high school. By the time I got to my deer stand, I could hear 'em. I was all settled in, I didn't see nothing coming down the paths. Trails, the birds, crickets, everything were normal woods sounds. When you're hunting, you have two of your most keenest senses, is your hearing and your eyesight. "All of a sudden the woods went to this dead quiet. If I had dropped a pin out of that deer stand... It cut off. No birds, no crickets, no nothing." ~~~ Others have told similar stories featuring that detail of complete silence engulfing them. Brandon Fugal: "And as I was walking around to the back of the old homesteads, it was like I entered an anechoic chamber, a soundproof room. And there was an auditory sensation. It was almost like my ears were boxed. And all of the ambient noise, to a degree, was completely muted. "And one thing that we’ve seen that is consistent is the electromagnetic. The cell phone anomalies…Erik Bard has conducted quite a bit of research into what type of acute medical episodes can accompany extreme electromagnetic, interference or events, even the auditory phenomena that I experienced. I related to you my experience of walking around the back of the old homestead and having this auditory sensation where all the ambient noise was essentially muted. And it truly felt like I stepped into a soundproof chamber of sorts. And it’s interesting. Electromagnetic phenomena at times, and that kind of interference can actually create those kind of reactions biologically." Source: ~ And this excerpt from "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." (Like with Fugal's experience, this took place at Skinwalker Ranch) "Suddenly a cone of silence descended on Kelleher and Witt; the crickets seemed to go silent and even the faint rustling of the breeze in the trees ceased. Turning around, they saw a creature ambling towards them from the south. It was the size of a 150-pound pig and should have been making considerable noise as it walked. Yet, the cone of silence dominated the moonlit scene as the creature glided past within 30 feet of Kelleher and about 50 feet from Witt. To Kelleher, it appeared the animal had a series of dinosaur-like spines on its back and also sported a very large, flattened beaver-like tail. It noiselessly coasted past the pair and disappeared around the southwestern corner of the building, still not making a sound. Even Kelleher, who had spent hundreds of days and nights on Skinwalker Ranch and had already been exposed to his fair share of bizarre anomalies on the property, felt a distinct chill as he watched the surreal animal shuffle silently away." Longer excerpt: ~~~Back to Jan Mac and The Predator~~~ Jan: "The sun's still up. We were not calling for bad weather that night. It was a great night to hunt. Also, I felt like I had like a mote in my eye. I even took my finger and wiped my eye, like, when you get that fogginess over your eye, like it's just... I look and I'm thinking, 'What is this thing in the trees?' "It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It's the only way I can describe it. But this thing was very wide. So I'm up fourteen foot, and it hung quite a ways down. And I'm thinking, 'What is this thing?' It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree. It reached over about twelve to fourteen foot, and then it all, like a blob, like, sucked into it. And it went to the whole other tree. "I had this very euphoric feeling like, something ain't right here. Normally at that time, I'd have probably got down and stopped hunting, but for some reason I didn't." Paulides: "So, as you're sitting in your blind and you're looking across, where did the blob come from?" Jan: "I have no idea, it just appeared in the one tree. As it was moving through the woods, it went from like, tree to tree, and then it just...it disappeared. It didn't continue on. So, where it went, I don't know. It's like it just, poof, right before my eyes, vanished. "And I don't remember taking the picture, but being married to who I'm married to, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, he always said, 'If you see anything weird, get a picture.' "I don't recall, actually, when, either, that the sounds had returned. Because it's like, I don't remember. That's not me to this day. Normally, I would probably crawl down, come running in the house and say, 'You ain't gonna believe what's back there in them woods.'" Paulides: "How much longer you think you stayed in the stand?" Jan: "Umm, about half hour till sundown, when it's time to come out." ~ Bruce: "The sequence of this is: Jan goes out to hunt, we have guests show up, we're having dinner. She comes back from the hunt and says nothing about what happened. It was strange. The guests are about ready to leave. Later on, Matthew sends me an email: There was a sighting by a number of students and the faculty at the high school band practice just before dark." ~ Jan: "I'm like, 'Holy crap! Maybe it has something to do with what I saw in the woods?' And Bruce goes, 'What?' And I said, 'I forgot to tell you about what happened in those woods to me tonight!' And I'm reading this from Matthew, and then I started really getting, I get goosebumps. He said, 'This light appeared above the big stadium lights of the football field.' Had Matthew not sent that email, I'm not sure if I would have remembered even that night to say anything." ~ Paulides: "How many kids were on the field?" Matthew Pheneger - Shawnee High School, Class of 2013: "At least thirty. Thirty to forty, I would say." Paulides: "And was that the high school band?" Matthew: "Yes." Paulides: "And so, this was just before you guys went back to school?" Matthew: "Yes, band camp, late August." Paulides: "Late August. So, what time of night do you think that was?" Matthew: "Uhh, between six and seven. We were rehearsing, normally, out here about six, seven o'clock, doing our normal routine, when all of a sudden there was this bright light in the sky that just came out of nowhere. And we all just kind of stopped and looked at it as one." Paulides: "Where was the light?" Matthew: "So, the light was anywhere...it was above the tree line, for sure, just kind of hovering in the skyline. Close enough that it could catch your attention. Like it shouldn't have been there, I guess. If it was some man-made thing, it was too low to be there." Paulides: "Okay. What was the weather like that night?" Matthew: "Clear and hot. Typical, August Ohio weather." Paulides: "Okay. What color was it?" Matthew: "Candle orange. As far as I could tell, the thing had no definable edges to it. There were no like, dimensions. It was just kind of waxing and waning till it just zapped out. You know, our band director, who never stops for anything, he stopped and turned around and looked at us, and he goes, you know, 'What the hell was that?' Before I had time to even like, think about what I was seeing, it was gone. And then it was just kind of like an imprint in your mind, like I've seen something strange.” ~ Paulides: “So in your gut, are the two issues related?” Jan: “I often wonder now. All I can say is it happened within the same time frame, basically, as my experience here. Probably a half a mile over there, as the crow would fly.” ~ Bruce: “This is a Blackberry. On the back, you have the lens. It's not like the modern ones that have a camera on the front as well as a camera on the back. So I'd be taking your picture right now, but I would not be taking my picture. Something happened to that camera, I don't know what, but there's hard evidence of some weird thing that happened. She took a couple of pictures of herself before the event, which provide a fixed point of investigation, you might say. And she took another picture afterwards, So you have the camera phone doing its normal thing before and after, but right in the middle with this one photo, that something bizarre happened. “The picture she took, the resolution somehow changed for that one picture. You could manually change the cell phone to 1600 by 1200, 1024, by 760, or something like that, and 640 by 480. But it got changed to 500 by 400 or something. Numbers that don't exist. I don't know how to make it do that resolution. You'd have to get in there and rewire it somehow, or change the software. But even changing the software doesn't change the number of pixels along the edge of the sensor. I don't know how to explain this filamentary stuff. I can't imagine what this, what looks like it is well focused. I don't know what that is.” ~ Paulides: “I’ve had people write to me and say, ‘Well, what that is is Jan took a picture of her own hair.’” Jan: “My hair was back through the back of the ball cap, where it adjusts. it was tied back.” Paulides: “So there was no part of you that could have been in that frame?” Jan: “No way, no way.” ~ Bruce: “It would be possible for her to take a picture of her hair. She put her hand back there. But that wouldn't change the resolution of the camera or the byte size of the picture.” ~ Paulides: “So Jan, let me ask you, since that has happened, has it changed your life?” Jan: “Yeah, I've never been back in that woods to hunt that. I actually ended up buying a redneck deer blind. I mean, I want something surrounding me.” ~ Bruce: “You can imagine if you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too.”

Joe Murgia

24,717 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr