Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

This is important information “What is multiculturalism and why should you hate it” “Prior to 1965, the United States operated under a national origins quota system that prioritized immigration from Europe. The explicit purpose of the system was to preserve America's Western cultural inheritance and its historically Christian character....

WallStreetApes's profile picture

Wall Street Apes

1,337,665 subscribers

42,710 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

KomediHaberler & PolitikaEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Okay, this is important information Our immigration system was completely changed by one piece of legislation you’ve never heard of The Hart–Celler Immigration Act Before this, over 80% of immigration came from European or Western countries, since this act, that dropped to 15% It opened the flood gates “They didn’t invade with Pew Pews (guns), they rewrote the law. In 1965, one piece of legislation flipped America's future and most people have never heard of it. The Hart Cellar Immigration Act. Signed in by LBJ, this ended the national origins quota system, the one that had favored immigration from European, Western and culturally similar nations. At the time, politicians like Ted Kennedy promised that this wouldn't the American demographic, but they either lied or they knew exactly what was going to happen. Before 1965, over 80% of immigration came from European or Western countries. Since the Hart Cellar act, that number has dropped to below 15%. Instead, immigration exploded from countries with radically different cultural values and the long term effect permanent shift in the voting base, social policies and national identity. Just to clear this wasn't about diversity, this was about power.”
1:07

Okay, this is important information Our immigration system was completely changed by one piece of legislation you’ve never heard of The Hart–Celler Immigration Act Before this, over 80% of immigration came from European or Western countries, since this act, that dropped to 15% It opened the flood gates “They didn’t invade with Pew Pews (guns), they rewrote the law. In 1965, one piece of legislation flipped America's future and most people have never heard of it. The Hart Cellar Immigration Act. Signed in by LBJ, this ended the national origins quota system, the one that had favored immigration from European, Western and culturally similar nations. At the time, politicians like Ted Kennedy promised that this wouldn't the American demographic, but they either lied or they knew exactly what was going to happen. Before 1965, over 80% of immigration came from European or Western countries. Since the Hart Cellar act, that number has dropped to below 15%. Instead, immigration exploded from countries with radically different cultural values and the long term effect permanent shift in the voting base, social policies and national identity. Just to clear this wasn't about diversity, this was about power.”

Wall Street Apes

237,235 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

1/ IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION? Charlie Kirk was once challenged on the Christian foundations of America, and delivered this classic unrehearsed riff. There's actually lots more to be said on this topic, but for now I'll just add 4 things to what he said. Read this and watch the video: 1. Upon our founding, it was actually 12/13 states that required a Christian religious test for office, and 9/13 states that had state-backed Christian religions funded by taxes. 2. The American concept of "government of, by and for the people" & our particular version of self-government is the literal and direct outgrowth of the Protestant concept of the priesthood of all believers that our Protestant congregations throughout the 13 Colonies practiced from the very beginning of their settlements in America. 3. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution and Bill of Rights did not create this Nation. PEOPLE constituted and created this Nation, and devised systems & documents to govern their Nation. The PEOPLE came first, not the documents. The NATION arose first, not the government. 4. To truly understand the purpose of the First Amendment, you have to remember that fights and quarrels over religion in the Old World led to centuries of war. You also need to understand that the inter-ethnic European rivalries also led to endless wars. Europe fought over race and religion for 2500 years. Maybe more. The First Congress of 1790 solved both of these problems in nearly identical ways: 1. The Naturalization Act of 1790 made all White people citizens, thereby making all White ethnicities EQUAL. Anglo Saxons weren't superior to Germans weren't superior to Frenchmen, weren't superior to Scandinavians, etc etc etc, (at least not in the eyes of the government or law. Lol). All White people were thus placed onto EQUAL footing. This eliminated the long-time European need & urge to fight wars over ethnic rivalries. 2. The First Amendment, proposed in 1790 & ratified in 1791, made all Christian denominations EQUAL. Lutherans weren't superior to Presbyterians weren't superior to Congregationalists weren't superior to Quakers, weren't superior to Anglicans, etc etc etc. In fact, 11/14 states had official religious tests for public office, requiring a variety of Christian denominations. A few states still had official Christian religions funded by state taxes. Not only did the 1st Amendment preserve the freedoms of worship and conscience—two of the biggest reasons Europeans came to America in the first place—but it eliminated the long-time European need & urge to fight wars over religious differences. And just to really drive the point home for the haters & the ignorant: obviously, the 11 states that had Christian religious tests for office when they passed & ratified the First Amendment didn't do so in order to negate or abrogate their state-sponsored religions or religious tests—quite the opposite: they did it so that they could KEEP their unique state-backed Christian religions & Christian religious tests without being overruled by the federal government or brought into conflict with their fellow states. DUH. ******* When John Adams said our Constitution was meant only for a moral & religious people, he wasn't speaking abstractly about morality or religion in general, he was specifically referring to Christian morality and the Christian religion. The fact is, America is Christian from the ground up. From the beginning, it grew up around the Christian churches. It was built by Christians. And it was Christians who conceived, conceptualized and created our forms of government and institutions. You can say the same about our White European heritage genetics and culture. America is White. America is Christian. They are inseparably connected and indisputably fundamental to this nation & our founding. And the First Congress recognized both of these vital factors. That is why even in 1965, when Congress decided to overthrow the White Christian order (by passing the new Immigration Act against the will of the American people), America was still about 89% White and 93% Christian. Because America placed all European ethnicities and Christian denominations onto equal footing, our broad European racial & cultural similarities along with our common general Christian beliefs UNITED us here, rather than DIVIDING us as they had in Europe—which was itself a Christian realm, or "Christendom." IOW, America became the real European Union—largely because of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the First Amendment (1790-91). America was never meant to be non-White or Non-Christian, and to believe otherwise is just ignorant and absurd. Now, watch Charlie. Sources in next tweet.
5:34

1/ IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION? Charlie Kirk was once challenged on the Christian foundations of America, and delivered this classic unrehearsed riff. There's actually lots more to be said on this topic, but for now I'll just add 4 things to what he said. Read this and watch the video: 1. Upon our founding, it was actually 12/13 states that required a Christian religious test for office, and 9/13 states that had state-backed Christian religions funded by taxes. 2. The American concept of "government of, by and for the people" & our particular version of self-government is the literal and direct outgrowth of the Protestant concept of the priesthood of all believers that our Protestant congregations throughout the 13 Colonies practiced from the very beginning of their settlements in America. 3. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution and Bill of Rights did not create this Nation. PEOPLE constituted and created this Nation, and devised systems & documents to govern their Nation. The PEOPLE came first, not the documents. The NATION arose first, not the government. 4. To truly understand the purpose of the First Amendment, you have to remember that fights and quarrels over religion in the Old World led to centuries of war. You also need to understand that the inter-ethnic European rivalries also led to endless wars. Europe fought over race and religion for 2500 years. Maybe more. The First Congress of 1790 solved both of these problems in nearly identical ways: 1. The Naturalization Act of 1790 made all White people citizens, thereby making all White ethnicities EQUAL. Anglo Saxons weren't superior to Germans weren't superior to Frenchmen, weren't superior to Scandinavians, etc etc etc, (at least not in the eyes of the government or law. Lol). All White people were thus placed onto EQUAL footing. This eliminated the long-time European need & urge to fight wars over ethnic rivalries. 2. The First Amendment, proposed in 1790 & ratified in 1791, made all Christian denominations EQUAL. Lutherans weren't superior to Presbyterians weren't superior to Congregationalists weren't superior to Quakers, weren't superior to Anglicans, etc etc etc. In fact, 11/14 states had official religious tests for public office, requiring a variety of Christian denominations. A few states still had official Christian religions funded by state taxes. Not only did the 1st Amendment preserve the freedoms of worship and conscience—two of the biggest reasons Europeans came to America in the first place—but it eliminated the long-time European need & urge to fight wars over religious differences. And just to really drive the point home for the haters & the ignorant: obviously, the 11 states that had Christian religious tests for office when they passed & ratified the First Amendment didn't do so in order to negate or abrogate their state-sponsored religions or religious tests—quite the opposite: they did it so that they could KEEP their unique state-backed Christian religions & Christian religious tests without being overruled by the federal government or brought into conflict with their fellow states. DUH. ******* When John Adams said our Constitution was meant only for a moral & religious people, he wasn't speaking abstractly about morality or religion in general, he was specifically referring to Christian morality and the Christian religion. The fact is, America is Christian from the ground up. From the beginning, it grew up around the Christian churches. It was built by Christians. And it was Christians who conceived, conceptualized and created our forms of government and institutions. You can say the same about our White European heritage genetics and culture. America is White. America is Christian. They are inseparably connected and indisputably fundamental to this nation & our founding. And the First Congress recognized both of these vital factors. That is why even in 1965, when Congress decided to overthrow the White Christian order (by passing the new Immigration Act against the will of the American people), America was still about 89% White and 93% Christian. Because America placed all European ethnicities and Christian denominations onto equal footing, our broad European racial & cultural similarities along with our common general Christian beliefs UNITED us here, rather than DIVIDING us as they had in Europe—which was itself a Christian realm, or "Christendom." IOW, America became the real European Union—largely because of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the First Amendment (1790-91). America was never meant to be non-White or Non-Christian, and to believe otherwise is just ignorant and absurd. Now, watch Charlie. Sources in next tweet.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

25,168 görüntüleme • 19 gün önce

🇫🇷 Marine Le Pen: "we want to leave this Europe because it is not Europe. But, friends, Europe is not the European Union! Europe is us and it is time to put our house in order. Take power in France and Europe and give it back to the people! Our Europe is fraternal, alive, confident and in love with the future. We want to build not an anonymous European Union, but a union of European nations, a union of histories and destinies, respecting nations, cultures and identities in its own thousand-year history. Europe drew its strength not from a bureaucratic factory, but from the genius and energy of each of these nations and the uniqueness of these countries. Europe was strong only because these nations were free, Europe was great only because these nations were enterprising, Europe shone only because these nations moved forward. Today, when the whole world, the United States, China, Russia and the BRICS are questioning the power of Europe, Europe can only regain its place by the return of the nations that make it up."
1:33

🇫🇷 Marine Le Pen: "we want to leave this Europe because it is not Europe. But, friends, Europe is not the European Union! Europe is us and it is time to put our house in order. Take power in France and Europe and give it back to the people! Our Europe is fraternal, alive, confident and in love with the future. We want to build not an anonymous European Union, but a union of European nations, a union of histories and destinies, respecting nations, cultures and identities in its own thousand-year history. Europe drew its strength not from a bureaucratic factory, but from the genius and energy of each of these nations and the uniqueness of these countries. Europe was strong only because these nations were free, Europe was great only because these nations were enterprising, Europe shone only because these nations moved forward. Today, when the whole world, the United States, China, Russia and the BRICS are questioning the power of Europe, Europe can only regain its place by the return of the nations that make it up."

🌐geopolitics in the picture

115,302 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The Alternative for Germany (AfD)'s core platform makes it the strongest populist party the European race has in the West, advocating a völkisch cultural nationalism way beyond civic nationalism. It distinctly says German identity is rooted in shared blood, history, and Christian customs, not mere liberal values. While it endorses formal equality under the German constitution, it advocates strict immigration controls, and explicitly rejects multiculturalism and diversity as incompatible with German identity. The AfD is a cultural nationalist party -- avoiding a race nationalism that would have kept it forever on the margins --- emphasizing ancestry or heritage, history, religion, language, and customs as defining a "nation state for the German people". The AfD can only go so far operating in a totally liberal EU setting. Its rejection (in principle) of discrimination based on race or religion is nevertheless qualified by its opposition to "special rights" for minorities. While it cannot but acknowledge that "many Muslims live as law-abiding and well-integrated citizens", it insists upon adherence to German norms, with deportation for non-integration or criminality. The AfD dismisses multiculturalism as a "failed" ideology that fosters "parallel societies" and erodes indigenous German values. It states that mass immigration threatens "social peace and the survival of the nation state as a cultural unit". It calls for a "paradigm shift" to end "irregular immigration via asylum laws," close EU external borders, and repatriation of rejected asylum seekers and foreign criminals. All in all, the AfD's platform is Cultural Nationalist in its call for the preservation and dominance of "German" identity over civic or liberal Western values. It states that "Islam does not belong to Germany." It calls for banning minarets, foreign mosque financing, and full-body veiling; abolishing theological chairs for Islam, and denying public status or tax benefits to Islamic organizations. Very significantly, it counters "guilt cult" narratives, promoting pride in German ancestry and traditions. It wants to "free arts and culture from political influence" to safeguard indigenous customs.
0:42

The Alternative for Germany (AfD)'s core platform makes it the strongest populist party the European race has in the West, advocating a völkisch cultural nationalism way beyond civic nationalism. It distinctly says German identity is rooted in shared blood, history, and Christian customs, not mere liberal values. While it endorses formal equality under the German constitution, it advocates strict immigration controls, and explicitly rejects multiculturalism and diversity as incompatible with German identity. The AfD is a cultural nationalist party -- avoiding a race nationalism that would have kept it forever on the margins --- emphasizing ancestry or heritage, history, religion, language, and customs as defining a "nation state for the German people". The AfD can only go so far operating in a totally liberal EU setting. Its rejection (in principle) of discrimination based on race or religion is nevertheless qualified by its opposition to "special rights" for minorities. While it cannot but acknowledge that "many Muslims live as law-abiding and well-integrated citizens", it insists upon adherence to German norms, with deportation for non-integration or criminality. The AfD dismisses multiculturalism as a "failed" ideology that fosters "parallel societies" and erodes indigenous German values. It states that mass immigration threatens "social peace and the survival of the nation state as a cultural unit". It calls for a "paradigm shift" to end "irregular immigration via asylum laws," close EU external borders, and repatriation of rejected asylum seekers and foreign criminals. All in all, the AfD's platform is Cultural Nationalist in its call for the preservation and dominance of "German" identity over civic or liberal Western values. It states that "Islam does not belong to Germany." It calls for banning minarets, foreign mosque financing, and full-body veiling; abolishing theological chairs for Islam, and denying public status or tax benefits to Islamic organizations. Very significantly, it counters "guilt cult" narratives, promoting pride in German ancestry and traditions. It wants to "free arts and culture from political influence" to safeguard indigenous customs.

Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

28,432 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Quebec’s immigration minister Jean-François Roberge announced last week a new legal framework that will for the first time officially promote the integration of immigrants in Quebec society and culture, in direct opposition to the failed and divisive Canadian model of multiculturalism. Quebec recognizes diversity and the influence of immigrants on our culture, but doesn’t want them to stay in ethnic ghettos, separated from the rest of society. I wholeheartedly support this plan, which is similar to what the PPC proposes for all of Canada, and should be emulated by other provinces. Canadian identity is NOT anything and everything, as the multiculturalist ideology defines it, which is the same as saying it’s nothing. Canada is a very big and diverse country that has some common national cultural traits, but also many distinct regional cultures based on our founding peoples that developed over centuries, only exist in our part of the world, and are worth preserving. It is these that define what Canada is. And if we want Canada to survive as a country with its own identity, we must tell immigrants to integrate in these cultures — or go back to their country of origin if they prefer to live in that foreign culture.
2:17

Quebec’s immigration minister Jean-François Roberge announced last week a new legal framework that will for the first time officially promote the integration of immigrants in Quebec society and culture, in direct opposition to the failed and divisive Canadian model of multiculturalism. Quebec recognizes diversity and the influence of immigrants on our culture, but doesn’t want them to stay in ethnic ghettos, separated from the rest of society. I wholeheartedly support this plan, which is similar to what the PPC proposes for all of Canada, and should be emulated by other provinces. Canadian identity is NOT anything and everything, as the multiculturalist ideology defines it, which is the same as saying it’s nothing. Canada is a very big and diverse country that has some common national cultural traits, but also many distinct regional cultures based on our founding peoples that developed over centuries, only exist in our part of the world, and are worth preserving. It is these that define what Canada is. And if we want Canada to survive as a country with its own identity, we must tell immigrants to integrate in these cultures — or go back to their country of origin if they prefer to live in that foreign culture.

Maxime Bernier

56,293 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Within our circles, the question of National Socialism has long been a point of tension, whether it should be discussed at all or buried as an inconvenient past. For years, I leaned toward silence. But the more one reflects with honesty, the clearer the truth becomes: to reject our own history, to sever ourselves from the men who saw with clarity and acted with courage, is not moderation, but denial. National Socialism, whatever its flaws, was not a foreign aberration. It was an authentic manifestation of the European will—perhaps the most intense and vital in modern times—to endure, to rise, and to reclaim its destiny. A White Nationalism that disavows its inheritance is a husk. It severs itself from blood, from memory, and from the legitimacy that springs from struggle. In doing so, it becomes indistinct from the very order it was meant to overthrow.
0:27

Within our circles, the question of National Socialism has long been a point of tension, whether it should be discussed at all or buried as an inconvenient past. For years, I leaned toward silence. But the more one reflects with honesty, the clearer the truth becomes: to reject our own history, to sever ourselves from the men who saw with clarity and acted with courage, is not moderation, but denial. National Socialism, whatever its flaws, was not a foreign aberration. It was an authentic manifestation of the European will—perhaps the most intense and vital in modern times—to endure, to rise, and to reclaim its destiny. A White Nationalism that disavows its inheritance is a husk. It severs itself from blood, from memory, and from the legitimacy that springs from struggle. In doing so, it becomes indistinct from the very order it was meant to overthrow.

Chad Crowley

35,542 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🧵Thread🧵1/9🧵 🚩 National Socialism Explained🚩 ▪️How did an unemployed, homeless painter become the most popular leader on the planet? ▪️Why are we not taught about this system? ▪️Why is it not an option? ▪️”National Socialism was a world view which sought to combine and preserve the racial-ethnic-cultural-spiritual-linguistic solidarity amongst the German people as a unified nation which is intimately bound to it’s own soil.” ▪️”National Socialism was Christian in nature and to its core, based upon principles of ‘Positive Christianity’ with a focus on the family and upon community morals, values, ethics, and standards, through true essentially ‘brotherly love in action and deeds’, not just philosophy, and also not in the spirit of liberal ‘egalitarianism’ and ‘internationalism’ or Communist universalism.” ▪️”It was about recreating a Germany for Germans, which put them and their needs above all else, with Germans in control, and with each committed to this, for their own interests, and their collective benefit.” 🧵2 ⬇️
6:42

🧵Thread🧵1/9🧵 🚩 National Socialism Explained🚩 ▪️How did an unemployed, homeless painter become the most popular leader on the planet? ▪️Why are we not taught about this system? ▪️Why is it not an option? ▪️”National Socialism was a world view which sought to combine and preserve the racial-ethnic-cultural-spiritual-linguistic solidarity amongst the German people as a unified nation which is intimately bound to it’s own soil.” ▪️”National Socialism was Christian in nature and to its core, based upon principles of ‘Positive Christianity’ with a focus on the family and upon community morals, values, ethics, and standards, through true essentially ‘brotherly love in action and deeds’, not just philosophy, and also not in the spirit of liberal ‘egalitarianism’ and ‘internationalism’ or Communist universalism.” ▪️”It was about recreating a Germany for Germans, which put them and their needs above all else, with Germans in control, and with each committed to this, for their own interests, and their collective benefit.” 🧵2 ⬇️

Truth Troll Official™️

184,428 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Britain has faced hardship before. Today's crisis is fundamentally different In the 1940s/50s & 70s, Britain was culturally intact & homogenous, it could rebound economically with no lasting effect Today's crisis isn't just economic, it's cultural, social, demographic & institutional There may have been class conflict and left right conflict in the past, but everyone was bound together by their shared British culture, heritage and identity. We had social cohesion. People generally had the same values and attitudes. They had a similar perspective on the world and about Britain. They had a shared sense of humour, watched the same TV shows, listened to the same music, were united around the same sports and national and royal events. Thanks to a quarter of a century of mass immigration and the indoctrination of our youth (the most radically left-wing youth in history) that is no longer true to anything like the same degree. So how do we recover? In 1979, Britain's economic decline was halted by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph. They unleashed an economic revolution that fundamentally reshaped the nation. And, with some casualties, it worked. What we need today is another revolutionary figure who can not only deal with the economy but completely reverse our cultural, social and institutional decline. Finding someone who can shake Britain out of its deep malaise on all those fronts is a far greater challenge. Me on Talk with Kevin O'Sullivan:
1:48

Britain has faced hardship before. Today's crisis is fundamentally different In the 1940s/50s & 70s, Britain was culturally intact & homogenous, it could rebound economically with no lasting effect Today's crisis isn't just economic, it's cultural, social, demographic & institutional There may have been class conflict and left right conflict in the past, but everyone was bound together by their shared British culture, heritage and identity. We had social cohesion. People generally had the same values and attitudes. They had a similar perspective on the world and about Britain. They had a shared sense of humour, watched the same TV shows, listened to the same music, were united around the same sports and national and royal events. Thanks to a quarter of a century of mass immigration and the indoctrination of our youth (the most radically left-wing youth in history) that is no longer true to anything like the same degree. So how do we recover? In 1979, Britain's economic decline was halted by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph. They unleashed an economic revolution that fundamentally reshaped the nation. And, with some casualties, it worked. What we need today is another revolutionary figure who can not only deal with the economy but completely reverse our cultural, social and institutional decline. Finding someone who can shake Britain out of its deep malaise on all those fronts is a far greater challenge. Me on Talk with Kevin O'Sullivan:

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

26,979 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

FOR ALL AMERICAN DESIS OUT THERE. AMERICA IS A "CHRISTIAN NATION". IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SECULAR BUT IT IS CHRISTIAN IN SENSIBILITY. Usha Vance has admirably pushed back. But JD Vance's political constituency contains elements that expect assimilation into the dominant cultural mainstream and, in some cases, may even hope for religious conversion. Despite being home to countless immigrants from different faiths, America wears its Christian stripes on its sleeve. The "Holidays" (Christmas break) remain the most anticipated time on the national calendar underlining America's Christian civilizational heritage. Immigrants like Usha Vance are expected to assimilate. To be fair, assimilation is not always about religion. But in today's America, and increasingly in parts of Europe more and more people are comfortable with multi-racial societies and far less with multicultural ones. Usha Vance can look different but must identify with the dominant cultural framework. JD Vance will have to walk the tight rope.
0:26

FOR ALL AMERICAN DESIS OUT THERE. AMERICA IS A "CHRISTIAN NATION". IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SECULAR BUT IT IS CHRISTIAN IN SENSIBILITY. Usha Vance has admirably pushed back. But JD Vance's political constituency contains elements that expect assimilation into the dominant cultural mainstream and, in some cases, may even hope for religious conversion. Despite being home to countless immigrants from different faiths, America wears its Christian stripes on its sleeve. The "Holidays" (Christmas break) remain the most anticipated time on the national calendar underlining America's Christian civilizational heritage. Immigrants like Usha Vance are expected to assimilate. To be fair, assimilation is not always about religion. But in today's America, and increasingly in parts of Europe more and more people are comfortable with multi-racial societies and far less with multicultural ones. Usha Vance can look different but must identify with the dominant cultural framework. JD Vance will have to walk the tight rope.

Rahul Shivshankar

75,449 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

Ronald Reagan is the prototypical hero to conservative Americans. But what if he was actually the villain? Reagan sold two critical falsehoods to Americans that rewrote our cultural identity & our literal DNA. He transformed how we see & think about ourselves. And this transformation enabled & facilitated the destruction of our nation through the destruction of our demographics. Whether it was intentional or simply misguided, I'll let you decide. The 2 Falsehoods: 1. That anyone from anywhere can come be an American. I debunked that in the thread quoted below. 2. That American freedom isn't inherited or passed on in the bloodstream to our kids. Let's unpack this one. What do we mean when we talk of "Freedom" in the American context? What did Reagan mean? He told us: it's the unique idea of liberty conceived by our Founders for the first time in history. He says we have to maintain it, fight for it, and teach the next generation about it. What this means is that he's referring not just to some abstract idea our Founders conceived, but also the system and its trappings that they constructed to foster, promote & preserve their conception. We call this the "American System." But as Reagan states in this video, this system, its ideas, this "Freedom"--it's all the product of a specific set of men, of a defined people. What people? Briefly, White, Christian Europeans--mostly Western & Northern European Protestants--forged by, and sifted through, the harsh exigencies of the untamed American wilderness. They were also seasoned by their common interests in having the liberty to worship God & live their lives how they saw fit, without tyrannical interference from authoritarians. These people, these Founders, were the seed population of America. Their descendants, and people like them who immigrated later, built America. It should be noted here that throughout the entirety of our American history up to now, the majority of the population--the dominant demographic--descends from that Founding era population. Even factoring all the "immigration" post-1790, about 70% of Americans in 1965 descended from pre-1790 founding Americans. So, no, America is not a "Nation of Immigrants." That's a lie invented by the ADL in 1958. What this means is that America was conceived, invented, built & maintained by a specific group of people. A people with a common history, heritage, blood, genetic lineage and shared evolutionary experience on the American continent. America is a people. The capacity to build America, to maintain it, and to help it grow naturally & flourish is literally passed on in the blood. It's our literal birthright inheritance. Pick any Indian tribe. Only Indians of that tribe can properly perpetuate that tribe. You could go live among them and learn their language & ways, but if their genetic legacy dies and you're all that's left, it's no longer their tribe. You can't carry it forward. It's gone. It's the same with America. A specific tribe of people, with a specific background, biology & shared experience are what an "American" is. Others may live here, but they cannot perpetuate what our ancestral tribe created and built. America literally is passed on in the blood. Our freedom--our system--can only be properly developed and maintained by us. That doesn't mean we'll always get it right or that we'll be faithful to the original vision, but it does mean only we have the capacity to take this country in the natural trajectory our Founding ancestors conceived. White, Christian, sovereign Americans are tribal Americans. The rest of y'all are just residents. I don't say this hatefully, it's just factual. Indian Hindus & Sikhs, Chinese Buddhists, Mexican Catholics, Arab Muslims, and even Black African Protestants cannot preserve or pass America on, anymore than a White Anglo Saxon Protestant could preserve and pass on the Australian aboriginal people or Japan. Ronald Reagan was wrong, and this attitude & belief are disintegrating the American tribe & killing off America.
1:11

Sensitive content

Ronald Reagan is the prototypical hero to conservative Americans. But what if he was actually the villain? Reagan sold two critical falsehoods to Americans that rewrote our cultural identity & our literal DNA. He transformed how we see & think about ourselves. And this transformation enabled & facilitated the destruction of our nation through the destruction of our demographics. Whether it was intentional or simply misguided, I'll let you decide. The 2 Falsehoods: 1. That anyone from anywhere can come be an American. I debunked that in the thread quoted below. 2. That American freedom isn't inherited or passed on in the bloodstream to our kids. Let's unpack this one. What do we mean when we talk of "Freedom" in the American context? What did Reagan mean? He told us: it's the unique idea of liberty conceived by our Founders for the first time in history. He says we have to maintain it, fight for it, and teach the next generation about it. What this means is that he's referring not just to some abstract idea our Founders conceived, but also the system and its trappings that they constructed to foster, promote & preserve their conception. We call this the "American System." But as Reagan states in this video, this system, its ideas, this "Freedom"--it's all the product of a specific set of men, of a defined people. What people? Briefly, White, Christian Europeans--mostly Western & Northern European Protestants--forged by, and sifted through, the harsh exigencies of the untamed American wilderness. They were also seasoned by their common interests in having the liberty to worship God & live their lives how they saw fit, without tyrannical interference from authoritarians. These people, these Founders, were the seed population of America. Their descendants, and people like them who immigrated later, built America. It should be noted here that throughout the entirety of our American history up to now, the majority of the population--the dominant demographic--descends from that Founding era population. Even factoring all the "immigration" post-1790, about 70% of Americans in 1965 descended from pre-1790 founding Americans. So, no, America is not a "Nation of Immigrants." That's a lie invented by the ADL in 1958. What this means is that America was conceived, invented, built & maintained by a specific group of people. A people with a common history, heritage, blood, genetic lineage and shared evolutionary experience on the American continent. America is a people. The capacity to build America, to maintain it, and to help it grow naturally & flourish is literally passed on in the blood. It's our literal birthright inheritance. Pick any Indian tribe. Only Indians of that tribe can properly perpetuate that tribe. You could go live among them and learn their language & ways, but if their genetic legacy dies and you're all that's left, it's no longer their tribe. You can't carry it forward. It's gone. It's the same with America. A specific tribe of people, with a specific background, biology & shared experience are what an "American" is. Others may live here, but they cannot perpetuate what our ancestral tribe created and built. America literally is passed on in the blood. Our freedom--our system--can only be properly developed and maintained by us. That doesn't mean we'll always get it right or that we'll be faithful to the original vision, but it does mean only we have the capacity to take this country in the natural trajectory our Founding ancestors conceived. White, Christian, sovereign Americans are tribal Americans. The rest of y'all are just residents. I don't say this hatefully, it's just factual. Indian Hindus & Sikhs, Chinese Buddhists, Mexican Catholics, Arab Muslims, and even Black African Protestants cannot preserve or pass America on, anymore than a White Anglo Saxon Protestant could preserve and pass on the Australian aboriginal people or Japan. Ronald Reagan was wrong, and this attitude & belief are disintegrating the American tribe & killing off America.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

52,614 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Today, on Orthodox Christian Eve, we would like to share a story we might call a 'Christian Uprising,' which the mainstream media did not report on due to its 'woke' political agenda. We hope that this post will be shared with others so they can learn about what happened in Montenegro between 2019-2020. In 2019, Montenegro found itself at the crossroads of faith and politics. The Balkan nation, with its rich cultural heritage and diverse religious communities, became the stage for a fervent movement fueled by the desire to protect centuries-old traditions. The catalyst for the 'uprising' was a controversial law proposed by the Montenegrin government known as the 'Law on Freedom of Religion.' The law aimed to nationalize religious properties of the Serbian Orthodox Church and assert state control over the appointment of church officials. The Serbian Orthodox Church vehemently opposed the legislation, viewing it as a direct attack on its autonomy and a violation of the centuries-old ties between the church and its followers. As the government moved forward with the law, tensions escalated. Peaceful protests took to the streets of the capital, Podgorica, and all other cities and towns. However, the situation soon took an unexpected turn as the protests evolved into a broader 'Christian uprising.' The movement gained momentum as Serbian churches and monasteries across Montenegro became focal points for demonstrations. The 'Christian uprising' took on a peaceful yet powerful character, with people from all walks of life participating in prayer vigils, candlelight marches, and public gatherings. In the midst of the upheaval, a moment of unity emerged when leaders from various religious communities, including Muslims and Catholics, expressed solidarity with their Orthodox Christian brethren. Together, they advocated for a peaceful resolution that respected the religious diversity inherent in Montenegro's history. The 'Christian uprising' in Montenegro, born out of a shared commitment to faith and heritage, left an indelible mark on the nation's history. It served as a testament to the power of collective action and demonstrated that the voice of the people, when united by a common cause, could influence change. Out of a total population exceeding 600,000 people, nearly 300,000 participated in the protests. The 'Christian uprising' in Montenegro came to an end on the election day, August 30, 2020. The protests lasted from April 2, 2019, to August 30, 2020 (1 year, 4 months, and 4 weeks). The corrupt regime that ruled the country for 30 years was finally defeated, and the 'Law on Freedom of Religion' was repealed. The President of Montenegro, who proposed the law, was defeated in the presidential elections of 2022, ending his 30-year rule. We hope this story will inspire individuals to come together in shared values. Wishing all Orthodox Christians a Merry Christmas!
2:02

Today, on Orthodox Christian Eve, we would like to share a story we might call a 'Christian Uprising,' which the mainstream media did not report on due to its 'woke' political agenda. We hope that this post will be shared with others so they can learn about what happened in Montenegro between 2019-2020. In 2019, Montenegro found itself at the crossroads of faith and politics. The Balkan nation, with its rich cultural heritage and diverse religious communities, became the stage for a fervent movement fueled by the desire to protect centuries-old traditions. The catalyst for the 'uprising' was a controversial law proposed by the Montenegrin government known as the 'Law on Freedom of Religion.' The law aimed to nationalize religious properties of the Serbian Orthodox Church and assert state control over the appointment of church officials. The Serbian Orthodox Church vehemently opposed the legislation, viewing it as a direct attack on its autonomy and a violation of the centuries-old ties between the church and its followers. As the government moved forward with the law, tensions escalated. Peaceful protests took to the streets of the capital, Podgorica, and all other cities and towns. However, the situation soon took an unexpected turn as the protests evolved into a broader 'Christian uprising.' The movement gained momentum as Serbian churches and monasteries across Montenegro became focal points for demonstrations. The 'Christian uprising' took on a peaceful yet powerful character, with people from all walks of life participating in prayer vigils, candlelight marches, and public gatherings. In the midst of the upheaval, a moment of unity emerged when leaders from various religious communities, including Muslims and Catholics, expressed solidarity with their Orthodox Christian brethren. Together, they advocated for a peaceful resolution that respected the religious diversity inherent in Montenegro's history. The 'Christian uprising' in Montenegro, born out of a shared commitment to faith and heritage, left an indelible mark on the nation's history. It served as a testament to the power of collective action and demonstrated that the voice of the people, when united by a common cause, could influence change. Out of a total population exceeding 600,000 people, nearly 300,000 participated in the protests. The 'Christian uprising' in Montenegro came to an end on the election day, August 30, 2020. The protests lasted from April 2, 2019, to August 30, 2020 (1 year, 4 months, and 4 weeks). The corrupt regime that ruled the country for 30 years was finally defeated, and the 'Law on Freedom of Religion' was repealed. The President of Montenegro, who proposed the law, was defeated in the presidential elections of 2022, ending his 30-year rule. We hope this story will inspire individuals to come together in shared values. Wishing all Orthodox Christians a Merry Christmas!

The National Independent

95,712 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

This post went crazy viral because it’s common sense “No, diversity is not our strength. Like, look around. Do you think that it's actually working? Does it look like it's actually working? Because every country that's gone in on multiculturalism is dealing with the same exact problems: Whether that's segregated communities that do not mix, whether that's rising cultural tensions, whether that's parallel societies with totally different values, or people living in the same country but with zero sense of unity. And you also have governments that are constantly trying to manage conflict instead of building progress. That's what diversity leads to. That's what multiculturalism leads to. Now, let's look at Japan. Japan did not sign up for that Western experiment that is failing terribly. Japan said no to open-ended immigration, no to mass cultural importing, no to the idea that a country should bend its identity to please everyone else on Earth. Japan built its society around unity, right? Shared culture, shared expectations, and actual social cohesion. If you wanna live there, you assimilate. You join their culture. You don't show up and demand they change to fit you. You don't get a separate set of rules or a separate identity group inside of the country. And the results have spoken for themselves. Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. They have insanely high levels of social trust. They have safe streets. They have a stable society with almost no internal ethnic conflict. They have a world-class economy and innovation without importing millions of people from everywhere else across the world. Look, I'm not against diversity in any capacity, but I am extremely 100% against the idea that diversity is our strength, that more diversity means more success. It doesn't — Multiculturalism in the West has created a competition, not a community. It's everyone fighting for themselves, trying to protect their group, their language, their values, instead of being one nation. And the more diverse that it gets, the more divided everything becomes. And you can see this with the political polarization, the riots, the protests, the constant outrage and the breakdown of citizenship and its trust in the government. The issue isn't immigration. It's importing cultures that refuse to assimilate and then pretending that calling it diversity magically fixes the consequences. Diversity itself isn't the issue, but the issue is pretending that there's like this equal equation in correlation to where when you increase diversity, it always comes with an increase in success and strength, which simply isn't true. Some diversity can be good, but it is not the case that the more diversity you have, the more successful your country will be.”
2:50

This post went crazy viral because it’s common sense “No, diversity is not our strength. Like, look around. Do you think that it's actually working? Does it look like it's actually working? Because every country that's gone in on multiculturalism is dealing with the same exact problems: Whether that's segregated communities that do not mix, whether that's rising cultural tensions, whether that's parallel societies with totally different values, or people living in the same country but with zero sense of unity. And you also have governments that are constantly trying to manage conflict instead of building progress. That's what diversity leads to. That's what multiculturalism leads to. Now, let's look at Japan. Japan did not sign up for that Western experiment that is failing terribly. Japan said no to open-ended immigration, no to mass cultural importing, no to the idea that a country should bend its identity to please everyone else on Earth. Japan built its society around unity, right? Shared culture, shared expectations, and actual social cohesion. If you wanna live there, you assimilate. You join their culture. You don't show up and demand they change to fit you. You don't get a separate set of rules or a separate identity group inside of the country. And the results have spoken for themselves. Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. They have insanely high levels of social trust. They have safe streets. They have a stable society with almost no internal ethnic conflict. They have a world-class economy and innovation without importing millions of people from everywhere else across the world. Look, I'm not against diversity in any capacity, but I am extremely 100% against the idea that diversity is our strength, that more diversity means more success. It doesn't — Multiculturalism in the West has created a competition, not a community. It's everyone fighting for themselves, trying to protect their group, their language, their values, instead of being one nation. And the more diverse that it gets, the more divided everything becomes. And you can see this with the political polarization, the riots, the protests, the constant outrage and the breakdown of citizenship and its trust in the government. The issue isn't immigration. It's importing cultures that refuse to assimilate and then pretending that calling it diversity magically fixes the consequences. Diversity itself isn't the issue, but the issue is pretending that there's like this equal equation in correlation to where when you increase diversity, it always comes with an increase in success and strength, which simply isn't true. Some diversity can be good, but it is not the case that the more diversity you have, the more successful your country will be.”

Wall Street Apes

89,216 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Yesterday in Dublin at the Jewish Anti-Zionist Congress, a speaker took the mic to declare that “Jews” are “harmful to the whole planet” and described them as “the chaos engine of humanity”. He then went on to say that we need to change Jewish religion and culture to “save humanity”, which was followed by a round of applause. This isn't new. In 1921, the Association of German National Jews was established and was defined by a radical, self-directed hostility toward traditional Jewish identity. They despised their own heritage, viewing Eastern European Jews with open contempt and fiercely opposing Zionism. They later went on to back the Nazi party. Just like the Association of German National Jews, these antizionists goal are the total assimilation and self eradication of Jewish Identity. Most antizionist Jews don't just hate Israel, they hate the Jewish religion, they hate Jewish culture and they hate Jewish history. Antizionism is a hate movement regardless of who's practicing it.
0:57

Yesterday in Dublin at the Jewish Anti-Zionist Congress, a speaker took the mic to declare that “Jews” are “harmful to the whole planet” and described them as “the chaos engine of humanity”. He then went on to say that we need to change Jewish religion and culture to “save humanity”, which was followed by a round of applause. This isn't new. In 1921, the Association of German National Jews was established and was defined by a radical, self-directed hostility toward traditional Jewish identity. They despised their own heritage, viewing Eastern European Jews with open contempt and fiercely opposing Zionism. They later went on to back the Nazi party. Just like the Association of German National Jews, these antizionists goal are the total assimilation and self eradication of Jewish Identity. Most antizionist Jews don't just hate Israel, they hate the Jewish religion, they hate Jewish culture and they hate Jewish history. Antizionism is a hate movement regardless of who's practicing it.

Dan 🇮🇪 ✡️

396,760 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

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

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

ScotNews

20,333 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

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

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

Hillel Neuer

68,720 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Here is a rare clip of Bachir Gemayel (June 10th, 1982), in which he skillfully deconstructs the propaganda carried out by the Islamo-leftist camp against Christians during the Lebanese War. According to Bachir, this propaganda was entirely misleading - a form of "cheap propaganda" claiming that wealth in Lebanon was concentrated in the hands of a single community : the Maronite Christians. In reality, it reflected the typical approach of a self-proclaimed secular left whose objectives were clear from the outset : to overturn the political balance between Lebanon’s religious communities - effectively dismantling a system in which Christians held dominant power, a power under which Lebanon had nevertheless flourished in the 1950s and 1960s. This same "cheap propaganda", promoted by Islamo-leftist groups and backed by Palestinian weapons, sought to frame the conflict as one between wealthy Christians on one side, and marginalized Muslims on the other. It is also this narrative that would later resurface in the discourse of Shiite marginalization with Musa al-Sadr, a rhetoric that persists even today, despite the fact that this community has long since achieved significant political and social ascendance. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the Islamo-leftist's approach to analyzing the Lebanese dilemma is fundamentally disingenuous, drawing much of its strength from hostility, first toward Christians, and second toward their political role, which is unmatched anywhere else in the Middle East. It is also time to recognize that the Lebanese war (1975-1990) was, above all, a civil war in which communities fought one another to preserve or expand their share of political power - namely, their level of representation within the central state. Lebanon’s problem lies in its political system, not in its establishment. As long as the Lebanese state remains centralized, its people will continue to think and act as they have over the past century. Grant each community a high degree of autonomy, and you will see tensions ease, competition over central power diminish, and a more stable and balanced coexistence begin to emerge.
1:14

Here is a rare clip of Bachir Gemayel (June 10th, 1982), in which he skillfully deconstructs the propaganda carried out by the Islamo-leftist camp against Christians during the Lebanese War. According to Bachir, this propaganda was entirely misleading - a form of "cheap propaganda" claiming that wealth in Lebanon was concentrated in the hands of a single community : the Maronite Christians. In reality, it reflected the typical approach of a self-proclaimed secular left whose objectives were clear from the outset : to overturn the political balance between Lebanon’s religious communities - effectively dismantling a system in which Christians held dominant power, a power under which Lebanon had nevertheless flourished in the 1950s and 1960s. This same "cheap propaganda", promoted by Islamo-leftist groups and backed by Palestinian weapons, sought to frame the conflict as one between wealthy Christians on one side, and marginalized Muslims on the other. It is also this narrative that would later resurface in the discourse of Shiite marginalization with Musa al-Sadr, a rhetoric that persists even today, despite the fact that this community has long since achieved significant political and social ascendance. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the Islamo-leftist's approach to analyzing the Lebanese dilemma is fundamentally disingenuous, drawing much of its strength from hostility, first toward Christians, and second toward their political role, which is unmatched anywhere else in the Middle East. It is also time to recognize that the Lebanese war (1975-1990) was, above all, a civil war in which communities fought one another to preserve or expand their share of political power - namely, their level of representation within the central state. Lebanon’s problem lies in its political system, not in its establishment. As long as the Lebanese state remains centralized, its people will continue to think and act as they have over the past century. Grant each community a high degree of autonomy, and you will see tensions ease, competition over central power diminish, and a more stable and balanced coexistence begin to emerge.

Mark Elian | مارك اليان

26,522 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

MS NOW’s Katy Tur at 304pm Eastern: “Has there been tension with the National Guard? I mean, NPR spoke with a number of National Guard members from Ohio on the condition of anonymity, and they talked to them just the other day, November 10, and they talked about the deployment to various cities, including D.C. One said, this is not what I signed up for. Three of them declined voluntary deployments, and they were deeply uncomfortable with what they were doing. Has it been tense with the National Guard around?” Tom Manger: “So, it has not been tense as far as the public and the National Guard, but I think it's it really is no secret that many of the national Guard's folks, National Guard folks, don't understand what the purpose of their being there is. I know that I'll have quick interactions with them when I see them occasionally. And, you know, they'll – they'll roll their eyes. They'll – you know, one of them said that he thought it was a waste of time. And so, I – and I think they – they understood at first when they were deployed there with all the other federal resources. But then so many of the federal resources have been pulled back out of D.C. and yet, the National Guard has stayed there. And they're staying at – at first, it was the touristy spots. You saw them down near the museums and the monuments along the mall, and then it seemed like they that they were deployed to many of the downtown subway metro stations. And so, I know that – I don't – I don't feel like there's tension with the public and the National Guard or with their presence. But I do think that that that many of them wonder why they're there, why they're there, what their purpose is and how long they're going to be there. Tur: “Their presence is also under question whether it's legal. Last week, a federal judge ruled the trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in D.C. was unlawful, arguing it lacks authority and is violating the District of Columbia's sovereign powers, under the Home Rule Act. The Trump administration is appealing that order. They filed their appeal, Ken, last night.”
2:27

MS NOW’s Katy Tur at 304pm Eastern: “Has there been tension with the National Guard? I mean, NPR spoke with a number of National Guard members from Ohio on the condition of anonymity, and they talked to them just the other day, November 10, and they talked about the deployment to various cities, including D.C. One said, this is not what I signed up for. Three of them declined voluntary deployments, and they were deeply uncomfortable with what they were doing. Has it been tense with the National Guard around?” Tom Manger: “So, it has not been tense as far as the public and the National Guard, but I think it's it really is no secret that many of the national Guard's folks, National Guard folks, don't understand what the purpose of their being there is. I know that I'll have quick interactions with them when I see them occasionally. And, you know, they'll – they'll roll their eyes. They'll – you know, one of them said that he thought it was a waste of time. And so, I – and I think they – they understood at first when they were deployed there with all the other federal resources. But then so many of the federal resources have been pulled back out of D.C. and yet, the National Guard has stayed there. And they're staying at – at first, it was the touristy spots. You saw them down near the museums and the monuments along the mall, and then it seemed like they that they were deployed to many of the downtown subway metro stations. And so, I know that – I don't – I don't feel like there's tension with the public and the National Guard or with their presence. But I do think that that that many of them wonder why they're there, why they're there, what their purpose is and how long they're going to be there. Tur: “Their presence is also under question whether it's legal. Last week, a federal judge ruled the trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in D.C. was unlawful, arguing it lacks authority and is violating the District of Columbia's sovereign powers, under the Home Rule Act. The Trump administration is appealing that order. They filed their appeal, Ken, last night.”

Curtis Houck

58,988 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Happy Independence Day, America. 🇺🇸 Rog had the honor of speaking to a group of Newly Minted American Citizens who were sworn in at the National Archives in front of the actual Constitution this past Constitution Day. Here's what Rog wrote in the Raven back in September: "I type with fingers still buzzing after heading down to the National Archives in DC this week, and addressing a class of newly-minted Americans sworn in front of the actual Constitution. The ceremony was in celebration of that document’s 235th anniversary on Constitution Day this Saturday, and I found it incredibly moving, watching 25 people from 21 nations have their lives transformed by becoming Americans together. I am not going to lie. I sobbed through my remarks. Partially because of the memories of my own citizenship process which it unleashed. But also because I was overwhelmed by the symbolic power – of being blessed to stand there in the Rotunda, with the Constitution behind me, and tell the group that the iconic phrase, “We the people” now includes them as part of that “We.” I was also touched to discover just how many diehard football fans there are amongst the staff at the National Archives. I met Spurs fans, Arsenal supporters, United devotees. What a place it is. And the archivists are true American heroes. By dedicating their lives to preserving the records that underpin our nation, they ensure that the American stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are ones grounded in primary sources. Without them, we would have no shared truths. To experience a Naturalization Ceremony at the National Archives – that powerful process in which collective dreams were made real before my eyes – was so unbelievably profound. I truly believe every American should attend at least one a year. They are all that is good about our nation." 🇺🇸🙌
3:22

Happy Independence Day, America. 🇺🇸 Rog had the honor of speaking to a group of Newly Minted American Citizens who were sworn in at the National Archives in front of the actual Constitution this past Constitution Day. Here's what Rog wrote in the Raven back in September: "I type with fingers still buzzing after heading down to the National Archives in DC this week, and addressing a class of newly-minted Americans sworn in front of the actual Constitution. The ceremony was in celebration of that document’s 235th anniversary on Constitution Day this Saturday, and I found it incredibly moving, watching 25 people from 21 nations have their lives transformed by becoming Americans together. I am not going to lie. I sobbed through my remarks. Partially because of the memories of my own citizenship process which it unleashed. But also because I was overwhelmed by the symbolic power – of being blessed to stand there in the Rotunda, with the Constitution behind me, and tell the group that the iconic phrase, “We the people” now includes them as part of that “We.” I was also touched to discover just how many diehard football fans there are amongst the staff at the National Archives. I met Spurs fans, Arsenal supporters, United devotees. What a place it is. And the archivists are true American heroes. By dedicating their lives to preserving the records that underpin our nation, they ensure that the American stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are ones grounded in primary sources. Without them, we would have no shared truths. To experience a Naturalization Ceremony at the National Archives – that powerful process in which collective dreams were made real before my eyes – was so unbelievably profound. I truly believe every American should attend at least one a year. They are all that is good about our nation." 🇺🇸🙌

Men in Blazers

248,803 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

#WATCH | Delhi | US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, "I have spoken often during my time here over the last few days about the strategic alliance between the United States and India and how important that is for our national interest in the United States. And today is a tangible example of it. We are two countries that have strategic interests in ensuring reliable long-term access to critical minerals and supply chains that are important for our innovation economy... The groundwork was laid for this on the 4th of February when you joined us at the Critical Minerals Forum that we hosted in Washington, D.C. It gained momentum later that month when India signed on to Pax Silica... and now today, because we both have a strategic and shared interest in the fact that vibrant innovation economies such as ours cannot afford to leave the foundational materials of these industries vulnerable to single source monopolies that could deny us these things, not just in a time of conflict, but as a leverage point contrary to our sovereign national interests. So it's a pleasure to be here today and I'm glad we were able to sign this because in addition to being an important document and important agreement, it brings a tangible example of the strategic partnership between the United States and India." (Source: DD)
1:31

#WATCH | Delhi | US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, "I have spoken often during my time here over the last few days about the strategic alliance between the United States and India and how important that is for our national interest in the United States. And today is a tangible example of it. We are two countries that have strategic interests in ensuring reliable long-term access to critical minerals and supply chains that are important for our innovation economy... The groundwork was laid for this on the 4th of February when you joined us at the Critical Minerals Forum that we hosted in Washington, D.C. It gained momentum later that month when India signed on to Pax Silica... and now today, because we both have a strategic and shared interest in the fact that vibrant innovation economies such as ours cannot afford to leave the foundational materials of these industries vulnerable to single source monopolies that could deny us these things, not just in a time of conflict, but as a leverage point contrary to our sovereign national interests. So it's a pleasure to be here today and I'm glad we were able to sign this because in addition to being an important document and important agreement, it brings a tangible example of the strategic partnership between the United States and India." (Source: DD)

ANI

44,853 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce