正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

☝️“The struggle for equality and against discrimination is turning into an aggressive dogmatism that borders on the absurd. Great authors of the past, like Shakespeare, are no longer taught in schools and universities; they are declared backward for failing to foreground issues of gender or race. Hollywood now produces...

RussiaIsntEnemy's profile picture

🇷🇺Russia is not Enemy

101,869 subscribers

15,878 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

They call you racist, and think the conversation is over. News flash, this is not 1964 anymore. The American people are a lot smarter than that, and they’re not buying it. Because the reality is, people like me exist. What does that tell you? It tells you this country has made real progress. It tells you that millions of Americans are doing exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. called for, judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That’s not theory, that’s reality. But instead of celebrating that progress, some want to drag us backwards, into a system where race is everything, where success is assigned, where outcomes are engineered. That’s not empowerment, that’s limitation. The idea that someone can only succeed if a district is drawn for them, or if a box is checked for them, is an insult to the very people it claims to help. Here’s a better idea, be a great candidate. Work hard. Earn trust. Serve people. Put your name on the ballot and let voters decide.
1:27

They call you racist, and think the conversation is over. News flash, this is not 1964 anymore. The American people are a lot smarter than that, and they’re not buying it. Because the reality is, people like me exist. What does that tell you? It tells you this country has made real progress. It tells you that millions of Americans are doing exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. called for, judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That’s not theory, that’s reality. But instead of celebrating that progress, some want to drag us backwards, into a system where race is everything, where success is assigned, where outcomes are engineered. That’s not empowerment, that’s limitation. The idea that someone can only succeed if a district is drawn for them, or if a box is checked for them, is an insult to the very people it claims to help. Here’s a better idea, be a great candidate. Work hard. Earn trust. Serve people. Put your name on the ballot and let voters decide.

Wesley Hunt

267,496 次观看 • 3 个月前

Leavitt also made it crystal clear to reporters that the federal government will hire based on competence, merit, and skill—not DEI. “People should not be hired based on their disabilities, based on their skin color, their gender, their race. “None of that matters. What matters to this president and this administration is how well you can do your job. And the American people agree with that sentiment. So it’s about competence, skill, and merit. And so the president is focused on ensuring that the most competent individuals, the best and the brightest in this country, are in positions in this federal government, especially when it comes to public safety. Can’t overemphasize the importance of those jobs.”
0:45

Leavitt also made it crystal clear to reporters that the federal government will hire based on competence, merit, and skill—not DEI. “People should not be hired based on their disabilities, based on their skin color, their gender, their race. “None of that matters. What matters to this president and this administration is how well you can do your job. And the American people agree with that sentiment. So it’s about competence, skill, and merit. And so the president is focused on ensuring that the most competent individuals, the best and the brightest in this country, are in positions in this federal government, especially when it comes to public safety. Can’t overemphasize the importance of those jobs.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,171,967 次观看 • 1 年前

This woman says, “I’m just gonna come right out and say this as a White girl. It is not the color of your skin that we are tired of. It is your culture. It is the way you behave. And you can call me racist all you want to. We are tired of the loud, violent ghetto culture that seems to be primarily from people of color. It is not the color of your skin”. For years, White people have been fed a false narrative that tells us to ignore pattern recognition and to go against our gut instinct to stay away from things that harm us because it’s considered ‘racist’. Pattern recognition is not racism. It’s a fundamental part of our biological makeup. The terms ‘racist’ and ‘White supremacy’ have been weaponized against White people to stop us from being proud of our history/culture and to make us feel shame and guilt for the past. And they call us ‘racist’ to justify their violence against us We don’t care if we’re called racist anymore. Preserving our safety and way of life is all that matters now. 🎥Credit TikTok: autumnwitbeck
2:32

This woman says, “I’m just gonna come right out and say this as a White girl. It is not the color of your skin that we are tired of. It is your culture. It is the way you behave. And you can call me racist all you want to. We are tired of the loud, violent ghetto culture that seems to be primarily from people of color. It is not the color of your skin”. For years, White people have been fed a false narrative that tells us to ignore pattern recognition and to go against our gut instinct to stay away from things that harm us because it’s considered ‘racist’. Pattern recognition is not racism. It’s a fundamental part of our biological makeup. The terms ‘racist’ and ‘White supremacy’ have been weaponized against White people to stop us from being proud of our history/culture and to make us feel shame and guilt for the past. And they call us ‘racist’ to justify their violence against us We don’t care if we’re called racist anymore. Preserving our safety and way of life is all that matters now. 🎥Credit TikTok: autumnwitbeck

Make Sense of it Marie

715,695 次观看 • 1 个月前

Andrew Tate: ‘White people need to defend themselves and their nations. White people are the number one race that has to suffer the most prejudice on the planet today.” Tate points out that Chinese, and Black people have a place where can go where they will not be subjected to violence because of their skin color. ”White people will not have a country anywhere left on this planet in less than a decade where they are not gonna be a victim or a target for potential violent crime purely because of the color of their skin.”
1:27

Andrew Tate: ‘White people need to defend themselves and their nations. White people are the number one race that has to suffer the most prejudice on the planet today.” Tate points out that Chinese, and Black people have a place where can go where they will not be subjected to violence because of their skin color. ”White people will not have a country anywhere left on this planet in less than a decade where they are not gonna be a victim or a target for potential violent crime purely because of the color of their skin.”

Taya Bass

614,288 次观看 • 4 个月前

Submit or cease to exist: Russia issues a 'non-hypothetical' threat of total disintegration of Ukraine. Interview with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: Interviewer: How do you see the future of Ukraine? Sergei Ryabkov: I see it as a friendly country. A country that will not be a source of threat to Russia. A country where the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking people are restored and guaranteed. Where the rights of the canonical Orthodox Church are restored and guaranteed. And a country whose leadership will finally move away from a totalitarian model of building a society that involves the denial of its own roots and the cancellation of its own history. If they care about their people, they must understand that there is no other path but to return to a normal, constructive coexistence with their neighbors—primarily with Russia. Interviewer: In your opinion, can Ukraine remain an independent state and not fall apart? Sergei Ryabkov: This is a big question. It does not only depend on the figures currently in power in Kyiv, or even on the Ukrainian people, who have been misled and deceived by Western propaganda for many years. It depends on many factors, including how firmly and consistently we will defend our fundamental interests. The scenario of the disintegration of this state is being discussed, and it is not a hypothetical one.
1:35

Submit or cease to exist: Russia issues a 'non-hypothetical' threat of total disintegration of Ukraine. Interview with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: Interviewer: How do you see the future of Ukraine? Sergei Ryabkov: I see it as a friendly country. A country that will not be a source of threat to Russia. A country where the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking people are restored and guaranteed. Where the rights of the canonical Orthodox Church are restored and guaranteed. And a country whose leadership will finally move away from a totalitarian model of building a society that involves the denial of its own roots and the cancellation of its own history. If they care about their people, they must understand that there is no other path but to return to a normal, constructive coexistence with their neighbors—primarily with Russia. Interviewer: In your opinion, can Ukraine remain an independent state and not fall apart? Sergei Ryabkov: This is a big question. It does not only depend on the figures currently in power in Kyiv, or even on the Ukrainian people, who have been misled and deceived by Western propaganda for many years. It depends on many factors, including how firmly and consistently we will defend our fundamental interests. The scenario of the disintegration of this state is being discussed, and it is not a hypothetical one.

Yasmina

110,890 次观看 • 7 个月前

I upset the Orthobros on here when I posted that the Wilsons aren’t Christian. They said “how dare you declare whether or not someone is a Christian!” Here is my response (watch til the end for the most ironic part of all of this): Scripture itself tells us that it is OBVIOUS who is saved and that we can discern who is and who is not a child of God. “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.” 1 John 3:10 Yes, Christians will still continue to sin, as Romans 7 tell us. Sanctification is certainly messy, there’s no denying that. But someone who has been supernaturally made new by the Holy Spirit will have a real heart change. Regeneration is not an inconsequential experience. It will be obvious to people. The supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is a powerful one. Someone who is made a child of God will bear the family resemblance. No one can be born again and continue to comfortably stay in the mud with the pigs. They might occasionally still fall into the mud, they might still have dirt on their clothes even after they get up, but they will hate it when they do and will live in a humble manner before God crying “have mercy on me, a sinner.” They will pursue righteousness and have a deep deep love for others. And when they are confronted about their sin by others, they repent. So yes, we can look at someone living in a hateful unrighteous arrogant manner for years on end, even after being confronted about it, and determine that they are not of the Lord.
2:54

I upset the Orthobros on here when I posted that the Wilsons aren’t Christian. They said “how dare you declare whether or not someone is a Christian!” Here is my response (watch til the end for the most ironic part of all of this): Scripture itself tells us that it is OBVIOUS who is saved and that we can discern who is and who is not a child of God. “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.” 1 John 3:10 Yes, Christians will still continue to sin, as Romans 7 tell us. Sanctification is certainly messy, there’s no denying that. But someone who has been supernaturally made new by the Holy Spirit will have a real heart change. Regeneration is not an inconsequential experience. It will be obvious to people. The supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is a powerful one. Someone who is made a child of God will bear the family resemblance. No one can be born again and continue to comfortably stay in the mud with the pigs. They might occasionally still fall into the mud, they might still have dirt on their clothes even after they get up, but they will hate it when they do and will live in a humble manner before God crying “have mercy on me, a sinner.” They will pursue righteousness and have a deep deep love for others. And when they are confronted about their sin by others, they repent. So yes, we can look at someone living in a hateful unrighteous arrogant manner for years on end, even after being confronted about it, and determine that they are not of the Lord.

Lizzie Marbach

45,848 次观看 • 3 个月前

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker
4:19

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker

ScotNews

20,333 次观看 • 2 年前

Keir Starmer, "If you target people because of the colour of their skin, or their faith, then that is far right, and I'm prepared to say so" "This is violence. This is not protest. It doesn't matter what the motivation is" "The motivation for the vast majority of people in this country is to see their streets safe. And that is what I am determined we will deliver"
0:29

Keir Starmer, "If you target people because of the colour of their skin, or their faith, then that is far right, and I'm prepared to say so" "This is violence. This is not protest. It doesn't matter what the motivation is" "The motivation for the vast majority of people in this country is to see their streets safe. And that is what I am determined we will deliver"

Farrukh

712,055 次观看 • 2 年前

I’m afraid I have some terrible news. The governor of America’s largest and richest state has just signed a law that puts 10 million children and adolescents in grave danger of medical mistreatment. The media headlines have it wrong. They claim that California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new law protects children by stopping public schools from outing their new gender to their parents. It does just the opposite. It makes children vulnerable to irreversible and lifelong medical abuse and mistreatment. And it is all based on the pseudoscientific idea that some children are born into the wrong bodies and that we can change a person’s sex through drugs and surgery. For any of this to make sense, you have to understand what’s happening in Britain. Several years ago, the government appointed a well-respected pediatrician named Hillary Cass to investigate whether it was ethical to block the puberty of children, give them opposite-sex hormones, and perform surgeries on their bodies to make them feel better about their gender. Dr. Cass came back a few weeks ago and said no, absolutely not. Around the same time, the British government banned puberty blockers nationwide. And, just a few days ago, the new Labor Party government affirmed that it would maintain the former government’s ban. In her report, Cass said that the so-called “social transition,” whereby a child adopts the identity of the opposite sex, is not a neutral act and has psychological consequences. This means it is the first step toward medical intervention. What Gavin Newsom has done is actively prevented schools from informing parents that their children have been put on a medical pathway. This is an outrageous attack on the rights of children and parents. Children have a right to go through puberty. No adult should be able to block their puberty. And parents have a right to know if their child thinks that they are the opposite sex or were born into the wrong body. We have seen with leaked internal documents of the leading gender medicine group, WPATH, that these medical interventions, namely puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery, are not only irreversible but result in sterilization and loss of sexual function. Children or adolescents are simply not mature enough to understand the effects of so-called “gender-affirming care.” They cannot, in other words, give their informed consent. The new law creates the grave risk that activist teachers, students, and outside groups will convince their children that they were born into the wrong body, and hide their “social transition” from parents, which will lead to harmful medical mistreatment. As such, the law that Newsom just signed is the opposite of what both children and their parents need. We need schools to immediately warn parents if their children think they are the opposite sex. After all, this is a diagnosable psychiatric condition known as “gender dysphoria.” And if your child has a psychiatric disorder, whether anxiety, depression, an eating disorder, or gender dysphoria, you have a right to know. And schools must stop teaching children, or allowing other people to teach children, the pseudoscientific and dehumanizing ideas that it’s possible to be born into the wrong body and possible to change one’s sex. As such, either the legislature, the courts, or a ballot initiative will be required to nullify Newsom’s law. Until then, it is important to spread the word to parents that California public schools are fundamentally unsafe for the millions of children who attend them.
3:40

I’m afraid I have some terrible news. The governor of America’s largest and richest state has just signed a law that puts 10 million children and adolescents in grave danger of medical mistreatment. The media headlines have it wrong. They claim that California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new law protects children by stopping public schools from outing their new gender to their parents. It does just the opposite. It makes children vulnerable to irreversible and lifelong medical abuse and mistreatment. And it is all based on the pseudoscientific idea that some children are born into the wrong bodies and that we can change a person’s sex through drugs and surgery. For any of this to make sense, you have to understand what’s happening in Britain. Several years ago, the government appointed a well-respected pediatrician named Hillary Cass to investigate whether it was ethical to block the puberty of children, give them opposite-sex hormones, and perform surgeries on their bodies to make them feel better about their gender. Dr. Cass came back a few weeks ago and said no, absolutely not. Around the same time, the British government banned puberty blockers nationwide. And, just a few days ago, the new Labor Party government affirmed that it would maintain the former government’s ban. In her report, Cass said that the so-called “social transition,” whereby a child adopts the identity of the opposite sex, is not a neutral act and has psychological consequences. This means it is the first step toward medical intervention. What Gavin Newsom has done is actively prevented schools from informing parents that their children have been put on a medical pathway. This is an outrageous attack on the rights of children and parents. Children have a right to go through puberty. No adult should be able to block their puberty. And parents have a right to know if their child thinks that they are the opposite sex or were born into the wrong body. We have seen with leaked internal documents of the leading gender medicine group, WPATH, that these medical interventions, namely puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery, are not only irreversible but result in sterilization and loss of sexual function. Children or adolescents are simply not mature enough to understand the effects of so-called “gender-affirming care.” They cannot, in other words, give their informed consent. The new law creates the grave risk that activist teachers, students, and outside groups will convince their children that they were born into the wrong body, and hide their “social transition” from parents, which will lead to harmful medical mistreatment. As such, the law that Newsom just signed is the opposite of what both children and their parents need. We need schools to immediately warn parents if their children think they are the opposite sex. After all, this is a diagnosable psychiatric condition known as “gender dysphoria.” And if your child has a psychiatric disorder, whether anxiety, depression, an eating disorder, or gender dysphoria, you have a right to know. And schools must stop teaching children, or allowing other people to teach children, the pseudoscientific and dehumanizing ideas that it’s possible to be born into the wrong body and possible to change one’s sex. As such, either the legislature, the courts, or a ballot initiative will be required to nullify Newsom’s law. Until then, it is important to spread the word to parents that California public schools are fundamentally unsafe for the millions of children who attend them.

Michael Shellenberger

28,544,592 次观看 • 2 年前

I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court Monday . Donald Trump has done real things for MAHA. I believe that. But when the Department of Justice shows up to defend Bayer and Monsanto against the American people, against the health of our children, I have to say: you got this one wrong. Liability protection for corporations that poison people is not a conservative value. It is not a Republican value. It is not a Democratic value. It is not an American value. It is the opposite of a free market. It is the government putting its thumb on the scale for corporations that are losing in court because their products are causing cancer. Every child in this country deserves to be healthy. That is not a political statement. That is the only statement that matters. So in the words of the President himself: we are going to fight, fight.
0:43

I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court Monday . Donald Trump has done real things for MAHA. I believe that. But when the Department of Justice shows up to defend Bayer and Monsanto against the American people, against the health of our children, I have to say: you got this one wrong. Liability protection for corporations that poison people is not a conservative value. It is not a Republican value. It is not a Democratic value. It is not an American value. It is the opposite of a free market. It is the government putting its thumb on the scale for corporations that are losing in court because their products are causing cancer. Every child in this country deserves to be healthy. That is not a political statement. That is the only statement that matters. So in the words of the President himself: we are going to fight, fight.

Del Bigtree

147,471 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 JUST IN: Rep. Wesley Hunt OBLITERATES leftists who keep saying black people need to be treated differently, as if they can't earn anything He NAILED IT. "I am a living breathing product of that dream. And so is Clarence Thomas!" "I don't want ANYTHING given to me because of the way I look because of the color of my skin." "I'm a follower of Christ. I am a veteran. I'm a West Point grad. I am an Apache pilot. I'm a United States congressman for a white majority district and yes, I am black and I am proud." "But first and foremost, I am an AMERICAN and our laws should reflect that and right now, the left is trying to hammer us because they're saying that there is not going to be any black people that's going to represent the Republican Party in Congress next year!" "But what they also fail to realize is that 3 of the 4 ran or are running for higher office and one is retiring." "And what I don't want to do is put the burden in our laws to ensure that we have an outcome of X amount black people or this and that because of the way someone looks!" "I want the people of every single district that gets drawn in America to choose the best person." "Last time I ran, I had about 10 people that were in my Republican primary and none of them were white and I was the only black guy. And of course, I won without a runoff last time I ran for Congress. And why is that? Because people are choosing the best candidate." "As someone like me who is a direct descendant of a slave who is living the American dream — because the people are NOT judging me based on the color of my skin. By the content of my character is exactly what our laws should reflect!" Wesley Hunt Kayleigh McEnany Saturday in America
1:36

🚨 JUST IN: Rep. Wesley Hunt OBLITERATES leftists who keep saying black people need to be treated differently, as if they can't earn anything He NAILED IT. "I am a living breathing product of that dream. And so is Clarence Thomas!" "I don't want ANYTHING given to me because of the way I look because of the color of my skin." "I'm a follower of Christ. I am a veteran. I'm a West Point grad. I am an Apache pilot. I'm a United States congressman for a white majority district and yes, I am black and I am proud." "But first and foremost, I am an AMERICAN and our laws should reflect that and right now, the left is trying to hammer us because they're saying that there is not going to be any black people that's going to represent the Republican Party in Congress next year!" "But what they also fail to realize is that 3 of the 4 ran or are running for higher office and one is retiring." "And what I don't want to do is put the burden in our laws to ensure that we have an outcome of X amount black people or this and that because of the way someone looks!" "I want the people of every single district that gets drawn in America to choose the best person." "Last time I ran, I had about 10 people that were in my Republican primary and none of them were white and I was the only black guy. And of course, I won without a runoff last time I ran for Congress. And why is that? Because people are choosing the best candidate." "As someone like me who is a direct descendant of a slave who is living the American dream — because the people are NOT judging me based on the color of my skin. By the content of my character is exactly what our laws should reflect!" Wesley Hunt Kayleigh McEnany Saturday in America

Eric Daugherty

83,834 次观看 • 3 个月前

☝️ “This complete negation of humanity, the rejection of faith, the abandonment of traditional values, and the suppression of freedom has taken on the form of an inverted religion, an overt satanism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ, denouncing false prophets, said, 'By their fruits you will know them.' And today, these poisonous fruits are evident to people not only in Russia, but in all countries, including those in the West. Do we truly want 'Parent Number One' and 'Parent Number Two' instead of 'Mom' and 'Dad' here in our country? Do we want our schools to impose perversions on children from the earliest grades, leading them toward degradation and extinction? Do we want them to be taught that besides man and woman there are supposedly dozens of other genders, and to be offered sex-change surgeries? Is this what we want for our country and for our children? For us, this is unacceptable. We have a different future." - President Putin
1:25

☝️ “This complete negation of humanity, the rejection of faith, the abandonment of traditional values, and the suppression of freedom has taken on the form of an inverted religion, an overt satanism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ, denouncing false prophets, said, 'By their fruits you will know them.' And today, these poisonous fruits are evident to people not only in Russia, but in all countries, including those in the West. Do we truly want 'Parent Number One' and 'Parent Number Two' instead of 'Mom' and 'Dad' here in our country? Do we want our schools to impose perversions on children from the earliest grades, leading them toward degradation and extinction? Do we want them to be taught that besides man and woman there are supposedly dozens of other genders, and to be offered sex-change surgeries? Is this what we want for our country and for our children? For us, this is unacceptable. We have a different future." - President Putin

🇷🇺Russia is not Enemy

250,810 次观看 • 6 个月前

HE (RUBIO) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS TRUE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT FOR RUSSIA, THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT. THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE BECOMING A MEMBER OF NATO IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE RUSSIANS. IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, AND THEY ARE NOT GONNA STOP UNTIL UKRAINE AND THE WEST ARE DEFEATED AND THEY BOTH ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UKRAINE HAS TO BE A NEUTRAL STATE, NUMBER ONE, AND IT HAS TO BE DISARMED TO THE POINT OFFENSIVE THREAT TO RUSSIA. - John Mearsheimer
1:49

HE (RUBIO) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS TRUE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT FOR RUSSIA, THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT. THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE BECOMING A MEMBER OF NATO IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE RUSSIANS. IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, AND THEY ARE NOT GONNA STOP UNTIL UKRAINE AND THE WEST ARE DEFEATED AND THEY BOTH ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UKRAINE HAS TO BE A NEUTRAL STATE, NUMBER ONE, AND IT HAS TO BE DISARMED TO THE POINT OFFENSIVE THREAT TO RUSSIA. - John Mearsheimer

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

54,393 次观看 • 10 个月前

.Joe Rogan discusses a California school indoctrinating his 5-year-old daughter into a "woke, guilt-ridden ideology" centered around becoming an antiracist activist. "They hired some person to teach them that they have to be antiracist and it's not good enough not to be racist. What? My kids aren't racist at all. Why are you putting that into their head? That they have to be antiracist and call out racism. They were trying to make them be activists. Hey, they're five. They want friends. They don't care what their friends look like. They are trying to have a good time. They're five. They're just playing. You're indoctrinating them into this woke, guilt-ridden ideology that you are carrying around with you, and you feel like you have an obligation to impose this on children. Our goal should have always been the goals the liberals had in the 60s and 70s, which is a color-blind society. The Martin Luther King notion that we should treat people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin... None of the real problems get addressed, and instead, they just try to make kids feel guilty. I didn't like the woke s**t. I didn't like that they were asking kids their pronouns." ------ Why are schools brainwashing young children into becoming antiracist activists who perceive the world predominantly through the prism of skin color? How can we inspire Americans to re-embrace Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a color-blind society, where the focus lies on the content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin?
1:37

.Joe Rogan discusses a California school indoctrinating his 5-year-old daughter into a "woke, guilt-ridden ideology" centered around becoming an antiracist activist. "They hired some person to teach them that they have to be antiracist and it's not good enough not to be racist. What? My kids aren't racist at all. Why are you putting that into their head? That they have to be antiracist and call out racism. They were trying to make them be activists. Hey, they're five. They want friends. They don't care what their friends look like. They are trying to have a good time. They're five. They're just playing. You're indoctrinating them into this woke, guilt-ridden ideology that you are carrying around with you, and you feel like you have an obligation to impose this on children. Our goal should have always been the goals the liberals had in the 60s and 70s, which is a color-blind society. The Martin Luther King notion that we should treat people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin... None of the real problems get addressed, and instead, they just try to make kids feel guilty. I didn't like the woke s**t. I didn't like that they were asking kids their pronouns." ------ Why are schools brainwashing young children into becoming antiracist activists who perceive the world predominantly through the prism of skin color? How can we inspire Americans to re-embrace Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a color-blind society, where the focus lies on the content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin?

KanekoaTheGreat

58,517,659 次观看 • 2 年前

Obviously there are millions and billions of parents and children that are doing it right and finding the middle. However let there be no confusion. Over the last 20, 30 years of extraordinary economic prosperity, many first-world countries have gotten into situations where children are still on the payroll well into their twenties and thirties. Parents have started fighting the fights for their children at school and even into their twenties when the kids are at sporting challenges or at work. I even had a parent and child, aka a grown up that was 23 years old, that asked if their mom could come to the interview for them at the company. There's clearly been a wave of entitlement and over-coddling and it's really hurting both parties. This energy you feel in this video is not about anger or judgment because trust me I'm a parent. It's the hardest job in the world. This video is about the pain I feel for both the parent and the 25-year-old that I'm coming across every single day in my direct messages or on the street. So much of it has to do with the parents continuing to pay and compensate and allow for excuses of their grown-ass children. I hope this video helps and inspires just one kid and just one parent so that their day-to-day lives can be a lot better. Sending love to everyone.
0:42

Obviously there are millions and billions of parents and children that are doing it right and finding the middle. However let there be no confusion. Over the last 20, 30 years of extraordinary economic prosperity, many first-world countries have gotten into situations where children are still on the payroll well into their twenties and thirties. Parents have started fighting the fights for their children at school and even into their twenties when the kids are at sporting challenges or at work. I even had a parent and child, aka a grown up that was 23 years old, that asked if their mom could come to the interview for them at the company. There's clearly been a wave of entitlement and over-coddling and it's really hurting both parties. This energy you feel in this video is not about anger or judgment because trust me I'm a parent. It's the hardest job in the world. This video is about the pain I feel for both the parent and the 25-year-old that I'm coming across every single day in my direct messages or on the street. So much of it has to do with the parents continuing to pay and compensate and allow for excuses of their grown-ass children. I hope this video helps and inspires just one kid and just one parent so that their day-to-day lives can be a lot better. Sending love to everyone.

Gary Vaynerchuk

48,710 次观看 • 16 天前

“It is difficult to convey what it means to speak here on behalf of the people of Palestine as they endure genocide. This is one of the most documented crimes in modern history. Live-streamed for all to see. Recorded by those suffering, in the hope that the world watching would act — and even recorded by those committing the crimes, confident they will never be held to account. Which one of them will we prove right? The victims or the perpetrators? Peoples around the world mobilized against this genocide. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and many states recognized this genocide. And we are gathered here to speak of the prevention and punishment of that very crime. But where were the measures to prevent genocide in Palestine? Where are the measures to punish it?” State of Palestine statement at the 10th Anniversary of the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime.
5:11

“It is difficult to convey what it means to speak here on behalf of the people of Palestine as they endure genocide. This is one of the most documented crimes in modern history. Live-streamed for all to see. Recorded by those suffering, in the hope that the world watching would act — and even recorded by those committing the crimes, confident they will never be held to account. Which one of them will we prove right? The victims or the perpetrators? Peoples around the world mobilized against this genocide. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and many states recognized this genocide. And we are gathered here to speak of the prevention and punishment of that very crime. But where were the measures to prevent genocide in Palestine? Where are the measures to punish it?” State of Palestine statement at the 10th Anniversary of the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime.

State of Palestine

28,256 次观看 • 8 个月前

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 次观看 • 9 个月前