Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Thing that WOULDN'T EXIST had the Reich won WW2. -International J8wry -Mass immigration -Usury -LGBTQ -Unemployment -BLM -Marxism -Woke movement -Political parties -Democracy -Communism -Bolshevism -lsraeI -Anarchy -Crime I'd rather be speaking German.

Donny

15,221 subscribers

14,154 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

32 Yorum

TylerAdam profil fotoğrafı

TylerAdam11 gün önce

Did you know that rich jew that live in America own the nigger slaves 80% and got them to hate white people the real ones they should hate is the jews

Lasse Kristensen profil fotoğrafı

Lasse Kristensen11 gün önce

You can add to that list the removal and destruction of free masonry which is their primary method to control politicians, governments, celebrities and even the royals.

Typical Christian profil fotoğrafı

Typical Christian11 gün önce

You didn't mention Islam or any other pagan religions?

꧁♡ OmaTheWhite♡꧂ profil fotoğrafı

꧁♡ OmaTheWhite♡꧂11 gün önce

I was heartbroken when I learned the truth of AH and WW2 , deeply, horrifically heartbroken. I could so easily see how ALL of our countries could be today had the Reich won. Humans can live peacefully andhappily, the filthy rich jew thieves will never allow that! They've been controlling through lies & psyops, that only works if believed, we no longer believe. The power is in us! Time to use it and destroy these child abuser magicians!

Idaho Stoic profil fotoğrafı

Idaho Stoic11 gün önce

If Hitler had honored the non aggression treaty with the Soviet Union and not formed an alliance with Japan, the Reich probably would have won the war in Europe. Hitler lost the war when he ordered the invasion of the U.S.S.R. and declared war against the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.

Ted Lazane profil fotoğrafı

Ted Lazane11 gün önce

My great grandfather was right

Levi J profil fotoğrafı

Levi J11 gün önce

Fuck, yeah

Joe7491 profil fotoğrafı

Joe749111 gün önce

yes, 'discipline' in the West is almost a pejorative these days, due to the creeping Adorno-ism from the thirties. (the Frankfurt school). Punishment should be swift and irrevocable and schools should promote expulsion to construction battalions in North Alaska.

badabor profil fotoğrafı

badabor11 gün önce

That list exists because of kosher Christian brainrot

Nationalist Maplefren🚚🇨🇦✝️ profil fotoğrafı

Nationalist Maplefren🚚🇨🇦✝️11 gün önce

All of the filth in society is nurtured by them. Every single time.

Atossa Ivanova profil fotoğrafı

Atossa Ivanova11 gün önce

👍

Archangel profil fotoğrafı

Archangel11 gün önce

Hitler never forced anyone to speak German.

Mark Lynn profil fotoğrafı

Mark Lynn11 gün önce

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

mask aware profil fotoğrafı

mask aware11 gün önce

you wouldn't have a holohoax if the reich won the war.

Ai生产力 profil fotoğrafı

Ai生产力11 gün önce

At the same time, under the guise of liberating human nature, American consumerism has reduced public education to a mere playground for children, naturally allowing LGBT culture to spread without restraint.

Srbski Spartan profil fotoğrafı

Srbski Spartan11 gün önce

Das Dritte Reich ist schon da… alles was du aufgezählt hast… ist schon internationaler Jüdismus! Leider! Ich sage nur noch eines, wenn wir Christen.. und zwar alle! Nicht zusammenhalten: dann haben wir schon verloren!

Jean Vangronsvelt profil fotoğrafı

Jean Vangronsvelt11 gün önce

Als ge dat maar weet!

Blake Venner profil fotoğrafı

Blake Venner11 gün önce

❤️ love Hitler

That_Ghost profil fotoğrafı

That_Ghost11 gün önce

same.....

Heinzie profil fotoğrafı

Heinzie11 gün önce

Yes !

doe1300 profil fotoğrafı

doe130011 gün önce

Wow you are one dumb fuck. All those things would still exist moron. How can you be this stupid? Never mind you are white trash so you dont know any better..

1bestcooldude profil fotoğrafı

1bestcooldude11 gün önce

I don’t think it would be easy for Germany to recover even it won WW2

Jonathan profil fotoğrafı

Jonathan11 gün önce

Ja!

Ai生产力 profil fotoğrafı

Ai生产力11 gün önce

Driven by American consumerism, as epitomized by Hollywood, people are encouraged to pick someone up and sleep together on the very same day, fundamentally dismantling the cornerstone of Western society: the family.

ᯓ★ Actionable Awareness ᡕᠵデᡁ᠊╾━ profil fotoğrafı

ᯓ★ Actionable Awareness ᡕᠵデᡁ᠊╾━11 gün önce

So many war movies glorifying the slaughter of German soldiers and repeatedly referring to them hatefully as Nazi’s, should be considered egregious propaganda and fictional distortions not based in truth!

pablo jourgensens profil fotoğrafı

pablo jourgensens11 gün önce

Se biene otra hay ejemplo de,quienes son el problema como lo fue el judio winston churchil esta vez esos mayonesos no quedaran impunes este ladron fue hijo de judia!

Jonathan profil fotoğrafı

Jonathan11 gün önce

I've been learning German so I can sing Beethoven's Ode to Joy.

Halfbreedmf profil fotoğrafı

Halfbreedmf11 gün önce

Doesn’t sound so bad tbh

_Highyield_ profil fotoğrafı

_Highyield_11 gün önce

Crime.....really. you dont think there would be any crime lol

kay profil fotoğrafı

kay11 gün önce

We’ll never see anything that beautiful again.

Barbara Santana profil fotoğrafı

Barbara Santana11 gün önce

#SATAN0@00000101010010001000100000010103101010710105701051301001001001953091510101010199101871041610410410410410401610410 10199 10166 101010101010100000@#SATAN0

☦︎ Dug ☧ 🫵🏿🐽🖕🏿 profil fotoğrafı

☦︎ Dug ☧ 🫵🏿🐽🖕🏿11 gün önce

Would i still have a mixes race unemployed fat gay weeb sister?

Benzer Videolar

🇦🇺 Thomas Sewell is an Australian nationalist activist and current president of the White Australia Party. In this speech, Sewell argues that mass immigration, demographic change, housing affordability, multiculturalism and the rising cost of living are reshaping Australia in ways that many people no longer recognise. He expresses concern that the country’s historic identity, culture and social character are being weakened, while trust in governments, political parties, mainstream media and public institutions continues to decline. Sewell was previously associated with the National Socialist Network (NSN), which dissolved before new anti-extremism laws came into effect. He is now involved in a major legal challenge through the White Australia Party, which is contesting the government’s designation of the organisation under Australia’s new hate-group legislation. The case is expected to reach the courts later this year. Supporters argue that the issues raised here reflect growing concerns about immigration levels, cultural change, national identity, housing pressure and political representation. Many see the court challenge as a test of free speech, political association and the limits of government power, believing that controversial views should be challenged through debate rather than prohibition. Critics, however, argue that Sewell’s politics are racially exclusionary and that such laws are necessary to prevent extremism and protect social cohesion. Whatever your view, the wider debate surrounding identity, immigration, democracy, free expression and the future direction of Australia is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. [H/T angloceltz on IG]

🇦🇺 Thomas Sewell is an Australian nationalist activist and current president of the White Australia Party. In this speech, Sewell argues that mass immigration, demographic change, housing affordability, multiculturalism and the rising cost of living are reshaping Australia in ways that many people no longer recognise. He expresses concern that the country’s historic identity, culture and social character are being weakened, while trust in governments, political parties, mainstream media and public institutions continues to decline. Sewell was previously associated with the National Socialist Network (NSN), which dissolved before new anti-extremism laws came into effect. He is now involved in a major legal challenge through the White Australia Party, which is contesting the government’s designation of the organisation under Australia’s new hate-group legislation. The case is expected to reach the courts later this year. Supporters argue that the issues raised here reflect growing concerns about immigration levels, cultural change, national identity, housing pressure and political representation. Many see the court challenge as a test of free speech, political association and the limits of government power, believing that controversial views should be challenged through debate rather than prohibition. Critics, however, argue that Sewell’s politics are racially exclusionary and that such laws are necessary to prevent extremism and protect social cohesion. Whatever your view, the wider debate surrounding identity, immigration, democracy, free expression and the future direction of Australia is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. [H/T angloceltz on IG]

Ben Wehrman

24,603 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The speaker argues that the current student protests over exam paper leaks should not be limited to demanding the resignation of the Education Minister. Instead, he claims the root cause lies with the central government, alleging that institutions such as the Election Commission and the electoral system have been compromised. Key themes include: Criticism of the Prime Minister, the BJP, RSS, and the Union government. Allegations that repeated exam paper leaks reflect systemic governance failures. Calls for a broader political movement rather than a single-issue protest. Strong criticism of EVMs and advocacy for a return to paper ballots. Claims that democratic institutions have been weakened. Criticism of India's foreign policy, particularly regarding the US, Israel, Iran, China, and oil imports. Appeals for youth and citizens to participate in peaceful, sustained democratic movements. The video primarily expresses political opinions and allegations, many of which are disputed or not established as fact. For example: Claims that elections cannot be won unless permitted by the Prime Minister are political assertions, not proven facts. Statements about the Election Commission being completely controlled or elections being predetermined remain matters of political debate rather than judicially established conclusions. References to exam paper leaks are grounded in real incidents, but the attribution of responsibility to specific political actors is the speaker's interpretation. This video is less a news report and more a political speech. It mixes genuine public concerns—such as exam paper leaks, unemployment, and institutional accountability—with strong political accusations and personal opinions. Some criticisms are based on real events, while many broader conclusions are contested and should not be accepted as established facts without independent evidence. A healthy democracy allows criticism of governments, but it also requires citizens to distinguish between verified facts, political opinion, and rhetorical claims.

The speaker argues that the current student protests over exam paper leaks should not be limited to demanding the resignation of the Education Minister. Instead, he claims the root cause lies with the central government, alleging that institutions such as the Election Commission and the electoral system have been compromised. Key themes include: Criticism of the Prime Minister, the BJP, RSS, and the Union government. Allegations that repeated exam paper leaks reflect systemic governance failures. Calls for a broader political movement rather than a single-issue protest. Strong criticism of EVMs and advocacy for a return to paper ballots. Claims that democratic institutions have been weakened. Criticism of India's foreign policy, particularly regarding the US, Israel, Iran, China, and oil imports. Appeals for youth and citizens to participate in peaceful, sustained democratic movements. The video primarily expresses political opinions and allegations, many of which are disputed or not established as fact. For example: Claims that elections cannot be won unless permitted by the Prime Minister are political assertions, not proven facts. Statements about the Election Commission being completely controlled or elections being predetermined remain matters of political debate rather than judicially established conclusions. References to exam paper leaks are grounded in real incidents, but the attribution of responsibility to specific political actors is the speaker's interpretation. This video is less a news report and more a political speech. It mixes genuine public concerns—such as exam paper leaks, unemployment, and institutional accountability—with strong political accusations and personal opinions. Some criticisms are based on real events, while many broader conclusions are contested and should not be accepted as established facts without independent evidence. A healthy democracy allows criticism of governments, but it also requires citizens to distinguish between verified facts, political opinion, and rhetorical claims.

Ashok Dadhwal

14,868 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

“The Australian National University (ANU) is one of the nation’s key purveyors of immigration propaganda. Jill Sheppard, a senior lecturer at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations, let the mask slip on the latest ANU Democracy Sausage Episode when she argued that donations and lobbying from big business on immigration are a “good thing” because they sway politicians to keep immigration high against the wishes of Australian voters, who overwhelmingly want lower immigration. Essentially, what Sheppard has said is: “Screw what voters actually want. They don’t matter. Politicians should represent the lobbying interests of Big Business”. Sheppard has confirmed that the ANU is an open-borders migration cult that will say anything to keep the numbers flowing.” •••••••••••••••••••••• Another example of how the “elites” don’t respect the will of the people, this time in regard to immigration. Big business has formed an unholy alliance with universities and superannuation funds that avoids scrutiny by shareholders and the public. This is happening because none of these institutions hold democratic elections. My previous post touched on how the major parties use the taxpayer to fund them instead of being accountable to its members. Superannuation funds have grown so large they now control corporations, who along with governments, fund universities. Because superannuation boards don’t hold elections, people have no say in who runs superannuation funds or the companies they control. The same goes for University boards that are also selected, instead of elected by students. Because higher immigration means more customers and more profit, big business and universities support high immigration, despite the public being against it. Until such time as public funding for political parties is cancelled and compulsory superannuation is abolished, taxpayer money will continue to be weaponised against the people.

“The Australian National University (ANU) is one of the nation’s key purveyors of immigration propaganda. Jill Sheppard, a senior lecturer at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations, let the mask slip on the latest ANU Democracy Sausage Episode when she argued that donations and lobbying from big business on immigration are a “good thing” because they sway politicians to keep immigration high against the wishes of Australian voters, who overwhelmingly want lower immigration. Essentially, what Sheppard has said is: “Screw what voters actually want. They don’t matter. Politicians should represent the lobbying interests of Big Business”. Sheppard has confirmed that the ANU is an open-borders migration cult that will say anything to keep the numbers flowing.” •••••••••••••••••••••• Another example of how the “elites” don’t respect the will of the people, this time in regard to immigration. Big business has formed an unholy alliance with universities and superannuation funds that avoids scrutiny by shareholders and the public. This is happening because none of these institutions hold democratic elections. My previous post touched on how the major parties use the taxpayer to fund them instead of being accountable to its members. Superannuation funds have grown so large they now control corporations, who along with governments, fund universities. Because superannuation boards don’t hold elections, people have no say in who runs superannuation funds or the companies they control. The same goes for University boards that are also selected, instead of elected by students. Because higher immigration means more customers and more profit, big business and universities support high immigration, despite the public being against it. Until such time as public funding for political parties is cancelled and compulsory superannuation is abolished, taxpayer money will continue to be weaponised against the people.

Gerard Rennick

28,436 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Alastair Campbell asks former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz why he thinks the AfD are rising in the polls. Astonishingly but not surprisingly Scholz says it’s a symptom of the success of globalisation. This is the most critical piece in understanding the mindset of Europe’s leaders. They view success through the prism of the world rather than via national or regional prisms. So they look at German deindustrialisation as a good thing as it moves manufacturing to the third world and lifts people out of poverty there. The former British Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell said after he left the civil service that “I think it's my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare”. These people are half-Marxists half-neoliberals and they are not only relaxed about European living standards falling they see it as a necessity in order to maximise global welfare. They never gave up on the Marxist end stage of global techno anarchism and they view the AfD and parties like them as impediments. It’s why Scholz defines democracy in this interview as pluralism. He says you can’t be a democracy without pluralism. This goes back to the Trotskyite concept of global revolution and that the revolution is not finished until every last person lives under communism. Mark my words if these people didn’t control the institutions they’d still be waging bloody revolutions.

Alastair Campbell asks former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz why he thinks the AfD are rising in the polls. Astonishingly but not surprisingly Scholz says it’s a symptom of the success of globalisation. This is the most critical piece in understanding the mindset of Europe’s leaders. They view success through the prism of the world rather than via national or regional prisms. So they look at German deindustrialisation as a good thing as it moves manufacturing to the third world and lifts people out of poverty there. The former British Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell said after he left the civil service that “I think it's my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare”. These people are half-Marxists half-neoliberals and they are not only relaxed about European living standards falling they see it as a necessity in order to maximise global welfare. They never gave up on the Marxist end stage of global techno anarchism and they view the AfD and parties like them as impediments. It’s why Scholz defines democracy in this interview as pluralism. He says you can’t be a democracy without pluralism. This goes back to the Trotskyite concept of global revolution and that the revolution is not finished until every last person lives under communism. Mark my words if these people didn’t control the institutions they’d still be waging bloody revolutions.

Wolf 🐺

106,269 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

🇷🇴🔴Romania should embrace migrant men having babies with Romanian women, according to a pro-EU news network. Their news report claims Romania's "only chance at the moment is for immigrants to settle here and have children with Romanian citizens...or marry Romanian women, because the vast majority of immigrants are men." Notably, joining the EU has undoubtedly brought benefits to Romania, but it has also been a curse. Free movement meant mass emigration, with droves of its young people leaving the country once it joined the bloc. In fact, it is the leading country in the EU for the number and percentage of citizens living abroad. So many people left, that it has had a destabilizing effect on the country. However, mass immigration may not be the "cure all" being promised. In Western Europe, the education systems are in crisis, crime is rising, terrorism threats are making headlines on a daily basis, and political polarization is growing, in large part due to immigration. Furthermore, immigrants are costing Germany alone €50 billion a year and France €25 billion, and those are low estimates. Romania is far less stable than countries like Germany and Sweden, meaning absorbing large numbers of immigrants could be a recipe for disaster.

🇷🇴🔴Romania should embrace migrant men having babies with Romanian women, according to a pro-EU news network. Their news report claims Romania's "only chance at the moment is for immigrants to settle here and have children with Romanian citizens...or marry Romanian women, because the vast majority of immigrants are men." Notably, joining the EU has undoubtedly brought benefits to Romania, but it has also been a curse. Free movement meant mass emigration, with droves of its young people leaving the country once it joined the bloc. In fact, it is the leading country in the EU for the number and percentage of citizens living abroad. So many people left, that it has had a destabilizing effect on the country. However, mass immigration may not be the "cure all" being promised. In Western Europe, the education systems are in crisis, crime is rising, terrorism threats are making headlines on a daily basis, and political polarization is growing, in large part due to immigration. Furthermore, immigrants are costing Germany alone €50 billion a year and France €25 billion, and those are low estimates. Romania is far less stable than countries like Germany and Sweden, meaning absorbing large numbers of immigrants could be a recipe for disaster.

Remix News & Views

47,579 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

.President Donald J. Trump: Yet as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack. A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of Communism, there is now a resurgence of the Communist menace in our land—including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life. These are not mere political disagreements, like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American Liberty. It is the Greatest Threat to our Country including World War One, World War Two, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. Because Communism is the enemy of Free People everywhere. It is the enemy of the Constitution. Above all, it is the Enemy of July 4th, 1776. Even while the Radicals and Extremists attack our incredible history at every turn, they are SILENT on the miserable history of Communism itself. Their system has led to more death and destruction than any system ever tried—it killed 100 million people in the last century. Communism is the exact opposite of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—it is death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil. The Godless Communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about the inhuman visions they propose. They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights. It is an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder. Such doctrines can be given no quarter in a Democracy, because the first thing they do when they get into power is turn around, and destroy it—just as Communists have done in other countries all over the world. Very simply, Communism represents the worst ideas and abuses in history by the worst people—the American Founding represents the best ideas and traditions in history by the best people. You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America. You can be a Communist, or you can be a Patriot. You cannot be both. As for those who would peddle Marxist lies about our heritage—who tell our children that we live on stolen land, or that our heroes were oppressors—they are doing something much worse than slandering our past. They are attacking our future. They are trying to tear down the American Character, to destroy the people who declared Independence, crossed the Delaware, settled the West, and conquered the skies. But we will never let that happen. Our American Ancestors did not shed their blood at Concord and Trenton, Gettysburg and Shiloh, Midway and Normandy, just so that a band of thieves and radicals could come in and loot and pillage the nation our heroes died to win, build, and save. So on the eve of this 250th anniversary of American Liberty, we resolve and swear for all to hear that the Citizens of the United States of America will vanquish Communism from our shores, and send it into exile once and for all. America will never be a Communist country!

.President Donald J. Trump: Yet as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack. A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of Communism, there is now a resurgence of the Communist menace in our land—including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life. These are not mere political disagreements, like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American Liberty. It is the Greatest Threat to our Country including World War One, World War Two, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. Because Communism is the enemy of Free People everywhere. It is the enemy of the Constitution. Above all, it is the Enemy of July 4th, 1776. Even while the Radicals and Extremists attack our incredible history at every turn, they are SILENT on the miserable history of Communism itself. Their system has led to more death and destruction than any system ever tried—it killed 100 million people in the last century. Communism is the exact opposite of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—it is death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil. The Godless Communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about the inhuman visions they propose. They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights. It is an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder. Such doctrines can be given no quarter in a Democracy, because the first thing they do when they get into power is turn around, and destroy it—just as Communists have done in other countries all over the world. Very simply, Communism represents the worst ideas and abuses in history by the worst people—the American Founding represents the best ideas and traditions in history by the best people. You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America. You can be a Communist, or you can be a Patriot. You cannot be both. As for those who would peddle Marxist lies about our heritage—who tell our children that we live on stolen land, or that our heroes were oppressors—they are doing something much worse than slandering our past. They are attacking our future. They are trying to tear down the American Character, to destroy the people who declared Independence, crossed the Delaware, settled the West, and conquered the skies. But we will never let that happen. Our American Ancestors did not shed their blood at Concord and Trenton, Gettysburg and Shiloh, Midway and Normandy, just so that a band of thieves and radicals could come in and loot and pillage the nation our heroes died to win, build, and save. So on the eve of this 250th anniversary of American Liberty, we resolve and swear for all to hear that the Citizens of the United States of America will vanquish Communism from our shores, and send it into exile once and for all. America will never be a Communist country!

Rapid Response 47

2,119,974 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

New polling has found that 52 percent of Gen Z (aged 13-27) despise democracy, and would rather a dictator was in charge. 33 percent said the UK would be better off 'if the army was in charge'. 47 percent agree 'the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution'. In January, an FGS Global Radar report found 21 percent of people aged 18-45 would prefer 'a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with elections' were running the country. In 2022, Onward polling found 61 percent of people aged 18-34 wanted a 'strongman' in charge. As I explained in my Triggernometry interview last year, this doesn't stem from a love of uniforms, marching, and mass killings. Rather, Zoomers, for whom the taboos of the twentieth century are most distant, are less afraid of executive power than they are demanding things promised by politicians are delivered. Having been put under house arrest for two years, they know to what extent state power can be used. It's no longer a matter of *if*, but of *how*. Combined with the outsourcing of Parliamentary sovereignty and decision-making to a faceless bureaucracy of committees and quangos (a Deep State), this has left many believing that democracy doesn't exist. Looking at figures like Trump, Milei, and Nayib Bukele has made many patriotic minded, hard-working Zoomers aware of what is possible when an executive cuts taxes and locks up criminals. If democracy *worked*, then you wouldn't have British Zoomers on both sides of the issue demanding it be abandoned. It shows a large cohort of young voters lack representation, and a lot of eager political talent is being left on the table. Which party will heed the call, dismantle the Deep State, and govern as demanded?

New polling has found that 52 percent of Gen Z (aged 13-27) despise democracy, and would rather a dictator was in charge. 33 percent said the UK would be better off 'if the army was in charge'. 47 percent agree 'the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution'. In January, an FGS Global Radar report found 21 percent of people aged 18-45 would prefer 'a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with elections' were running the country. In 2022, Onward polling found 61 percent of people aged 18-34 wanted a 'strongman' in charge. As I explained in my Triggernometry interview last year, this doesn't stem from a love of uniforms, marching, and mass killings. Rather, Zoomers, for whom the taboos of the twentieth century are most distant, are less afraid of executive power than they are demanding things promised by politicians are delivered. Having been put under house arrest for two years, they know to what extent state power can be used. It's no longer a matter of if, but of how. Combined with the outsourcing of Parliamentary sovereignty and decision-making to a faceless bureaucracy of committees and quangos (a Deep State), this has left many believing that democracy doesn't exist. Looking at figures like Trump, Milei, and Nayib Bukele has made many patriotic minded, hard-working Zoomers aware of what is possible when an executive cuts taxes and locks up criminals. If democracy worked, then you wouldn't have British Zoomers on both sides of the issue demanding it be abandoned. It shows a large cohort of young voters lack representation, and a lot of eager political talent is being left on the table. Which party will heed the call, dismantle the Deep State, and govern as demanded?

Connor Tomlinson

22,327 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Almost Everything You’ve Noticed Change In America Can Be Traced Back To Barack Obama In 1992, A Real Communist Party USA Meeting Was Held In California At The University Of Berkeley. Many Of The Attendees Ended Up Working In The Barack Obama Administration A Full Communist Agenda and how they would achieve their goal would be to “Use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” This should be extremely eye opening for everyone. We are living through their agenda. “Back in 1992, an older friend of my father who was from Saint Louis asked me to go to this meeting that the Communist Party USA was having at the University of California Berkeley. And he had studied communism and written books about communism back in the sixties and stuff. And he was curious Because if you remember back in 1989, the Berlin Wall had come down, and everyone was saying communism is dead. It's over. Then in 91 in December, the Soviet Union dissolved. ‌ And so this is 6 months later, the summer of 92, and the Communist Party USA is having a meeting. So he asked me to go out to this meeting. He said, would you go out there and just see what they're talking about? Because we we won. This thing's over. ‌ And so I went to that. And for 3 days, I sat there in breakout sessions and lectures and and listened to these hardcore communists. And and one thing shocking about it too, I thought it'd be college radical since it was at Berkeley, so I dressed like a college radical with some radical t shirt on it. I walk into the autumn the auditorium, there's 14 or 1,500, 50, 60, and 70 year olds with briefcases. And I thought, woah. ‌ This is actually serious. It's not just some radicals. And many of those exact people, as I researched them later, ended up being in Obama's cabinet in 2008. And that's what motivated me to make movie because I rise these are the people that were at this communist meeting with me back back in 1992. But at that meeting, they laid out this plan how they wanted to take America down from the inside. ‌ They were gonna focus all their energies on that now. They've been focusing on it for a while, but they realized they could never outspend America because capitalism, free enterprise is so successful. And they kind of that woke them up. Okay. We gotta go to plan b. ‌ They they just keep building more and more. And, of course, we had all the years of Reagan where he'd really built the military up, so they realized We're in trouble here. Um, and so that's what they talked about to me and how they were going to do that from the inside, and I didn't think that much about it, went on with my life. But then again, 16 years later in 2008 from 92, when I remembered what they had talked about, like, one thing, uh, that is so clear how it had changed. They had said back in 92, we're gonna use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” ‌ I can’t transcribe it all due to X’s text limits but this is a CRAZY listen… This is the systematic takedown of America from the inside under the disguise of Climate Change

Almost Everything You’ve Noticed Change In America Can Be Traced Back To Barack Obama In 1992, A Real Communist Party USA Meeting Was Held In California At The University Of Berkeley. Many Of The Attendees Ended Up Working In The Barack Obama Administration A Full Communist Agenda and how they would achieve their goal would be to “Use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” This should be extremely eye opening for everyone. We are living through their agenda. “Back in 1992, an older friend of my father who was from Saint Louis asked me to go to this meeting that the Communist Party USA was having at the University of California Berkeley. And he had studied communism and written books about communism back in the sixties and stuff. And he was curious Because if you remember back in 1989, the Berlin Wall had come down, and everyone was saying communism is dead. It's over. Then in 91 in December, the Soviet Union dissolved. ‌ And so this is 6 months later, the summer of 92, and the Communist Party USA is having a meeting. So he asked me to go out to this meeting. He said, would you go out there and just see what they're talking about? Because we we won. This thing's over. ‌ And so I went to that. And for 3 days, I sat there in breakout sessions and lectures and and listened to these hardcore communists. And and one thing shocking about it too, I thought it'd be college radical since it was at Berkeley, so I dressed like a college radical with some radical t shirt on it. I walk into the autumn the auditorium, there's 14 or 1,500, 50, 60, and 70 year olds with briefcases. And I thought, woah. ‌ This is actually serious. It's not just some radicals. And many of those exact people, as I researched them later, ended up being in Obama's cabinet in 2008. And that's what motivated me to make movie because I rise these are the people that were at this communist meeting with me back back in 1992. But at that meeting, they laid out this plan how they wanted to take America down from the inside. ‌ They were gonna focus all their energies on that now. They've been focusing on it for a while, but they realized they could never outspend America because capitalism, free enterprise is so successful. And they kind of that woke them up. Okay. We gotta go to plan b. ‌ They they just keep building more and more. And, of course, we had all the years of Reagan where he'd really built the military up, so they realized We're in trouble here. Um, and so that's what they talked about to me and how they were going to do that from the inside, and I didn't think that much about it, went on with my life. But then again, 16 years later in 2008 from 92, when I remembered what they had talked about, like, one thing, uh, that is so clear how it had changed. They had said back in 92, we're gonna use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” ‌ I can’t transcribe it all due to X’s text limits but this is a CRAZY listen… This is the systematic takedown of America from the inside under the disguise of Climate Change

Wall Street Apes

480,419 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

WATCH: ABC's Jon Karl lobs a Francesca Hong softball at AOC. AOC dances around the question, asserts that "Woke One was crazy"- brought about by Covid causing a "huge opening of the Overtone Window." JON KARL: So, you have Wisconsin coming up next. Francesca Hong, who is the Democratic Socialist of America-supported candidate for governor. Are you -- you haven't endorsed her. Are you going to? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No, I haven't endorsed in that race. My focus has been in winning back the Congress, winning back the House, and positioning ourselves to have the best chance possible to win the Senate. So, I've been focused on -- on those legislative races. KARL: What do you make of those controversial statements? I'm sure you've seen. I mean, she's -- you know, the Thanksgiving dust-up. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: She says she doesn't, you know, still believe that. But, you know, the abolished prisons, abolished police. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: Which is also positions that have been taken by a lot of the progressive candidates who have won. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: How do you get around that? OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. KARL: I mean, those are not positions that are supported by most of -- (CROSSTALK) OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right. I mean, I think that a lot of these races, even right now, they'll have a tendency to be nationalized. KARL: Yeah. OCASIO-CORTEZ: But these races ultimately are local and all politics are local. My understanding is that -- is that Francesca Hong has made clear her present stances to her electorate. KARL: Yeah, she's moved away from a lot of that. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right, she's moved away from it. And I have a local city councilman that -- KARL: Yeah. OCASIO-CORTEZ: -- has this saying, Woke One was crazy. (LAUGHTER) KARL: Woke One was crazy. OK, that’s a truth. OCASIO-CORTEZ: And I think that what’s important is that we have to assess what a candidate is saying now. KARL: What was -- I mean did the movement go too far with some of those positions? I mean you -- you briefly supported the idea of defunding the police. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, you know, I think -- that during this time and during -- especially during Covid, there was a huge opening of the Overtone(SIC) Window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns. KARL: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: And I think that the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the discussions that had -- that were had in that time were quite fruitful. I think that when we talk about crime today, it’s fundamentally different than the way that we talked about crime in bringing crime down, right? And I think that we all share in the goals of having as low a crime rate as possible. I think that, you know, during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today. And I’m grateful that these candidates have the opportunity to present who they are to their electorate and what they’re campaigning on in this moment.

WATCH: ABC's Jon Karl lobs a Francesca Hong softball at AOC. AOC dances around the question, asserts that "Woke One was crazy"- brought about by Covid causing a "huge opening of the Overtone Window." JON KARL: So, you have Wisconsin coming up next. Francesca Hong, who is the Democratic Socialist of America-supported candidate for governor. Are you -- you haven't endorsed her. Are you going to? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No, I haven't endorsed in that race. My focus has been in winning back the Congress, winning back the House, and positioning ourselves to have the best chance possible to win the Senate. So, I've been focused on -- on those legislative races. KARL: What do you make of those controversial statements? I'm sure you've seen. I mean, she's -- you know, the Thanksgiving dust-up. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: She says she doesn't, you know, still believe that. But, you know, the abolished prisons, abolished police. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: Which is also positions that have been taken by a lot of the progressive candidates who have won. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Uh-huh. KARL: How do you get around that? OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. KARL: I mean, those are not positions that are supported by most of -- (CROSSTALK) OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right. I mean, I think that a lot of these races, even right now, they'll have a tendency to be nationalized. KARL: Yeah. OCASIO-CORTEZ: But these races ultimately are local and all politics are local. My understanding is that -- is that Francesca Hong has made clear her present stances to her electorate. KARL: Yeah, she's moved away from a lot of that. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right, she's moved away from it. And I have a local city councilman that -- KARL: Yeah. OCASIO-CORTEZ: -- has this saying, Woke One was crazy. (LAUGHTER) KARL: Woke One was crazy. OK, that’s a truth. OCASIO-CORTEZ: And I think that what’s important is that we have to assess what a candidate is saying now. KARL: What was -- I mean did the movement go too far with some of those positions? I mean you -- you briefly supported the idea of defunding the police. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, you know, I think -- that during this time and during -- especially during Covid, there was a huge opening of the Overtone(SIC) Window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns. KARL: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: And I think that the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the discussions that had -- that were had in that time were quite fruitful. I think that when we talk about crime today, it’s fundamentally different than the way that we talked about crime in bringing crime down, right? And I think that we all share in the goals of having as low a crime rate as possible. I think that, you know, during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today. And I’m grateful that these candidates have the opportunity to present who they are to their electorate and what they’re campaigning on in this moment.

Jorge Bonilla

79,534 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The late Shri P.A. Sangma once advocated for dividing the Northeast into smaller states along ethnic lines, a dangerous idea that threatened the unity of our Nation. Today, we are seeing similar attempts to interfere in Manipur’s internal affairs to destabilise the state. Manipur’s situation is unique. This state is home to several small, vulnerable indigenous communities, whose protection necessitated the implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP). The present crisis is not political at its core. It stems from a complex mix of challenges: the drug menace, illegal immigration, destruction of forests, and the systematic pursuit of power by select groups. After years of effort to safeguard our indigenous populations, we have begun to make real progress such as the implementation of ILP, a hard-won achievement. Shri Conrad K Sangma should know that the violence was not spontaneous; it was instigated by those who feel threatened and insecure by this kind of progress. Does Mr Conrad Sangma know that Manipur had already initiated border fencing? That the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is now strictly regulated? Has he noticed the alarming rise in unrecognised villages within Manipur’s borders? It must be noted that when Manipur was facing these serious challenges, others refrained from interfering in our internal affairs. The same courtesy was expected, yet some chose a different path, one driven by narrow interests rather than genuine concern. Today, various groups across the Northeast are beginning to recognise the seriousness of FMR, ILP and border security. Manipur’s experiences should serve as a lesson, not a platform for political posturing. Manipur is home to 32 indigenous tribes whose identities, cultures, and way of life deserve protection. Refrain from encouraging illegal immigrants or interfering in matters that threaten this delicate balance. The people of Manipur have endured enough. Let us live in peace.

The late Shri P.A. Sangma once advocated for dividing the Northeast into smaller states along ethnic lines, a dangerous idea that threatened the unity of our Nation. Today, we are seeing similar attempts to interfere in Manipur’s internal affairs to destabilise the state. Manipur’s situation is unique. This state is home to several small, vulnerable indigenous communities, whose protection necessitated the implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP). The present crisis is not political at its core. It stems from a complex mix of challenges: the drug menace, illegal immigration, destruction of forests, and the systematic pursuit of power by select groups. After years of effort to safeguard our indigenous populations, we have begun to make real progress such as the implementation of ILP, a hard-won achievement. Shri Conrad K Sangma should know that the violence was not spontaneous; it was instigated by those who feel threatened and insecure by this kind of progress. Does Mr Conrad Sangma know that Manipur had already initiated border fencing? That the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is now strictly regulated? Has he noticed the alarming rise in unrecognised villages within Manipur’s borders? It must be noted that when Manipur was facing these serious challenges, others refrained from interfering in our internal affairs. The same courtesy was expected, yet some chose a different path, one driven by narrow interests rather than genuine concern. Today, various groups across the Northeast are beginning to recognise the seriousness of FMR, ILP and border security. Manipur’s experiences should serve as a lesson, not a platform for political posturing. Manipur is home to 32 indigenous tribes whose identities, cultures, and way of life deserve protection. Refrain from encouraging illegal immigrants or interfering in matters that threaten this delicate balance. The people of Manipur have endured enough. Let us live in peace.

N. Biren Singh

19,033 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Professor Glenn Diesen (Glenn Diesen) explains why the unipolar moment was destined to fail—and why the exhausted hegemon is now fighting Russia, China, and Iran all at once in a dangerous competition for the next world order. “I think what we’re witnessing is, of course, the end of the unipolar moment established after the Cold War. This era we lived through was a challenge to the entire Westphalian system. We went back to the idea of a universal hegemon which would seek to dominate. This essentially challenged the entire Westphalian international system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. After the Cold War, many had benign intentions that if we had a hegemonic peace—the US and its European allies would essentially dominate the international system—this would have many benefits. On one hand, there wouldn’t be any international anarchy, any competition for security, simply because it would only be one great power, the United States. This would mitigate security competition. And since the US is a liberal democracy, the assumption would be that it could elevate the role of liberal democracy and human rights in the international system, making the system more benign as well. This is a reasonable argument. I don’t subscribe to it, but it’s reasonable nonetheless. I think it was destined to fail for many reasons. Simply put, if you’re going to be a hegemon, it’s going to be very costly over time. You’re going to spend all your resources, and you have to keep other rising powers down. Over time, this can only lead to one thing: the US would begin to exhaust itself, and the rising powers would seek to collectively balance an increasingly exhausted United States. That time is what we’re seeing now. The US is exhausted. It’s reaching soon $40 trillion in debt. You see this manifest itself in economic problems at home—economic inequalities, social problems, political polarization. Meanwhile, you see the rest of the world through organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS seeking to create a multipolar world which balances the US hegemonic aspirations. This is quite a critical time. What do we expect the hegemon to do when it’s in this situation? They want to restore their position. How do you do that? First, you have to counter and defeat your opponent. So we would expect an economic war against China to try to roll back its technological and industrial development. You would expect a confrontation with Russia. Obviously, Ukraine would be the ideal front line—a massive country. Many political leaders, intelligence leaders, and military leaders have recognized since the 1990s that Ukraine in NATO would be considered an existential threat for Russia. And lastly, of course, the main central power in the Middle East which opposes US hegemony, which is Iran. You might expect them attempting to do a knockout blow against Iran. So we’re seeing all of these three major powers on the Eurasian continent now essentially being in a conflict with a declining hegemon. And it’s a very dangerous time because this is a competition for world order. It’s all or nothing. This is why all sides are willing to risk so much, which is why it’s a very dangerous time and it might be difficult to get through.”

Professor Glenn Diesen (Glenn Diesen) explains why the unipolar moment was destined to fail—and why the exhausted hegemon is now fighting Russia, China, and Iran all at once in a dangerous competition for the next world order. “I think what we’re witnessing is, of course, the end of the unipolar moment established after the Cold War. This era we lived through was a challenge to the entire Westphalian system. We went back to the idea of a universal hegemon which would seek to dominate. This essentially challenged the entire Westphalian international system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. After the Cold War, many had benign intentions that if we had a hegemonic peace—the US and its European allies would essentially dominate the international system—this would have many benefits. On one hand, there wouldn’t be any international anarchy, any competition for security, simply because it would only be one great power, the United States. This would mitigate security competition. And since the US is a liberal democracy, the assumption would be that it could elevate the role of liberal democracy and human rights in the international system, making the system more benign as well. This is a reasonable argument. I don’t subscribe to it, but it’s reasonable nonetheless. I think it was destined to fail for many reasons. Simply put, if you’re going to be a hegemon, it’s going to be very costly over time. You’re going to spend all your resources, and you have to keep other rising powers down. Over time, this can only lead to one thing: the US would begin to exhaust itself, and the rising powers would seek to collectively balance an increasingly exhausted United States. That time is what we’re seeing now. The US is exhausted. It’s reaching soon $40 trillion in debt. You see this manifest itself in economic problems at home—economic inequalities, social problems, political polarization. Meanwhile, you see the rest of the world through organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS seeking to create a multipolar world which balances the US hegemonic aspirations. This is quite a critical time. What do we expect the hegemon to do when it’s in this situation? They want to restore their position. How do you do that? First, you have to counter and defeat your opponent. So we would expect an economic war against China to try to roll back its technological and industrial development. You would expect a confrontation with Russia. Obviously, Ukraine would be the ideal front line—a massive country. Many political leaders, intelligence leaders, and military leaders have recognized since the 1990s that Ukraine in NATO would be considered an existential threat for Russia. And lastly, of course, the main central power in the Middle East which opposes US hegemony, which is Iran. You might expect them attempting to do a knockout blow against Iran. So we’re seeing all of these three major powers on the Eurasian continent now essentially being in a conflict with a declining hegemon. And it’s a very dangerous time because this is a competition for world order. It’s all or nothing. This is why all sides are willing to risk so much, which is why it’s a very dangerous time and it might be difficult to get through.”

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

13,664 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Reverend Dr Kupa Mtata, convenor of Sungano yeVanhu/Ubumbano loMphakathi (The People’s Coalition), has defended the coalition’s campaign against Constitutional Amendment No. 3, arguing that the proposed changes cannot lawfully proceed without the direct consent of Zimbabweans through a referendum. Speaking at the launch of the coalition—which brings together the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), Constitution Defence Forum (CDF), National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Constitution Movement (ZICOMO) and the War Veterans Pressure Group—Dr Mtata said the campaign was about defending the Constitution rather than supporting any political party. “I am here as a churchman, not as a partisan politician,” he said. “This is about honouring the agreement we made together as a nation and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme, not the ambitions of politicians.” Dr Mtata argued that the Constitution is a covenant created collectively by Zimbabweans and that no individual or group has the authority to alter key provisions without the people’s genuine consent. He accused the government of violating the Constitution in four fundamental ways. First, he said there had been a procedural violation because citizens were not genuinely consulted on the proposed amendments. Instead of allowing open national debate, he said, the proposals were presented through state-controlled media as decisions that citizens were simply expected to accept, while opposing views were denied space. “This is not consultation,” he said. “This is propaganda.” Secondly, Mtata alleged that Parliament had been corrupted, claiming some legislators had abandoned the interests of their constituents for personal gain. “When parliamentarians are bought like goods in a market, that is not leadership. That is corruption,” he said, arguing that MPs who ignore the wishes of those who elected them lose their moral legitimacy to represent the people. His third concern was what he described as intimidation and harassment of citizens who opposed the Bill. According to Mtata, individuals who criticised the proposed amendments had been threatened or intimidated, undermining freedom of expression and weakening democracy. “When people are denied the right to express opinions that differ from those in power, that is not democracy. That is dictatorship,” he said. Mtata argued that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 unlawfully bypasses the referendum requirement contained in Section 328 of the Constitution. He said the Constitution expressly requires certain amendments to be approved directly by citizens through a referendum, particularly where changes affect the tenure or powers of those already in office. “The people, not Parliament, not politicians—must decide through a referendum,” he said. “Those entrusted with power should not extend their stay in office without the direct permission of the people.” Mtata concluded by urging Zimbabweans to defend the Constitution, insisting that the country’s founding law belongs to its citizens and cannot be changed without their freely given consent.

Reverend Dr Kupa Mtata, convenor of Sungano yeVanhu/Ubumbano loMphakathi (The People’s Coalition), has defended the coalition’s campaign against Constitutional Amendment No. 3, arguing that the proposed changes cannot lawfully proceed without the direct consent of Zimbabweans through a referendum. Speaking at the launch of the coalition—which brings together the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), Constitution Defence Forum (CDF), National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Constitution Movement (ZICOMO) and the War Veterans Pressure Group—Dr Mtata said the campaign was about defending the Constitution rather than supporting any political party. “I am here as a churchman, not as a partisan politician,” he said. “This is about honouring the agreement we made together as a nation and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme, not the ambitions of politicians.” Dr Mtata argued that the Constitution is a covenant created collectively by Zimbabweans and that no individual or group has the authority to alter key provisions without the people’s genuine consent. He accused the government of violating the Constitution in four fundamental ways. First, he said there had been a procedural violation because citizens were not genuinely consulted on the proposed amendments. Instead of allowing open national debate, he said, the proposals were presented through state-controlled media as decisions that citizens were simply expected to accept, while opposing views were denied space. “This is not consultation,” he said. “This is propaganda.” Secondly, Mtata alleged that Parliament had been corrupted, claiming some legislators had abandoned the interests of their constituents for personal gain. “When parliamentarians are bought like goods in a market, that is not leadership. That is corruption,” he said, arguing that MPs who ignore the wishes of those who elected them lose their moral legitimacy to represent the people. His third concern was what he described as intimidation and harassment of citizens who opposed the Bill. According to Mtata, individuals who criticised the proposed amendments had been threatened or intimidated, undermining freedom of expression and weakening democracy. “When people are denied the right to express opinions that differ from those in power, that is not democracy. That is dictatorship,” he said. Mtata argued that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 unlawfully bypasses the referendum requirement contained in Section 328 of the Constitution. He said the Constitution expressly requires certain amendments to be approved directly by citizens through a referendum, particularly where changes affect the tenure or powers of those already in office. “The people, not Parliament, not politicians—must decide through a referendum,” he said. “Those entrusted with power should not extend their stay in office without the direct permission of the people.” Mtata concluded by urging Zimbabweans to defend the Constitution, insisting that the country’s founding law belongs to its citizens and cannot be changed without their freely given consent.

Hopewell Chin’ono

47,580 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

This Is One Of The Most Eye Opening Interviews You’ll Ever Hear. In 1992, A Real Communist Party USA Meeting Was Held In California At The University Of Berkeley. Many Of The Attendees Ended Up Working In The Barack Obama Administration Their Goal “Use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” 🚨 “Back in 1992, uh, an older friend of my father who was from Saint Louis asked me to go to this meeting that the Communist Party USA was having at the University of California Berkeley. And he had studied communism and written books about communism back in the sixties and stuff. And he was curious Because if you remember back in 1989, the Berlin Wall had come down, and everyone was saying communism is dead. It's over. Then in 91 in December, the Soviet Union dissolved. And so this is 6 months later, the summer of 92, and the Communist Party USA is having a meeting. So he asked me to go out to this meeting. He said, would you go out there and just see what they're talking about? Because we we won. This thing's over. And so I went to that. And for 3 days, I sat there in breakout sessions and lectures and and listened to these hardcore communists. And and one thing shocking about it too, I thought it'd be college radical since it was at Berkeley, so I dressed like a college radical with some radical t shirt on it. I walk into the autumn the auditorium, there's 14 or 1500, 50, 60, and 70 year olds with briefcases. And I thought, woah. This is actually serious. It's not just some radicals. And many of those exact people, as I researched them later, ended up being in Obama's cabinet in 2008. And that's what motivated me to make movie because I rise these are the people that were at this communist meeting with me back back in 1992. But at that meeting, they laid out this plan how they wanted to take America down from the inside. They were gonna focus all their energies on that now. They've been focusing on it for a while, but they realized they could never outspend America because capitalism, free enterprise is so successful. And they kind of that woke them up. Okay. We gotta go to plan b. They they just keep building more and more. And, of course, we had all the years of Reagan where he'd really built the military up, so they realized We're in trouble here. Um, and so that's what they talked about to me and how they were going to do that from the inside, and I didn't think that much about it, went on with my life. But then again, 16 years later in 2008 from 92, when I remembered what they had talked about, like, one thing, uh, that is so clear how it had changed. They had said back in 92, we're gonna use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” I can’t transcribe it all due to X’s text limits but this is a CRAZY listen… This is the systematic takedown of America from the inside under the disguise of Climate Change

This Is One Of The Most Eye Opening Interviews You’ll Ever Hear. In 1992, A Real Communist Party USA Meeting Was Held In California At The University Of Berkeley. Many Of The Attendees Ended Up Working In The Barack Obama Administration Their Goal “Use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” 🚨 “Back in 1992, uh, an older friend of my father who was from Saint Louis asked me to go to this meeting that the Communist Party USA was having at the University of California Berkeley. And he had studied communism and written books about communism back in the sixties and stuff. And he was curious Because if you remember back in 1989, the Berlin Wall had come down, and everyone was saying communism is dead. It's over. Then in 91 in December, the Soviet Union dissolved. And so this is 6 months later, the summer of 92, and the Communist Party USA is having a meeting. So he asked me to go out to this meeting. He said, would you go out there and just see what they're talking about? Because we we won. This thing's over. And so I went to that. And for 3 days, I sat there in breakout sessions and lectures and and listened to these hardcore communists. And and one thing shocking about it too, I thought it'd be college radical since it was at Berkeley, so I dressed like a college radical with some radical t shirt on it. I walk into the autumn the auditorium, there's 14 or 1500, 50, 60, and 70 year olds with briefcases. And I thought, woah. This is actually serious. It's not just some radicals. And many of those exact people, as I researched them later, ended up being in Obama's cabinet in 2008. And that's what motivated me to make movie because I rise these are the people that were at this communist meeting with me back back in 1992. But at that meeting, they laid out this plan how they wanted to take America down from the inside. They were gonna focus all their energies on that now. They've been focusing on it for a while, but they realized they could never outspend America because capitalism, free enterprise is so successful. And they kind of that woke them up. Okay. We gotta go to plan b. They they just keep building more and more. And, of course, we had all the years of Reagan where he'd really built the military up, so they realized We're in trouble here. Um, and so that's what they talked about to me and how they were going to do that from the inside, and I didn't think that much about it, went on with my life. But then again, 16 years later in 2008 from 92, when I remembered what they had talked about, like, one thing, uh, that is so clear how it had changed. They had said back in 92, we're gonna use the environmental movement to take down the free enterprise system in America.” I can’t transcribe it all due to X’s text limits but this is a CRAZY listen… This is the systematic takedown of America from the inside under the disguise of Climate Change

Wall Street Apes

1,452,436 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

🚨🇩🇪 WHY THIS GERMAN ACTIVIST IS SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE U.S. - WITH SUPPORT FROM ELON & REP. LUNA was charged with a hate crime in Germany for criticizing illegal immigration. She was tracked by intelligence, got death threats by Antifa, and told by police they couldn’t protect her unless she was physically attacked. We discuss: • How Germany is raiding homes over tweets • Why satire and criticism are now treated as crimes • How AI is being used to scan social media for political dissent • Why even flying the German flag can get you investigated • And how she says America became her only safe option Naomi says voices like Elon Musk give her hope that free speech still has defenders. 01:02 🇧🇷 HOW IT BEGAN: She explains how joining Mario’s Spaces during Brazil’s election protests in 2022 sparked her rise as a journalist. 01:37 🇩🇪 THE ASYLUM DECISION: She details applying for asylum in the U.S. after discovering German intelligence spied on her for years. 03:40 🇩🇪 SURVEILLED SINCE 19: Her phone calls were intercepted by federal police, and documents confirm over 1,000 records of her name in German intelligence files. 05:35 🇩🇪 THE AFD LABEL: Mario recalls how Germany’s AfD party was branded “extremist,” giving intelligence agencies power to monitor anyone connected to it. 05:50 🇩🇪 WHY THEY TARGETED HER: She says it began when she opposed mass migration and questioned climate policies, earning the label “anti-Greta Thunberg.” 07:59 🇩🇪 BECOMING A TARGET: Speaking out for freedom at 18 made her one of Germany’s first young conservative voices against Merkel’s policies. 09:17 🇩🇪 CRIMINALIZING CRITICISM: She reveals how Germans now face charges under Article 188 for “insulting politicians,” even for posting emojis. 11:28 🇩🇪 NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Mario asks how democracy survives when citizens can’t criticize leaders without prosecution. 12:30 🇩🇪 HATE SPEECH ACTION DAYS: Police conduct nationwide raids against “offensive” social media posts to intimidate citizens into silence. 13:58 🇪🇺 FREEDOM COLLAPSE: She explains how Europe’s censorship is worse than ever while Americans still defend free speech. 14:35 🇺🇸 AMERICA VS EUROPE: In the U.S., patriotism unites both left and right, but in Germany, flying the national flag is seen as hate speech. 15:43 🇩🇪 PATRIOTISM AS A CRIME: She describes federal investigations into citizens who displayed German flags. 17:08 🇩🇪 LOGIC UNDER FIRE: Mario questions why defending national identity or legal immigration now triggers government surveillance. 17:45 🇩🇪 REPORTING ANTIFA: She tells how Antifa harassment forced her to call police, who confirmed the perpetrators but took no action. 18:53 🇩🇪 POLICE INACTION: Authorities refused to investigate her threats but charged her for criticizing illegal immigration. 19:51 🇺🇸 SUPPORT FROM THE U.S.: She credits Elon Musk and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna for encouraging her fight for free speech. 21:35 🇩🇪 CHARGED FOR A TWEET: She reveals a new letter from German police confirming she’s officially charged with a hate crime over one of her posts. 22:00 🇩🇪 SUPPORT NETWORK: She shares that Alice Weidel and others are coordinating with Luna to help persecuted German dissidents. 22:56 🇩🇪 CLOSING: Mario calls the story a warning to all democracies about how censorship spreads when people stay silent.

🚨🇩🇪 WHY THIS GERMAN ACTIVIST IS SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE U.S. - WITH SUPPORT FROM ELON & REP. LUNA was charged with a hate crime in Germany for criticizing illegal immigration. She was tracked by intelligence, got death threats by Antifa, and told by police they couldn’t protect her unless she was physically attacked. We discuss: • How Germany is raiding homes over tweets • Why satire and criticism are now treated as crimes • How AI is being used to scan social media for political dissent • Why even flying the German flag can get you investigated • And how she says America became her only safe option Naomi says voices like Elon Musk give her hope that free speech still has defenders. 01:02 🇧🇷 HOW IT BEGAN: She explains how joining Mario’s Spaces during Brazil’s election protests in 2022 sparked her rise as a journalist. 01:37 🇩🇪 THE ASYLUM DECISION: She details applying for asylum in the U.S. after discovering German intelligence spied on her for years. 03:40 🇩🇪 SURVEILLED SINCE 19: Her phone calls were intercepted by federal police, and documents confirm over 1,000 records of her name in German intelligence files. 05:35 🇩🇪 THE AFD LABEL: Mario recalls how Germany’s AfD party was branded “extremist,” giving intelligence agencies power to monitor anyone connected to it. 05:50 🇩🇪 WHY THEY TARGETED HER: She says it began when she opposed mass migration and questioned climate policies, earning the label “anti-Greta Thunberg.” 07:59 🇩🇪 BECOMING A TARGET: Speaking out for freedom at 18 made her one of Germany’s first young conservative voices against Merkel’s policies. 09:17 🇩🇪 CRIMINALIZING CRITICISM: She reveals how Germans now face charges under Article 188 for “insulting politicians,” even for posting emojis. 11:28 🇩🇪 NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Mario asks how democracy survives when citizens can’t criticize leaders without prosecution. 12:30 🇩🇪 HATE SPEECH ACTION DAYS: Police conduct nationwide raids against “offensive” social media posts to intimidate citizens into silence. 13:58 🇪🇺 FREEDOM COLLAPSE: She explains how Europe’s censorship is worse than ever while Americans still defend free speech. 14:35 🇺🇸 AMERICA VS EUROPE: In the U.S., patriotism unites both left and right, but in Germany, flying the national flag is seen as hate speech. 15:43 🇩🇪 PATRIOTISM AS A CRIME: She describes federal investigations into citizens who displayed German flags. 17:08 🇩🇪 LOGIC UNDER FIRE: Mario questions why defending national identity or legal immigration now triggers government surveillance. 17:45 🇩🇪 REPORTING ANTIFA: She tells how Antifa harassment forced her to call police, who confirmed the perpetrators but took no action. 18:53 🇩🇪 POLICE INACTION: Authorities refused to investigate her threats but charged her for criticizing illegal immigration. 19:51 🇺🇸 SUPPORT FROM THE U.S.: She credits Elon Musk and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna for encouraging her fight for free speech. 21:35 🇩🇪 CHARGED FOR A TWEET: She reveals a new letter from German police confirming she’s officially charged with a hate crime over one of her posts. 22:00 🇩🇪 SUPPORT NETWORK: She shares that Alice Weidel and others are coordinating with Luna to help persecuted German dissidents. 22:56 🇩🇪 CLOSING: Mario calls the story a warning to all democracies about how censorship spreads when people stay silent.

Mario Nawfal

975,574 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

THIS WAS ME SEVEN YEARS AGO Back then, like a lot of people just waking up, I thought the problem was simple: “It’s just Islam.” I was full of energy, starting my activism, calling for mass repatriation and thinking that if we could just deal with radical Islam, everything would be fine. Classic civic nationalism – proud of my country, focused on “values” and “integration,” still believing the system could be fixed if we won a few elections. Then I started reading. Really reading. Digging into crime statistics that nobody wanted to talk about, fertility rates, housing pressures, the endless anti-white propaganda in schools and media, the way lobbying groups and globalist NGOs actually shape policy… and yes, the role of organized Zionist influence in both parties and in foreign wars that have nothing to do with British (or European/American) interests. One red pill after another. What I realised wasn’t just that Islam is incompatible – it was that mass third-world immigration of any kind is demographic replacement, no matter how “moderate” the newcomers claim to be. That the political class, left and right, sold us out decades ago. That civic nationalism is a comforting halfway house – it feels radical when you first arrive, but it still leaves the door wide open for the same people who created the problem to keep running the show. I went from “stop the boats and ban the burqa” to understanding we need total remigration – a complete and unapologetic reversal of the post-war population transfer into our homelands. Full nationalism. Ethno-nationalism. Whatever the controlled media calls it to scare you – that’s where the truth is.If you’re a civic nationalist right now reading this and feeling that nagging doubt – “maybe we do need to go further” – trust that instinct. I was exactly where you are seven years ago. I thought the people calling for full remigration were “too extreme.” Turns out they were just seven years ahead. The journey is tough at first. You’ll lose some friends. Family might call you names. But on the other side is clarity, purpose, and the knowledge that you’re no longer compromising on the survival of your people. If I could make that leap, so can you. Start reading. Question everything you’ve been told about “diversity” and “tolerance.” Follow the patterns instead of the talking points. Your nation needs you – the real you, not the civic version. Take the next step. You won’t regret it.

THIS WAS ME SEVEN YEARS AGO Back then, like a lot of people just waking up, I thought the problem was simple: “It’s just Islam.” I was full of energy, starting my activism, calling for mass repatriation and thinking that if we could just deal with radical Islam, everything would be fine. Classic civic nationalism – proud of my country, focused on “values” and “integration,” still believing the system could be fixed if we won a few elections. Then I started reading. Really reading. Digging into crime statistics that nobody wanted to talk about, fertility rates, housing pressures, the endless anti-white propaganda in schools and media, the way lobbying groups and globalist NGOs actually shape policy… and yes, the role of organized Zionist influence in both parties and in foreign wars that have nothing to do with British (or European/American) interests. One red pill after another. What I realised wasn’t just that Islam is incompatible – it was that mass third-world immigration of any kind is demographic replacement, no matter how “moderate” the newcomers claim to be. That the political class, left and right, sold us out decades ago. That civic nationalism is a comforting halfway house – it feels radical when you first arrive, but it still leaves the door wide open for the same people who created the problem to keep running the show. I went from “stop the boats and ban the burqa” to understanding we need total remigration – a complete and unapologetic reversal of the post-war population transfer into our homelands. Full nationalism. Ethno-nationalism. Whatever the controlled media calls it to scare you – that’s where the truth is.If you’re a civic nationalist right now reading this and feeling that nagging doubt – “maybe we do need to go further” – trust that instinct. I was exactly where you are seven years ago. I thought the people calling for full remigration were “too extreme.” Turns out they were just seven years ahead. The journey is tough at first. You’ll lose some friends. Family might call you names. But on the other side is clarity, purpose, and the knowledge that you’re no longer compromising on the survival of your people. If I could make that leap, so can you. Start reading. Question everything you’ve been told about “diversity” and “tolerance.” Follow the patterns instead of the talking points. Your nation needs you – the real you, not the civic version. Take the next step. You won’t regret it.

James Goddard

52,275 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Darwin to Jesus

57,850 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

My dear brother, when you say Zimbabweans must confront the ZANUPF regime, you speak as if we are not confronting it. We have been confronting it for years, consistently, persistently, and at great personal cost. For your own information, I have been jailed three times by President Emmerson Mnangagwa for confronting the ZANUPF regime’s corrupt rule using my pen, exposing massive looting of public funds and high-level corruption. The first time I was jailed, along with many others who had dared to speak out, I was imprisoned for a crime I did not commit. My real offence, though never written in the charge sheet, was that I had exposed senior government officials, including the president himself, as being involved in the looting of public resources meant to save lives. The second time, I was jailed for exposing that the president’s niece was going to be granted bail unopposed after she had been caught attempting to leave Robert Mugabe International Airport for Dubai with six kilograms of gold, smuggled illegally. My crime was exposing the systematic corruption meant to protect corrupt elites. The third time, I was jailed for something I did not even do, using a criminal charge that in substance did not exist, a legal instrument weaponised not to uphold justice but to silence scrutiny. I was charged using a law that didn’t exist. So when you say Zimbabweans must confront this regime, it creates the false impression that Zimbabweans are passive in the face of repression. We are not. We are confronting it every day, in courtrooms, in newsrooms, in exile, and sadly, sometimes that confrontation is leading people to their early graves. It is like telling South Africans during apartheid that they must confront the apartheid regime. It would have been an insult, because South Africans were confronting it internally and externally, through protest, underground movements, international advocacy, and armed struggle. The same is happening in Zimbabwe today. Some of our leaders, like Job Sikhala, have been imprisoned for extended periods, in his case two years, for crimes they did not commit, jailed simply for demanding constitutionalism, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights. We are fighting, my brother. And this fight is not confined to those opposed to ZANUPF alone. Even some within ZANUPF recognise the constitutional decay and are quietly or openly resisting it. This is not a sectarian contest between parties. It is a national struggle about the soul of the state. And beyond that, it is a regional issue in Southern Africa and a continental governance question, one that manifests through illegal immigration in South Africa and beyond. When Zimbabwe is governed the way it is under the current ZANUPF government, the consequences do not stop at Beitbridge. They spill into South Africa’s labour markets, its public services, its migration systems, and even its economic indicators. The contagion effect touches credit perceptions, undermines investment confidence, fuels crime, and ultimately destabilises regional stability. So do not mistake endurance for inaction. Zimbabweans are confronting this regime, and many are paying for that confrontation with their freedom, their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives.

My dear brother, when you say Zimbabweans must confront the ZANUPF regime, you speak as if we are not confronting it. We have been confronting it for years, consistently, persistently, and at great personal cost. For your own information, I have been jailed three times by President Emmerson Mnangagwa for confronting the ZANUPF regime’s corrupt rule using my pen, exposing massive looting of public funds and high-level corruption. The first time I was jailed, along with many others who had dared to speak out, I was imprisoned for a crime I did not commit. My real offence, though never written in the charge sheet, was that I had exposed senior government officials, including the president himself, as being involved in the looting of public resources meant to save lives. The second time, I was jailed for exposing that the president’s niece was going to be granted bail unopposed after she had been caught attempting to leave Robert Mugabe International Airport for Dubai with six kilograms of gold, smuggled illegally. My crime was exposing the systematic corruption meant to protect corrupt elites. The third time, I was jailed for something I did not even do, using a criminal charge that in substance did not exist, a legal instrument weaponised not to uphold justice but to silence scrutiny. I was charged using a law that didn’t exist. So when you say Zimbabweans must confront this regime, it creates the false impression that Zimbabweans are passive in the face of repression. We are not. We are confronting it every day, in courtrooms, in newsrooms, in exile, and sadly, sometimes that confrontation is leading people to their early graves. It is like telling South Africans during apartheid that they must confront the apartheid regime. It would have been an insult, because South Africans were confronting it internally and externally, through protest, underground movements, international advocacy, and armed struggle. The same is happening in Zimbabwe today. Some of our leaders, like Job Sikhala, have been imprisoned for extended periods, in his case two years, for crimes they did not commit, jailed simply for demanding constitutionalism, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights. We are fighting, my brother. And this fight is not confined to those opposed to ZANUPF alone. Even some within ZANUPF recognise the constitutional decay and are quietly or openly resisting it. This is not a sectarian contest between parties. It is a national struggle about the soul of the state. And beyond that, it is a regional issue in Southern Africa and a continental governance question, one that manifests through illegal immigration in South Africa and beyond. When Zimbabwe is governed the way it is under the current ZANUPF government, the consequences do not stop at Beitbridge. They spill into South Africa’s labour markets, its public services, its migration systems, and even its economic indicators. The contagion effect touches credit perceptions, undermines investment confidence, fuels crime, and ultimately destabilises regional stability. So do not mistake endurance for inaction. Zimbabweans are confronting this regime, and many are paying for that confrontation with their freedom, their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives.

Hopewell Chin’ono

92,737 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

I have seen many of my followers on social media asking why Ghana and Nigeria have been vocal about the xenophobic and Afrophobic attacks against Africans living in South Africa, while Zimbabwe and Mozambique have remained largely silent. The answer, in my view, lies in politics. For years, the South African government and, in particular, the African National Congress (ANC), have consistently defended ZANUPF in Zimbabwe and FRELIMO in Mozambique. They have defended disputed and rigged elections, stood by those governments during periods of political repression, and maintained close political relationships despite repeated allegations of corruption, human rights abuses and democratic backsliding. A good example is 2008, when then South African President Thabo Mbeki insisted there was “no crisis” in Zimbabwe, despite widespread political violence and hundreds of Zimbabweans being butchered following the disputed election in which Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC had outpolled ZANUPF in the first round. South Africa’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” was widely criticised for shielding the Zimbabwean government from stronger regional pressure. Against that background, it is difficult to expect Harare or Maputo to publicly confront the ANC-led government over the treatment of their citizens in South Africa. The political relationships between those governing parties are deep and longstanding. Criticising Pretoria would inevitably strain alliances that have existed for decades and bring to the fore the root causes of illegal immigration in South Africa. Ghana and Nigeria occupy a different political position. They do not depend on the ANC for political legitimacy or regional backing in the same way. Both countries have experienced regular transfers of power through competitive elections, and neither government relies on South Africa to validate its democratic credentials. As a result, Accra and Abuja have greater political space to speak out when they believe their citizens are being mistreated abroad. That difference helps explain why the strongest official reactions have come from Ghana and Nigeria, while Harare and Maputo have been far more restrained. There is also another important reality. The overwhelming majority of migrants from elsewhere in Africa living in South Africa come from neighbouring countries, particularly Zimbabwe and Mozambique. That geographical reality means those two countries are central to any discussion about migration into South Africa. Their governments know this, which makes their diplomatic position even more complicated. As I have argued before, South Africa’s immigration challenges are genuine and deserve serious policy solutions. However, genuine domestic problems can also be exploited by external actors seeking to deepen divisions or damage South Africa’s international standing as Israel is now doing. Recognising that possibility does not mean denying that the underlying challenges are real. It means understanding that geopolitical actors often exploit existing fault lines rather than creating them from scratch. Whether one agrees with my analysis or not, I hope this explains why the official responses from Accra and Abuja have been much louder than those from Harare and Maputo. Back home in Southern Africa, Botswana has also been very vocal against xenophobia and Afrophobia. Its President has publicly condemned attacks on African nationals living in South Africa. The ruling party in Botswana even invited South African opposition leader Julius Malema, who has consistently spoken out against Afrophobia and the targeting of fellow Africans, to address its annual conference this past week. Botswana is able to do this because it is a functioning democracy. Unlike Zimbabwe and Mozambique, it has never depended on South Africa or the African National Congress (ANC) for political backing after disputed or rigged elections, allegations of electoral manipulation or the repression of its own citizens. It therefore has far greater diplomatic freedom to criticise South Africa when it believes fellow Africans are being mistreated. That is why Botswana, like Ghana and Nigeria, has been prepared to speak out against what it perceives as black-on-black violence directed at African migrants. By contrast, the governments in Harare and Maputo have remained largely silent, reflecting the long-standing political relationships between their ruling parties and the ANC, which publicly backs rigged elections. None of this requires a rocket scientist to understand. It simply requires an appreciation of how regional politics, diplomatic alliances and political interests shape the public positions that governments take. Those who are prepared to look beyond the headlines and understand the underlying dynamics will appreciate the point. Those who focus only on the symptoms, while ignoring the political relationships and incentives that produce them, will continue to wander aimlessly through the political wilderness.

I have seen many of my followers on social media asking why Ghana and Nigeria have been vocal about the xenophobic and Afrophobic attacks against Africans living in South Africa, while Zimbabwe and Mozambique have remained largely silent. The answer, in my view, lies in politics. For years, the South African government and, in particular, the African National Congress (ANC), have consistently defended ZANUPF in Zimbabwe and FRELIMO in Mozambique. They have defended disputed and rigged elections, stood by those governments during periods of political repression, and maintained close political relationships despite repeated allegations of corruption, human rights abuses and democratic backsliding. A good example is 2008, when then South African President Thabo Mbeki insisted there was “no crisis” in Zimbabwe, despite widespread political violence and hundreds of Zimbabweans being butchered following the disputed election in which Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC had outpolled ZANUPF in the first round. South Africa’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” was widely criticised for shielding the Zimbabwean government from stronger regional pressure. Against that background, it is difficult to expect Harare or Maputo to publicly confront the ANC-led government over the treatment of their citizens in South Africa. The political relationships between those governing parties are deep and longstanding. Criticising Pretoria would inevitably strain alliances that have existed for decades and bring to the fore the root causes of illegal immigration in South Africa. Ghana and Nigeria occupy a different political position. They do not depend on the ANC for political legitimacy or regional backing in the same way. Both countries have experienced regular transfers of power through competitive elections, and neither government relies on South Africa to validate its democratic credentials. As a result, Accra and Abuja have greater political space to speak out when they believe their citizens are being mistreated abroad. That difference helps explain why the strongest official reactions have come from Ghana and Nigeria, while Harare and Maputo have been far more restrained. There is also another important reality. The overwhelming majority of migrants from elsewhere in Africa living in South Africa come from neighbouring countries, particularly Zimbabwe and Mozambique. That geographical reality means those two countries are central to any discussion about migration into South Africa. Their governments know this, which makes their diplomatic position even more complicated. As I have argued before, South Africa’s immigration challenges are genuine and deserve serious policy solutions. However, genuine domestic problems can also be exploited by external actors seeking to deepen divisions or damage South Africa’s international standing as Israel is now doing. Recognising that possibility does not mean denying that the underlying challenges are real. It means understanding that geopolitical actors often exploit existing fault lines rather than creating them from scratch. Whether one agrees with my analysis or not, I hope this explains why the official responses from Accra and Abuja have been much louder than those from Harare and Maputo. Back home in Southern Africa, Botswana has also been very vocal against xenophobia and Afrophobia. Its President has publicly condemned attacks on African nationals living in South Africa. The ruling party in Botswana even invited South African opposition leader Julius Malema, who has consistently spoken out against Afrophobia and the targeting of fellow Africans, to address its annual conference this past week. Botswana is able to do this because it is a functioning democracy. Unlike Zimbabwe and Mozambique, it has never depended on South Africa or the African National Congress (ANC) for political backing after disputed or rigged elections, allegations of electoral manipulation or the repression of its own citizens. It therefore has far greater diplomatic freedom to criticise South Africa when it believes fellow Africans are being mistreated. That is why Botswana, like Ghana and Nigeria, has been prepared to speak out against what it perceives as black-on-black violence directed at African migrants. By contrast, the governments in Harare and Maputo have remained largely silent, reflecting the long-standing political relationships between their ruling parties and the ANC, which publicly backs rigged elections. None of this requires a rocket scientist to understand. It simply requires an appreciation of how regional politics, diplomatic alliances and political interests shape the public positions that governments take. Those who are prepared to look beyond the headlines and understand the underlying dynamics will appreciate the point. Those who focus only on the symptoms, while ignoring the political relationships and incentives that produce them, will continue to wander aimlessly through the political wilderness.

Hopewell Chin’ono

93,783 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce